return to WCA Archive Index
-- Topica Digest --
RE: the more ideas you express...
By Diana.Winters verizon.net
from AT: my latest blog--how am I doing? any suggestions?
By Diana.Winters verizon.net
Re: vaccines,theories and other things
By barefootmamax4 yahoo.com
RE: from AT: my latest blog--how am I doing? any suggestions?
By Diana.Winters verizon.net
Re: from AT: my latest blog--how am I doing? any suggestions?
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: the more ideas you express...
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: the more ideas you express...
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: the more ideas you express...
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: the more ideas you express...
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: reply to Sune Nordwall, Sept. 2005
By Diana.Winters verizon.net
RE: from AT: my latest blog--how am I doing? any suggestions?
By Diana.Winters verizon.net
Re: the more ideas you express...
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: reply to Sune Nordwall, Sept. 2005
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 15:23:49 +0000
From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: the more ideas you express...
Charlie wrote:
)The more ideas you express, the more chances you have of angering
)people.
That's catchy and probably true, but I don't think it's relevant here. I
think more trouble is caused by ideas that *aren't* expressed, in the
time and place where Waldorf parents need to hear them, in this case.
The actual ideas of anthroposophy, while some are left (or is it right?)
of mainstream, are believed by a lot of people, reincarnation, karma
etc., and I don't think they make most people angry.
All around me, neighbors, friends and relatives etc., people hold ideas
I don't agree with, without my being angry about this, because it is
none of my business and doesn't affect me. Example, "Kg" who has just
joined the list is teaching her children that evolution and creationism
are equivalent theories. I don't think what she's teaching her children
is correct, but they're her children, not mine, and she's teaching her
children her beliefs as pretty much all parents do. It would be silly
for me to be angry with KG. I have neighbors who have all kinds of crazy
ideas, religious and political and you name it, one who harangues me
about his stock market schemes and another who thinks I want to hear
about her passion for Bruce Springsteen, and another who tells me
whenever she sees me that I’m wrong to keep my cats indoors. I am not
angry with any of these people.
It's much more often behavior rather than ideas that gets people angry.
My neighbors can believe whatever they want and I am not angry, but if
they impose on me, lie to me, manipulate me, or *use* me, I could
defintely get angry. Get how this works?
Then, Lemuria, if you're still with me, mix in CHILDREN - mess with
people's CHILDREN without permission and you can expect all hell to
break loose.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 16:26:07 +0000
From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
Cc: winters_Diana hotmail.com
Subject: from AT: my latest blog--how am I doing? any suggestions?
I was going to cross post this here and to AT, but I think I’ll just
send it here. It’s clear everyone interested in the details of this
reads both lists, and where the AT list is concerned, I feel I've done
my share. I can't take the constant flood of crazy crap in my inbox
anymore.
Deborah wrote on the “defendingsteiner” blog (where I will not be
posting in this lifetime):
)Responses to: A Peculiar Grant Application--Part I
)The response has been dismayingly feeble.
I lost interest after you failed to show a lie or even a motive for a
lie. (Claiming you’ve shown the former when you think you’ve shown the
latter is ethically dicey, but hey, it’s your conscience.) Your claims
remain sleazy insinuations. (I haven’t read the little Wicca update yet,
and may not bother. I also discussed that issue at length on the A_T
list about a year ago, and from my perspective there is nothing new to
add – maybe Dan would like to. Further taunts aren’t getting a reply
from me.)
If you researched what Mozert v. Hawkins County Board of Ed. was about,
you’d realize that the term “opt out” doesn’t mean what you or Linda
apparently thought PLANS was using it to mean in that grant application.
It was about “opting out” kids from a particular *curriculum* - the kid
goes to the library or something while the rest of the class is doing
something the parent objects to; in the case of Mozert it was a reading
curriculum parents objected to. (I don’t know for sure but as it was
fundamentalist parents I’m guessing it had “Heather Has Two Mommies”
type stuff that they wanted their children not to be required to read –
to “opt out” of that sort of book.) The case had nothing to do with
anyone wanting to switch schools, and it is not mentioned whether
switching schools was an option that was ever raised.
Inventing a “compulsory” school would be a useless lie: irrelevant to
Mozert, as Mozert did not address whether the fact that a school was
compulsory or not had any relevance to the parents’ rights regarding the
objectionable *curriculum*. Whether the school is compulsory is not of
interest to someone (the grant funder) who might be interested in
funding a lawsuit that would “whittle away” at Mozert. (Furthermore the
fact that it isn’t compulsory in the districting sense – the question of
a compulsory school for discipline reasons is separate – is stated as a
potential weakness in the lawsuit. I presume it was mentioned because
the court might view it as working against the claim the families’
rights are violated; and you need to tell the potential funder the
weaknesses in your case. That’s why the question of which schools are
compulsory is raised, I think. Obviously, PLANS hoped that this claim
would not, in court, mitigate against their stance. But it would be odd
to lie to the funder about something you’re going to tell the truth
about in the next paragraph of the same document!)
As to which schools are really now – or were at the time that
application was written – compulsory or not in a particular district,
whether in terms of what school you're routinely assigned to or where
you could get sent for discipline reasons, I have no idea. In my own
district, as I suspect in others, districting changes for a variety of
reasons and may well not be the same several years later. In the absence
of any indication to the contrary, I have no reason to assume Linda
Clemens has any expertise here. Still, even if she is right it bears
little relevance.
Linda suggested absurdly that parents enjoy the freedom to leave a
school any time they like. A colossally clueless “Let them eat cake”
reply” that also suggests she may not have even read this application.
For low-income families, switching to another, more distant school in
the absence of district-provided transportation is usually not a
realistic option. These families have a right to use the LOCAL school,
free of religious programming. (Furthermore I’d suggest that American
families continue to have a right to a school free of religious
programming even if or when their child is sent to a “compulsory” school
for discipline reasons. I suspect the courts will address this question
eventually also.)
Even aside from transportation and finances, the fact that another
public school is a *possible* option for a child doesn't mean the child
can really go there. In my district there is a dizzying array of
"optional" public schools, with admission by lottery, neighborhood
quota, applications or auditions, special needs, test scores and
recommendations, etc., and it can be as hard to get into them as into
competitive private schools.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 06:55:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: k g (barefootmamax4 yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: vaccines,theories and other things
Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com) wrote:
). The knowledge of
)science is based on observation and critical experiments, and is
)always subject to revision when new evidence is discovered. Granted
)that may take generations, in the case of a major paradigm shift, but
)in the end the evidence can't be denied.
)In the light of the above, creationism and Darwinism aren't
)equivalent. Creationism is based on revelation, and the theory of
)evolution is based on study of nature. Apples and oranges. Galileo
)said that the church tells us how to go to heaven, and science tells
)us how the heavens go. Most established religions have made peace
)with science. The intellectual Catholicism I was raised in, for
)example, had no problem with evolution. We believed that Genesis was
)the word of God, but it was an allegorical story. Evolution was God's
)design for life on earth.
I don't think it is apples and oranges because they are both theories trying to explain the same event. Intelligent design is yet another thoery. Science is indeed based on exploration, research and is always subject to change in light of new information.Religion is based on faith and beliefs.I have absolute proof if neither so I will not call them truths, but theories. Nobody really beyond any doubt knows how humans, the earth and all of creation came to be.
As a child I was Catholic. The service was always in latin and we were told that the average layperson could not interpret the Bible. Only the Pope can, and by his authority pass knowlege down to the bishops and down the line to the priests who then tell the average churchgoer what the Bible says. It seems to me somewhat similar to the "hidden inner circle of knowlege" that I keep hearing about in waldorf. I understand that you belive in intelligent design, but I believe that no one really knows.
)The doctor has good reasons for recommending immunizations. Our
)great-grandparents went to a lot of funerals for children. Vaccines
)are controversial only among those who don't understand the science.
)No one can tell whether a vaccine will help or hurt an individual,
)but the statistical evidence, based on populations, is so clear that
)it would be irresponsible not to use them.
Most evidence points to the the conclusion that the benefits of vaccines outweigh the risks. Most evidence is also studied and researched by the medical population which does not always have our good health in mind.
The medical population often has it's own agenda for furthering profit.
Based on the evidence, My kids have select vaccines, given one at a time,without thimerosol.There are many examples in science itself that show that MMR may cause autism,that the MMR does not necessarily give lifelong immunity,and that vaccines may cause auto immune disorders that are on the rise. When I was a child, chicken pox was a normal childhood disease that everbody got. It lasted about a week or two. Now my pedatrician gives me pamphlets about the deadly chicken pox disease and how all children need to be vaxcinated. You cannot get into public school without this vaxcine. It is a new one ,and they have no evidence that it offers lifelong immunity. It is known that adults who get chicken pox become much more ill than children. So....is this the medical field really pushing for our health, or is this the medical field making $,and the education system supporting the parents desire to not have to take time off of work and loose $.
Yet, there is no polio in the US,except in Amish persons who do not vaccinate. Yes, there is indeed controversy.
-Kelly
---------------------------------
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates.
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 18:54:39 +0000
From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
Cc: winters_Diana hotmail.com
Subject: RE: from AT: my latest blog--how am I doing? any suggestions?
All right, I'll bite on the "Wicca" question also, since Deborah's
whinge about this on defendingsteiner is at least short and sweet, if
thoroughly confused.
Deborah (or somebody; it's been reprinted a lot) wrote:
"On May 26, 1997, PLANS president Debra Snell responded that while
allegations of witchcraft were not part of PLANS' agenda, she had done
nothing to correct them, and she was "happy" that they were made in the
media.
Debra Snell: We did not phone the Sacramento Bee to dispute Sac. City
Unified School Officials statement that PLANS claims is based on rumor
either...
Anyone who knows PLANS' claims, knows that witchcraft has not been our
handle.
[But] We're frankly happy to see the issue in the news, and it has
certainly been there lately."
(followed by some generic hand wringing that this is all obviously
disgraceful)
I've always liked that snippet because it seems to encapsulate the
issues in the PLANS' case quite well, and also it looks crystal clear to
me, so I doubt a further attempt to set Deborah and her friends straight
on the issues involved here will help, but here goes.
It seems that Deborah views the fact that PLANS does not allege
witchcraft (against anthroposophy, a particular school, school district,
or anybody at all), not here nor anywhere else to my knowledge (and I
think I've read all their press releases), combined with the fact that
they nevertheless are willing to express happiness that such charges
were made (in public media, even) and did not attempt to "correct" the
persons alleging witchcraft - all this seems to her either confusing or
perhaps even morally wrong.
Perhaps this confusion comes from never having clearly understood what
the PLANS' lawsuit is about, and what issues or whose issues the lawsuit
thereby champions. PLANS does not take a religious stance as an
organization, to my understanding, and neither goes around saying,
"You're a witch" nor "Witchcraft is bad" ro anybody (or similar
statements about any other religion, good or bad). They sued these
school districts as taxpayers whose rights are violated by having
religion in public schools. ANY religion. This is key to understanding
the suit - ANY religion.
If you can understand that part of it, you can understand that they can
therefore make common cause politically with people whose religious
beliefs they do not personally agree with. (Not only can, but should -
it's not just okay, it's ethically the correct thing to do.) As far as I
understand (not to speak for Dan) but I don't think Dan thinks
witchcraft even *exists* so it would be strange for him to acccuse
someone of it. But some of the parents in that school district viewed
the practices their children were participating in as witchcraft. This
is THEIR religious belief. They have a right to it. They apparently said
this to the Sacramento Bee. To some fundamentalists, anthroposophy, like
ANY New Age or pagan-esque belief system or set of practices, is
synonymous with witchcraft, devil worship, demonism, blasphemy etc.
Such statements are not about questions of fact - they're statements of
religious BELIEF. We cannot state that anthroposophy is or isn't
"witchcraft" in a theological sense. PLANS, or individual members of
PLANS, don't have to think anthroposophy is witchcraft or it isn't
witchcraft. (It's possible a couple of their board members do personally
think so - I don't know.) That isn't something PLANS takes a position on
to my understanding. PLANS can - and should - support the rights of
those who DO believe this and thus do not want their children taught
anthroposophy in the public schools. This is right to support because
EVERYBODY'S rights are thereby upheld, whether they believe in
witchcraft, anthroposophy, Biblical literalism, or (worst of all, to
some minds) hold no religious beliefs at all. PLANS is perfectly logical
and, again, doing the right thing, to state that they are "happy" the
allegations of witchcraft were made in the media.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 12:23:04 -0700
From: Walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: from AT: my latest blog--how am I doing? any suggestions?
Diana wrote:
)All right, I'll bite on the "Wicca" question also, since Deborah's
)whinge about this on defendingsteiner is at least short and sweet, if
)thoroughly confused.
)Deborah (or somebody; it's been reprinted a lot) wrote:
)"On May 26, 1997, PLANS president Debra Snell responded that while
)allegations of witchcraft were not part of PLANS' agenda, she had done
)nothing to correct them, and she was "happy" that they were made in the
)media.
)Debra Snell: We did not phone the Sacramento Bee to dispute Sac. City
)Unified School Officials statement that PLANS claims is based on rumor
)either...
)Anyone who knows PLANS' claims, knows that witchcraft has not been our
)handle.
)[But] We're frankly happy to see the issue in the news, and it has
)certainly been there lately."
(snip)
I'm a little confused here, Diana. Did PLANS state that witchcraft/Wicca was
part of Waldorf? Was this claim in a newpaper? If so, then a correction
would seem to be in order. If the claim was made by someone else and not
PLANS, why would Debra/PLANS need to make a correction? Sorry to appear a
little dense here but I don't understand the problem here.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 00:06:08 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: the more ideas you express...
Diana Winters wrote:
)
)
)
) Charlie wrote:
)
)
) )The more ideas you express, the more chances you have of angering
) )people.
)
) That's catchy and probably true,
Thank you.
I'm a clever guy.
but I don't think it's relevant here.
It is though.
It was a response to the notion that Waldorf tick more people off than
other educational methods.
I think my statement is fair.
I would also add that if you're not ticking some people off, you're
doing something wrong.
This also goes for life, in general!
I
) think more trouble is caused by ideas that *aren't* expressed, in the
) time and place where Waldorf parents need to hear them, in this case.
) The actual ideas of anthroposophy, while some are left (or is it right?)
)
) of mainstream, are believed by a lot of people, reincarnation, karma
) etc., and I don't think they make most people angry.
)
) All around me, neighbors, friends and relatives etc., people hold ideas
) I don't agree with, without my being angry about this, because it is
) none of my business and doesn't affect me. Example, "Kg" who has just
) joined the list is teaching her children that evolution and creationism
) are equivalent theories. I don't think what she's teaching her children
) is correct, but they're her children, not mine, and she's teaching her
) children her beliefs as pretty much all parents do. It would be silly
) for me to be angry with KG. I have neighbors who have all kinds of crazy
)
) ideas, religious and political and you name it, one who harangues me
) about his stock market schemes and another who thinks I want to hear
) about her passion for Bruce Springsteen, and another who tells me
) whenever she sees me that I’m wrong to keep my cats indoors. I am not
) angry with any of these people.
)
) It's much more often behavior rather than ideas that gets people angry.
) My neighbors can believe whatever they want and I am not angry, but if
) they impose on me, lie to me, manipulate me, or *use* me, I could
) defintely get angry. Get how this works?
)
) Then, Lemuria, if you're still with me, mix in CHILDREN - mess with
) people's CHILDREN without permission and you can expect all hell to
) break loose.
I have children, myself; and I am fiercely protective.
)
) Diana
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 00:52:46 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: the more ideas you express...
Lemuria wrote:
)
)
) Diana Winters wrote:
) )
) )
) )
) ) Charlie wrote:
) )
) )
) ) )The more ideas you express, the more chances you have of angering
) ) )people.
) )
) ) That's catchy and probably true,
)
) Thank you.
) I'm a clever guy.
)
) but I don't think it's relevant here.
)
) It is though.
) It was a response to the notion that Waldorf tick more people off than
) other educational methods.
) I think my statement is fair.
) I would also add that if you're not ticking some people off, you're
) doing something wrong.
) This also goes for life, in general!
Um... why in the world would you think that about educating people's
children? You should get some gratification by ticking people off about
how you educate? If you ARE ticking them off, you're doing something
wrong Lemuria - not the other way around. Especially when parents are
paying for their children's education. You should either tell them what
to expect or give them what you have promised. Ticking parents off who
have paid thousands of dollars per year with certain expectations is,
well, just dumb.
) I have children, myself; and I am fiercely protective.
So, would you be annoyed, even, perhaps angry if you put your children
in the Pete private school system - a wonderful school system based on
the indications of Pete - an educational system that nurtures the whole
child and develops individuals capable of actually thinking for
themselves (blah blah) - only to find out that the Pete school was a
school of Scientologists, or Mormons or Jehovas Witnesses (not to single
these out - insert whatever religious belief system you want here)?
Having made that mistake yourself, would you just pull your kids out or
would you be concerned about all the other people who are falling into
the Pete school system? Discovering a waterhole is poisoned, do you
simply avoid it and move on, or do you put up a sign for the next guy
who comes by?
You see, Lemuria, it's not the ideas you express that angers people,
it's the stuff you DON'T express. You wouldn't like people to do it to
you and your children, why would you expect others not to be angry when
Waldorf does it to them?
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 01:51:44 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: the more ideas you express...
Pete Karaiskos wrote:
)
)
) Lemuria wrote:
) )
) )
) ) Diana Winters wrote:
) ) )
) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) Charlie wrote:
) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) )The more ideas you express, the more chances you have of angering
) ) ) )people.
) ) )
) ) ) That's catchy and probably true,
) )
) ) Thank you.
) ) I'm a clever guy.
) )
) ) but I don't think it's relevant here.
) )
) ) It is though.
) ) It was a response to the notion that Waldorf tick more people off than
) ) other educational methods.
) ) I think my statement is fair.
) ) I would also add that if you're not ticking some people off, you're
) ) doing something wrong.
) ) This also goes for life, in general!
)
) Um... why in the world would you think that about educating people's
) children? You should get some gratification by ticking people off about
)
) how you educate? If you ARE ticking them off, you're doing something
) wrong Lemuria - not the other way around.
I think it's fine to tick people off while educating children.
I would love for Waldorf's ideas to get far enough into public schools
to tick a few people off.
Especially when parents are
) paying for their children's education.
I have no interest in ticking parents off.
I wonder why you would think that?
You should either tell them what
) to expect or give them what you have promised. Ticking parents off who
) have paid thousands of dollars per year with certain expectations is,
) well, just dumb.
)
) ) I have children, myself; and I am fiercely protective.
)
) So, would you be annoyed, even, perhaps angry if you put your children
) in the Pete private school system - a wonderful school system based on
) the indications of Pete - an educational system that nurtures the whole
) child and develops individuals capable of actually thinking for
) themselves (blah blah) - only to find out that the Pete school was a
) school of Scientologists, or Mormons or Jehovas Witnesses (not to single
)
) these out - insert whatever religious belief system you want here)?
) Having made that mistake yourself, would you just pull your kids out or
) would you be concerned about all the other people who are falling into
) the Pete school system? Discovering a waterhole is poisoned, do you
) simply avoid it and move on, or do you put up a sign for the next guy
) who comes by?
)
) You see, Lemuria, it's not the ideas you express that angers people,
) it's the stuff you DON'T express. You wouldn't like people to do it to
) you and your children, why would you expect others not to be angry when
) Waldorf does it to them?
And your assumptions about what I do and don't express are irresponsible
and based on nothing.
)
) Pete
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 02:36:54 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: the more ideas you express...
Lemuria wrote:
)
)
) Pete Karaiskos wrote:
) )
) )
) ) Lemuria wrote:
) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) Diana Winters wrote:
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) Charlie wrote:
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) )The more ideas you express, the more chances you have of angering
) ) ) ) )people.
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) That's catchy and probably true,
) ) )
) ) ) Thank you.
) ) ) I'm a clever guy.
) ) )
) ) ) but I don't think it's relevant here.
) ) )
) ) ) It is though.
) ) ) It was a response to the notion that Waldorf tick more people off than
) ) ) other educational methods.
) ) ) I think my statement is fair.
) ) ) I would also add that if you're not ticking some people off, you're
) ) ) doing something wrong.
) ) ) This also goes for life, in general!
) )
) ) Um... why in the world would you think that about educating people's
) ) children? You should get some gratification by ticking people off about
) )
) )
) ) how you educate? If you ARE ticking them off, you're doing something
) ) wrong Lemuria - not the other way around.
)
) I think it's fine to tick people off while educating children.
) I would love for Waldorf's ideas to get far enough into public schools
) to tick a few people off.
Then we will always have this argument. Just because you think Waldorf
is good for children doesn't mean that it is. And because you and other
Waldorf teachers believe it is so good for children that you feel you
don't have to tell parents about what you are doing, or teaching, you
will always have critics to point out the dishonesty. And, what you are
saying, really, is "I think it's fine to tick people off while educating
THEIR children." That's why huge attrition rates occur at Waldorf
schools EVERY year.
) Especially when parents are
) ) paying for their children's education.
)
) I have no interest in ticking parents off.
) I wonder why you would think that?
It's exactly what you do when you don't tell them what you're up to (and
Waldorf schools don't). At my kid's school, huge percentages (25%) of
children are removed every year. Waldorf is ticking parents off as much
as anyone else.
) You should either tell them what
) ) to expect or give them what you have promised. Ticking parents off who
) ) have paid thousands of dollars per year with certain expectations is,
) ) well, just dumb.
) )
) ) ) I have children, myself; and I am fiercely protective.
) )
) ) So, would you be annoyed, even, perhaps angry if you put your children
) ) in the Pete private school system - a wonderful school system based on
) ) the indications of Pete - an educational system that nurtures the whole
) ) child and develops individuals capable of actually thinking for
) ) themselves (blah blah) - only to find out that the Pete school was a
) ) school of Scientologists, or Mormons or Jehovas Witnesses (not to single
) )
) )
) ) these out - insert whatever religious belief system you want here)?
) ) Having made that mistake yourself, would you just pull your kids out or
) ) would you be concerned about all the other people who are falling into
) ) the Pete school system? Discovering a waterhole is poisoned, do you
) ) simply avoid it and move on, or do you put up a sign for the next guy
) ) who comes by?
) )
) ) You see, Lemuria, it's not the ideas you express that angers people,
) ) it's the stuff you DON'T express. You wouldn't like people to do it to
) ) you and your children, why would you expect others not to be angry when
) ) Waldorf does it to them?
)
) And your assumptions about what I do and don't express are irresponsible
)
) and based on nothing.
This is way beyond what YOU personally express, it's about what you
(meaning Waldorf) expresses. That's why I said "why would you expect
others not to be angry when Waldorf does it to them?" And my
"assumption" that Waldorf does this to parents is based on years of
study of Waldorf's activities and personal communications with dozens of
parents around the world. WALDORF DOES THIS - there is no assumption on
my part - NONE. Why don't you stop pretending this is nothing, and
start acknowledging that it is, indeed, a problem in Waldorf education
and the Waldorf movement? You must know, by now, I'm not lying about
this issue. Why do you and other representatives of Waldorf education
continually pretend not to understand the problem?
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 03:09:44 +0000
From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: reply to Sune Nordwall, Sept. 2005
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)For some time now the Americans for Waldorf Education site and the
))Waldorf Answers site have promised an expanded review of my )criticisms
)of anthroposophy (or what they take my criticisms to be, )anyway), but
)the new material hasn't yet appeared for whatever )reason.
These things take time :) Some hints were dropped on the AT list awhile
back, inadvertently I think, as they were then rapidly deleted.
Thanks for all that informative reading, Peter.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 03:22:23 +0000
From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: from AT: my latest blog--how am I doing? any suggestions?
Walden wrote:
)I'm a little confused here, Diana.
Just a little? That's pretty good. They appear to be trying to create a
complete rat's nest of confusion.
I'll do my best in the morning (but you mustn't encourage me). It rivals
the frivolous "forgery" charge against Peter Staudenmaier in wasted time
and deflection from real issues, not to mention libel. (The charges now
include fraud, which last time I checked was criminal.)
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 19:57:41 -0700
From: Walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: the more ideas you express...
Lemuria wrote (to Pete but I could not resist responding):
)I think it's fine to tick people off while educating children.
)I would love for Waldorf's ideas to get far enough into public schools
)to tick a few people off.
Care to elaborate on both sentences? Why on earth would you like to tick
people off? And here's what you wrote on this list some months ago about
Waldorf:
"I tell my parents that we are a spiritual movement with Christ at our
center, I tell them about the temperaments; physical, etheric astral and
ego bodies; and that form drawing and Eurythmy bring spirits of form
into the room...among many other things."
While I admit to feeling pleasantly refreshed by your candour with parents
in *your* class, I am surprised to learn that you would love to have enough
of these Waldorf ideas getting far enough into public schools to tick a few
people off. Why???
)I have no interest in ticking parents off. I wonder why you would think
)that?
I see. It seems you have no interest in ticking Waldorf parents off - who
agree with your beliefs - but you would "love" to tick non-Waldorf
parents/people off in public schools by forcing their children to follow
your own ideas about Christ, temperaments, etc.
)And your assumptions about what I do and don't express are irresponsible
)and based on nothing.
We can only make assumptions based on what you write on this list. It seems
that Pete's take in this discussion is not "based on nothing." We can only
understand your thoughts based on what *you* have written. If you believe an
assumption is wrong, I encourage you to fix it by elaborating or clarifying
your position.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 00:30:47 -0700
From: Walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: reply to Sune Nordwall, Sept. 2005
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
(snip detailed stuff worth reading)
)It seems to me that this attitude stands in partial contrast to Professor
)Winship's approach, to the extent that I have understood the exchanges he
)and I have had. From his remarks at the Atlanta conference last year, I
)take it that he too disdains my "Anthroposophy and Ecofascism" article,
)finding it excessively polemical; but this does not prevent him from
)evaluating my "Race and Redemption" article on its own terms. I consider
)this approach entirely proper, although my own views on the virtues of
)polemical writing are of course different.
Is any of this exchange available on the Internet? Did Professor Winship
present at the conference or otherwise
engage you in recorded debate? Is he aware of this email list? Perhaps he
could pay us a visit? I am always willing to learn from every which way but
have yet to make sense of some the Anthro-inspired characters involved in
this discussion and what they have to offer. It is more than a little
confusing - trying to follow the Sunes of the "discussion," for example.
Either he simply does not understand the issues or he consciously tries to
throw curveballs from the sidelines. Ignoring the request to submit a paper
to the Atlanta conference was an incredible opportunity . . . lost. Weird.
Perhaps Professor Winship's thoughts will be a pragmatic breath of fresh air
. . .?
In any case, Peter, thanks for taking the time to clearly articulate your
points.
-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 2142
-- Topica Digest --
RE: from AT: my latest blog--how am I doing? any suggestions?
By Diana.Winters verizon.net
RE: from AT: my latest blog--how am I doing? any suggestions?
By Diana.Winters verizon.net
RE: from AT: my latest blog--how am I doing? any suggestions?
By Diana.Winters verizon.net
RE: from AT: my latest blog--how am I doing? any suggestions?
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: from AT: my latest blog--how am I doing? any suggestions?
By Diana.Winters verizon.net
Re: reply to Sune Nordwall, Sept. 2005
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: the more ideas you express...
By Diana.Winters verizon.net
RE: reply to Sune Nordwall, Sept. 2005
By Diana.Winters verizon.net
RE: from AT: my latest blog--how am I doing? any suggestions?
By dan dandugan.com
Re: vaccines,theories and other things
By dan dandugan.com
RE: vaccines,theories and other things
By Diana.Winters verizon.net
Re: from AT: my latest blog--how am I doing? any suggestions?
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: from AT: my latest blog--how am I doing? any suggestions?
By Diana.Winters verizon.net
RE: from AT: my latest blog--how am I doing? any suggestions?
By Diana.Winters verizon.net
RE: from AT: my latest blog--how am I doing? any suggestions?
By Diana.Winters verizon.net
RE: from AT: my latest blog--how am I doing? any suggestions?
By Diana.Winters verizon.net
RE: the more ideas you express...
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: vaccines,theories and other things
By barefootmamax4 yahoo.com
RE: the more ideas you express...
By pkcompany netzero.net
Re: vaccines,theories and other things
By barefootmamax4 yahoo.com
Re: the more ideas you express...
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: from AT: my latest blog--how am I doing? any suggestions?
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 13:15:14 +0000
From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: from AT: my latest blog--how am I doing? any suggestions?
http://defendingsteiner.com/wc/index.html
Wow, this got wilder and wilder! and it’s pretty funny, especially the
hopeful thought that perhaps I am not going to be around much anymore! I
‘suddenly disappeared’! For several whole days! Very suspicious!
Grief Deborah. How short is your attention span? I read these lists
practically every day of my life. I post many days. Can I have a few
days off every now and then? Next time I’ll check with you, okay? My
family does have a summer vacation planned, and I try to take a week or
two off at Christmas. Would that be all right?
“Consider, for example, the snippet below, taken off of the the Waldorf
Critics discussion list.
The children were also required to say a pledge to the sun
flag, and other Wicca based religious practices.
I don't know what he was talking about there.
-Dan Dugan”
(Well, great job clarifying there who said what, when, for somebody
supposedly so concerned with accurate citations.)
“Dan was quoting from the grant application, submitted by PLANS, with
the name of PLANS lawyer as author and the name of PLANS president,
Deborah Snell listed as responsible person.”
It’s “Debra” Snell. I wouldn’t think THIS in particular would be too
hard to keep straight, as I doubt you want people to confuse you with
Debra Snell? And the way to indicate you are quoting someone is to put
quotes around their remarks.
“But Mr. Dan Dugan has no idea what his lawyer could be talking about.
No idea where he could have gotten the idea that Waldorf Education and
Waldorf Schools could be related to Wicca. Just no idea at all.”
It seems to me that with a quote from 1997, in 2006 it is not really so
damning that Dan cannot remember just where the person who wrote this on
the grant application derived the reference to Wicca or the sun flag. I
would assume it came from parents at that school, but I hardly think
it’s bizarre or requires explanation that Dan doesn’t remember just who
said it, or who saw a “sun flag” in which school. Dan’s visited dozens
of Waldorf schools. I may be mistaken but I think the PJI folks visited
one or both of the schools, also, maybe Dan was with them that day and
maybe he wasn’t. Suspicious? It seems a reasonable surmise that one of
them saw something they took to be a “sun flag.” We can guess that the
kids were probably chanting some sun-related verse (which I can attest
they did every day in our Waldorf school), and the teacher did some
wifty thing waving a silk scarf around and trying to look dreamy, and
the guy probably picked up on the fact that something that smelled a lot
like a funny little religious ritual was going on – since it was. Or
possibly a parent described something like this to them. Could have been
reported second hand from a young child. It’s quite possible the teacher
had called the scarf a “sun flag” or that the children thought it was a
“sun flag.” Probably they got the details wrong, but saw or heard enough
to correctly understand that religious rituals that they didn’t like
were part of the regular school activities. The only religious rituals
they want their children participating in are in church.
Obviously, you’re insinuating that in reality *Dan* told the guy this
stuff, but that’s silly. Dan would say it was witchcraft in a heartbeat
if there were any evidence of witchcraft, mercy! Why wouldn’t he?? It
would help the case for sure if witchcraft could be shown.
To repeat Deborah the case is not about whether this ritual was *actual*
witchcraft but about differing religious views. The fact that this is
too complex for you is just exactly what the case addresses, the fact
that those with who don’t understand that not everyone agrees with their
religious views often have to be prevented/spared from inflicting them
on one another.
Then, the treasured “snippet” again:
“On May 26, 1997, PLANS president Debra Snell responded that while
allegations of witchcraft were not part of PLANS' agenda, she had done
nothing to correct them, and she was "happy" that they were made in the
media.
Debra Snell: We did not phone the Sacramento Bee to dispute Sac. City
Unified School Officials statement that PLANS claims is based on rumor
either...
Anyone who knows PLANS' claims, knows that witchcraft has not been our
handle.
[But] We're frankly happy to see the issue in the news, and it has
certainly been there lately.
[from http://www.americans4waldorf.org/History.html ] “
Deborah opines:
“So PLANS was happy to have false claims of witchcraft associated with
waldorf schools and waldorf education,”
That is your central confusion in a nutshell. It is not a “false claim”
– it is an opinion, held by the people at PJI, and apparently by some of
the parents at that school, not shared by Dan who holds very different
religious beliefs (namely none at all). Deborah, in case this is really
confusing to you, there is absolutely no doubt that the people at PJI
understand that Dan is an atheist and a skeptic, etc., a point your
buddies like Sune love to make sure everyone understands. Dan is
*public* with these views, a public activist, has spent decades as a
member of active skeptics organizations etc., there is no secret as to
his atheism, and it would be hilariously funny were he to try to *fool*
PJI about this, as you are apparently insinuating. I’d love to be a fly
on the wall watching Dan pose as a fundamentalist Christian for PJI.
The belief in witchcraft ( a very common belief, historically) is not
Dan Dugan’s but it is a belief of many fundamentalist Christians.
“but Dan has no idea, no idea at all, where his lawyer got the idea,
just not the slightest bit of comprehension as to why this blatant
falsehood turned up in the grant application.
And yes, the lawyer did it.”
The lawyer did do it, silly – perhaps you’re unaware the lawyer is a
fundamentalist Christian!
Later:
“I'm sure that no one acquainted with Diana Winter will be surprised
that she failed to apologize for her abusive remarks. In fact, her
behavior was quite murky. First she disappeared from the AT for a few
days. Complete and total silence, after she insisted that I had to
substantiate my claim,”
LOL! Some people probably breathe a sigh of relief on the rare occasion
there is complete silence from me.
“Diana chose the most extremely minor point in the quote from the grant
application, that one of the school names is incorrect”
Um . . . I agree it is an extremely minor point, but it was your
lead-off argument, remember? Why did you choose an extremely minor point
to claim was a “lie” on a grant application?
For those who haven’t followed, this refers to the fact that the name of
a school “Yuba River Charter School” was misstated as “Yuba City
Elementary School” and Linda and Deborah are claiming straight-facedly
that this is – yes – a “lie on a grant application.”
“The far less minor point is the claim that the school, still unnamed,
was compulsory. There is NO compulsory elementary school and there WAS
NEVER a compulsory elementary school. But Diana doesn't touch on the
real point, just says, ‘Gosh, a boo-boo, but it isn't important.’”
Okay, so the point then that the name of the school was wrong, was that
Dan or somebody purposely screwed up the name of the school, because
there was no compulsory school, and maybe he hoped to make it harder for
someone to check this, so calling it “Yuba City” instead of “Yuba River”
would, like, throw somebody off the trail? They’d give up, or be too
confused to continue, if they learned there was no “Yuba City Elementary
School”? This was all done on purpose to hide the fact that there was no
compulsory school - is this what you are honestly asserting?
Anyway this whole balloon burst when we learned that whether the school
was “compulsory” wasn’t relevant to the Mozert case, which PJI hoped the
PLANS litigation might “whittle away” at. As a possible motivation to
lie it has no relevance. This was simply your misunderstanding.
Finally a sanctimonious wrap-up:
“I review grant applications for a foundation. I've been reviewing grant
applications for over ten years now. If I received a grant application
with an obvious error, or with questionable claims, I would call up the
grantee and ask some pointed questions about the content of the grant
application.”
Yes, of course you would, dear. cough
Then the charges escalate:
“It isn't okay to lie in a grant application. A grant application is a
request for money for a particular purpose. Requesting money using false
information is fraud.”
Well, of course, PJI will want to know that PLANS lied to them, that
there was never any Wicca or sun worship in those classrooms. You tell
them, and let us know the response you get.
And most importantly, fraud, Deborah, is criminal. So I assume you and
Linda are now contacting the FBI? If you have knowledge of a crime, I
think you’re obligated to report it, aren’t you?
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 13:34:21 +0000
From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: from AT: my latest blog--how am I doing? any suggestions?
Walden wrote:
)I'm a little confused here, Diana. Did PLANS state that
))witchcraft/Wicca was part of Waldorf?
)Was this claim in a newpaper?
Yes, I think so, but not made by PLANS. Made by parents at the school,
who were protesting. Deborah, Linda and Sune object to the fact that
PLANS did not later CALL THE NEWSPAPER to clarify that in PLANS' view,
Waldorf did not involve witchcraft.
Clearly, PLANS is unashamed to take advantage of a possible public
perception that witchcraft is involved. But PLANS is suing on behalf of
taxpayers, which happens to include a bunch of people who DO think
witchcraft was involved. PLANS doesn't take a religious stance - these
folks are entitled to consider some of the stuff going on in Waldorf
classrooms as witchcraft. It's a Biblical literalist theology in which
things like chanting to the sun ARE witchcraft. From this fundamentalist
standpoint many things in Waldorf equate to witchcraft or paganism or
idolatry. The many elements of nature worship, the belief in elementals
and the many hierarchies of spiritual beings, for instance, even the
veneration of Saint Michael, aren't acceptable in a fundamentalist
Protestant theology, the parables about karma and reincarnation that the
children hear, etc. This all goes against the Old Testament God who
insisted, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." These parents
understood very well that their children were, in effect, praying to
other gods.
)If so, then a correction would seem to be in order.
Presumably (one always has to tease their logical connections out for
them), they would have liked Dan and Debra to insist that the mention of
Wicca not appear in the grant application, because Dan and Debra don't
think it is related to Wicca. (In a larger New Age sense, of course it
IS related to Wicca. But it isn't the same thing as Wicca.) This is just
silly, of course, as the people at PJI already thought what they were
going to think, and still do think, and I doubt they care whether Dan
and Debra saw it that way or not.
They know why they gave money, no one deceived them into giving money.
)If the claim was made by someone else and not PLANS, why would
))Debra/PLANS need to make a correction?
Because they accepted money from these people - I assume this is the
thinking (though it's difficult to get them to explain this clearly). I
understand what they mean - PLANS accepted money from people with a
radically different philosophy from their own. I don't think any of it
was done under false premises, however. I think PJI is totally clear
that PLANS is not a religious organization, and that at least one of its
principal founders, and prime mover and shaker, is openly atheist. Dan
has clarified many times that he does not believe in witchcraft and that
the practices of anthroposophy are not the same practices (though there
is some overlap) as those of Wiccans.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 13:45:05 +0000
From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: from AT: my latest blog--how am I doing? any suggestions?
(sigh) I suppose I should note that those who would like to berate me
off list, warn me about my bad karma etc., will just have to wait, as my
regular e-mail is not presently working, so this list is the only way to
reach me.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 14:21:18 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: from AT: my latest blog--how am I doing? any suggestions?
Diana Winters wrote:
)
) Clearly, PLANS is unashamed to take advantage of a possible public
) perception that witchcraft is involved. But PLANS is suing on behalf of
) taxpayers, which happens to include a bunch of people who DO think
) witchcraft was involved. PLANS doesn't take a religious stance - these
) folks are entitled to consider some of the stuff going on in Waldorf
) classrooms as witchcraft. It's a Biblical literalist theology in which
) things like chanting to the sun ARE witchcraft. From this fundamentalist
)
) standpoint many things in Waldorf equate to witchcraft or paganism or
) idolatry. The many elements of nature worship, the belief in elementals
) and the many hierarchies of spiritual beings, for instance, even the
) veneration of Saint Michael, aren't acceptable in a fundamentalist
) Protestant theology, the parables about karma and reincarnation that the
)
) children hear, etc. This all goes against the Old Testament God who
) insisted, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." These parents
) understood very well that their children were, in effect, praying to
) other gods.
I think, when one looks at Anthroposophical medicine, one can, indeed,
see why some people think witchcraft could be considered part of
Waldorf. It appears, in all seriousness, to be a lot of witch-doctoring
that is very much tied to the religious beliefs of Anthroposophists.
Ideas like holding a certain color of beeswax while sleeping, or
stuffing onions in the ears to cure illness are certainly will tempt
some people to associate Anthroposophy with witchcraft.
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 14:34:13 +0000
From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: from AT: my latest blog--how am I doing? any suggestions?
Pete Karaiskos wrote:
)I think, when one looks at Anthroposophical medicine, one can, )indeed,
)see why some people think witchcraft could be considered )part of
)Waldorf. It appears, in all seriousness, to be a lot of )witch-doctoring
)that is very much tied to the religious beliefs of )Anthroposophists.
)Ideas like holding a certain color of beeswax )while sleeping, or
)stuffing onions in the ears to cure illness are )certainly will tempt
)some people to associate Anthroposophy with )witchcraft.
Sure. They aren't using "witchcraft" or "Wicca" in some
sociology-textbook correct sense, but in the vernacular. "Witchcraft" to
its adherents is a specific sect with specific beliefs and practices.
"Witchcraft" in the popular mind is exactly things like holding a
certain color crayon while sleeping, or Sharon Lombard's family who were
told to try to heal their child's illness by rubbing aurum cream on her
chest in the shape of a flame at sunset. Some people, like Sharon, get
interested in studying the details, and pinpointing which sect believes
what. (What they prescribed for her daughter, they were told to do this
at sunset because Christ healed at sunset, so is that witchcraft, or is
it Christian?) As Dan says, these details are too fine for adherents of
strict Bible-based religion, for whom a term such as "witchcraft" or
"magic" or "paganism" encompasses pretty much everything non-Biblical.
They think the devil leads people to these practices, and aren't
interested in learning which practices are done by theosophists versus
anthroposphists versus Wiccans or Druids or neopagan this and that.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 10:07:42 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: reply to Sune Nordwall, Sept. 2005
Hi Walden,
)Is any of this exchange available on the Internet? Did Professor Winship
)present at the conference or otherwise
)engage you in recorded debate? Is he aware of this email list? Perhaps he
)could pay us a visit? I am always willing to learn from every which way but
)have yet to make sense of some the Anthro-inspired characters involved in
)this discussion and what they have to offer. It is more than a little
)confusing - trying to follow the Sunes of the "discussion," for example.
)Either he simply does not understand the issues or he consciously tries to
)throw curveballs from the sidelines. Ignoring the request to submit a paper
)to the Atlanta conference was an incredible opportunity . . . lost. Weird.
)Perhaps Professor Winship's thoughts will be a pragmatic breath of fresh
)air . . .?
)
Professor Winship was my respondent at the Atlanta conference and gave a
thoughtful reply to my paper on Steiner's racial doctrines, despite the fact
that I used up a good deal more than my allotted time in the session. He's a
historian of religion with a Waldorf background, and has provided some of
the best criticism I've received so far on my work regarding anthroposophy.
If I recall accurately (Dan and Diana were there as well and may remember
better), he didn't say all that much substantively about my "Race and
Redemption" paper at the Atlanta session, but did make a number of important
critiques of my earlier articles on anthroposophy, particularly my first
one, "Anthroposophy and Ecofascism". I think several of his criticisms were
on-target. He has also given me some very helpful collegial advice on
several occasions, including topics other than my research on anthroposophy.
I'm pretty sure that John Holland videotaped the whole session in Atlanta,
though I have no idea what became of the tape. As far as I know, no printed
version of Prof. Winship's remarks is available; in my recollection, the
gist was that my earlier articles were overblown and irresponsible and
contributed substantially to the poisoned state of discussion between
anthroposophists and their critics, but that my "Race and Redemption" piece
was important for anthroposophists to grapple with. He also said, I think,
that on the basis of my presentation of anthroposophical race theory, this
theory has at least as much in common with US immigration policy, for
example, as it does with Nazism (which I think is true enough, though
somewhat beside the point historically).
I should point out that Professor Winship and I had a very interesting
private email exchange after my reply to Sune last September, and one point
he made very clearly was that it was not the polemical nature of my
"Anthroposophy and Ecofascism" article that he objected to, but rather a
series of historical claims that he considered inaccurate. In response I
tried to re-formulate my argument from that first article, and
retrospectively summarize its main points; here is part of what I wrote to
him at that time:
I think very many anthroposophists are profoundly confused about politics
and routinely mix together left-wing and right-wing viewpoints, and when
they get involved in progressive efforts they often end up representing the
least emancipatory and most conservative elements within those milieus (from
my perspective, this was certainly the case with Otto Schily, the Interior
Minister, back when he was active in the Greens). I further argue that this
pattern is not accidental but flows from Steiner's own reactionary political
assumptions, which I tried to outline in that article and the subsequent
ones I wrote for the same publications. (I didn't intend those parts of the
article to
offend anthroposophists, by the way; I wrote the first article quite
explicitly for non-anthroposophists.) Steiner himself is a classic example
of the kind of left-right crossover in modern German culture that I study,
and that's exactly how I got sucked into the topic of anthroposophy in the
first place.
Prof. Winship then replied that this is not the impression he had from his
reading of "Anthroposophy and Ecofascism" and that it seemed to him (as it
does to Sune, to Daniel Hindes, and to lots of other anthroposophists) that
what I really argued in that article is that anthroposophy is intrinsically
fascist. I tried to clarify again as follows:
The article is undoubtedly polemically one-sided and simplifies in many
places, but it still seems to me that readers who draw this conclusion
aren't paying attention. The article explores the relationship between
anthroposophists and the green wing of the Nazis, not the Nazis as a
whole, and it examines both the intra-party conflicts around anthroposophy
and the actions of the anti-anthroposophist elements in the party. I also
explicitly warn against guilt-by-association reasoning, and I tried to
frame the issue in terms of political susceptibilities, not
inevitabilities. If I can offer an analogy: to examine the role of
syndicalism in Italian fascism's early phase of ideological consolidation
-- including some of the striking personal continuities involved -- is not
to paint syndicalism as a whole as inherently fascist.
I then re-stated my own understanding of the article's thesis:
That anthroposophy's public profile as simply progressive is based on
ignoring an ongoing history of collusion with the right, including the far
right, and that one very relevant historical instance of this is the warm
relationship between many anthroposophists and many 'green' Nazis, and
that this history ought to make a difference to people involved in left
politics and ecological politics today, especially because
anthroposophists themselves seem unwilling to confront the matter openly.
Race theory is one of the more obvious and copiously substantiated
components in the underlying conceptual common ground that, I argue,
facilitated this convergence at a practical level.
Winship's reply to this, I'd like to add, was once again very thoughtful and
reasonable; he basically recommended I think harder about how I present my
arguments in order to reduce the possibility of misunderstanding.
There are other interesting points that came up in the course of that
exchange, and that are related to various claims put forward by Sune,
Daniel, et al.; I will see if I can get around to posting more information
about these topics soon.
Greetings to all,
Peter S.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 15:42:34 +0000
From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: the more ideas you express...
Charlie:
)It was a response to the notion that Waldorf tick more people off )than
)other educational methods.
Yes, your theory is that it's because Waldorf has "more ideas." That's
just grandiosity, or perhaps simple ignorance of other educational
ideas. Waldorf doesn't have "more ideas" than other educational systems,
Charlie. Maybe while you're unemployed you could take a class or two,
and learn about some other educational ideas.
)I would also add that if you're not ticking some people off, you're
)doing something wrong.
Fine, but then what is all this whinging that people "hate" you and want
to "destroy" you and it's so terribly wrong that anyone ever criticizes
you?
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 16:07:03 +0000
From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: reply to Sune Nordwall, Sept. 2005
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)Professor Winship was my respondent at the Atlanta conference and )gave
)a thoughtful reply to my paper on Steiner's racial doctrines, )despite
)the fact that I used up a good deal more than my allotted )time in the
)session. He's a historian of religion with a Waldorf )background, and
)has provided some of the best criticism I've )received so far on my work
)regarding anthroposophy. If I recall )accurately (Dan and Diana were
)there as well and may remember )better), he didn't say all that much
)substantively about my "Race )and Redemption" paper at the Atlanta
)session, but did make a number )of important critiques of my earlier
)articles on anthroposophy,
You're being modest. I recall explicitly that he thanked you for your
work on Steiner and had essentially no bone to pick with "Race and
Redemption," which he spoke of quite admiringly and even emotionally.
He was invited to participate here later, but declined. A number of us
carried on dialogues with him later, and it's too bad they can't be
reprinted here, as they were (mostly) cordial and very informative.
)I'm pretty sure that John Holland videotaped the whole session in
))Atlanta, though I have no idea what became of the tape.
All the sessions were taped for AFF (now ICSA), and the participants
have copies, or at least I do, but they can't be released without the
permission of everybody on the tape, and, well, not everybody gave
permission.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 22:33:57 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Cc: winters_Diana hotmail.com
Subject: RE: from AT: my latest blog--how am I doing? any suggestions?
Diana Winters wrote about PLANS,
)...They sued these
)school districts as taxpayers whose rights are violated by having
)religion in public schools. ANY religion. This is key to understanding
)the suit - ANY religion.
)
)If you can understand that part of it, you can understand that they can
)therefore make common cause politically with people whose religious
)beliefs they do not personally agree with. (Not only can, but should -
)it's not just okay, it's ethically the correct thing to do.)
PLANS unites people who disagree on almost everything except Waldorf!
)As far as I
)understand (not to speak for Dan) but I don't think Dan thinks
)witchcraft even *exists* so it would be strange for him to acccuse
)someone of it. But some of the parents in that school district viewed
)the practices their children were participating in as witchcraft. This
)is THEIR religious belief. They have a right to it. They apparently said
)this to the Sacramento Bee. To some fundamentalists, anthroposophy, like
)ANY New Age or pagan-esque belief system or set of practices, is
)synonymous with witchcraft, devil worship, demonism, blasphemy etc.
To the best of my recollection, the witchcraft issue was raised by
one of the public school teachers who was required to go to Waldorf
classes at Rudolf Steiner College. I believe that teacher was a
devout Catholic.
Steiner said that Anthroposophy was "white magic." I wouldn't fault a
religious person for considering that too fine a distinction.
)Such statements are not about questions of fact - they're statements of
)religious BELIEF. We cannot state that anthroposophy is or isn't
)"witchcraft" in a theological sense. PLANS, or individual members of
)PLANS, don't have to think anthroposophy is witchcraft or it isn't
)witchcraft. (It's possible a couple of their board members do personally
)think so - I don't know.) That isn't something PLANS takes a position on
)to my understanding. PLANS can - and should - support the rights of
)those who DO believe this and thus do not want their children taught
)anthroposophy in the public schools. This is right to support because
)EVERYBODY'S rights are thereby upheld, whether they believe in
)witchcraft, anthroposophy, Biblical literalism, or (worst of all, to
)some minds) hold no religious beliefs at all. PLANS is perfectly logical
)and, again, doing the right thing, to state that they are "happy" the
)allegations of witchcraft were made in the media.
For the record, I wasn't happy about it at the time. I thought it was
going too far and would hurt the credibility of the campaign. But I
also respected that it was the teacher's sincere belief, and founded
in fact. Anthroposophy -is- about magic.
-Dan
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 22:35:21 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: vaccines,theories and other things
Kelly, you wrote about creation and evolution,
)I don't think it is apples and oranges because they are both
)theories trying to explain the same event.
Yes, but all ideas aren't equal. In this case their foundations are
utterly opposed. Both can't be true unless you take liberties with
one or the other.
)Intelligent design is yet another thoery.
The judge in Dover, PA, just told the school board that Intelligent
Design was nothing but a front for Creationism, something they knew
very well, and raked them over the coals for being dishonest in
court. It's not a scientific theory, it's a trick that failed.
)Science is indeed based on exploration, research and is always
)subject to change in light of new information.Religion is based on
)faith and beliefs.I have absolute proof if neither so I will not
)call them truths, but theories. Nobody really beyond any doubt knows
)how humans, the earth and all of creation came to be.
No knowledge is "beyond all doubt," but evolution is as close as
you're going to get.
) As a child I was Catholic. The service was always in latin and we
)were told that the average layperson could not interpret the Bible.
)Only the Pope can, and by his authority pass knowlege down to the
)bishops and down the line to the priests who then tell the average
)churchgoer what the Bible says. It seems to me somewhat similar to
)the "hidden inner circle of knowlege" that I keep hearing about in
)waldorf. I understand that you belive in intelligent design, but I
)believe that no one really knows.
)
) )The doctor has good reasons for recommending immunizations. Our
))great-grandparents went to a lot of funerals for children. Vaccines
))are controversial only among those who don't understand the science.
))No one can tell whether a vaccine will help or hurt an individual,
))but the statistical evidence, based on populations, is so clear that
))it would be irresponsible not to use them.
)
) Most evidence points to the the conclusion that the benefits of
)vaccines outweigh the risks. Most evidence is also studied and
)researched by the medical population which does not always have our
)good health in mind.
) The medical population often has it's own agenda for furthering profit.
) Based on the evidence, My kids have select vaccines, given one
)at a time,without thimerosol.
Sounds like a reasonable plan, though you may be subjecting your kids
to more needle sticks than is necessary.
)There are many examples in science itself that show that MMR may cause autism,
Sorry, that idea came from a very small and not very good study. It
was subsequently studied thoroughly and thoroughly dismissed. Most
recently:
"The researchers studied the medical records of more than 31,000
children born in Yokohama, Japan between 1988 and 1996 and measured
how many of them were diagnosed with autism by age seven. Despite the
discontinuance of the MMR jab in 1993, the rate of autism cases
continued to rise.
"The researchers, led by Dr. Hideo Honda, concluded that the MMR jab
'cannot have caused autism in the many children with autism-spectrum
disorders in Japan who were born and grew up in the era when MMR was
not available.'
"Stuart Notholt of the British National Autistic Society told the
BBC, 'This new research on the MMR vaccination and autism adds to the
body of evidence, most of which would support the hypothesis that
there is no link between the MMR vaccination and autism.'"
)that the MMR does not necessarily give lifelong immunity,
True.
)and that vaccines may cause auto immune disorders that are on the rise.
I'd want evidence for that statement from outside the anti-vaccine movement.
The Waldorf movement hitches on to the anti-immunization movement for
support, but Anthroposophy's policies about immunizations have
nothing to do with real concerns like thimerosal. Steiner ridiculed
the germ theory of disease. He said that childhood diseases were a
necessary part of development. Keep in mind that Anthroposophists
don't think untimely death is a bad thing; karma and all.
)When I was a child, chicken pox was a normal childhood disease that
)everbody got. It lasted about a week or two. Now my pedatrician
)gives me pamphlets about the deadly chicken pox disease and how all
)children need to be vaxcinated. You cannot get into public school
)without this vaxcine. It is a new one ,and they have no evidence
)that it offers lifelong immunity. It is known that adults who get
)chicken pox become much more ill than children. So....is this the
)medical field really pushing for our health, or is this the medical
)field making $,and the education system supporting the parents
)desire to not have to take time off of work and loose $.
So it's ok if Johnny brings it home from school and Granny dies of
it? When I was a kid "everybody" got measles, too. Measles kills a
lot of people. I understand that the medical establishment is slow to
change its ways, but conspiracy theories about medical policy being
profit driven are just that--conspiracy theories.
) Yet, there is no polio in the US,except in Amish persons who do
)not vaccinate. Yes, there is indeed controversy.
Sadly, most of it based on distortions of the truth.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 16:42:38 +0000
From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: vaccines,theories and other things
btw, I still don't see Kelly's posts on the web, and since I'm not
getting the emails, I don't know what she's saying unless someone
replies to it.
)My kids have select vaccines, given one at a time,without )thimerosol.
Dan:
)Sounds like a reasonable plan, though you may be subjecting your )kids
)to more needle sticks than is necessary.
You can give a bunch of shots at once, and the anti-vaxers will say
"Horrors, how could you pump up that tiny baby with so many terrible
substances at once!! If you must give them, give them separately," or
you can give them separately, and the anti-vaxers will report, "Horrors,
poor little Johnny had 29 shots between January and May . . ."
)The Waldorf movement hitches on to the anti-immunization movement )for
)support, but Anthroposophy's policies about immunizations have
)nothing to do with real concerns like thimerosal. Steiner ridiculed
)the germ theory of disease. He said that childhood diseases were a
)necessary part of development. Keep in mind that Anthroposophists
)don't think untimely death is a bad thing; karma and all.
This is the real point to be made concerning Waldorf and vaccination;
"vaccine safety" isn't their issue, the spiritual desirability of
childhood diseases is their issue.
)Yet, there is no polio in the US,except in Amish persons who do
)not vaccinate.
Some Amish do vaccinate, and there is post-polio syndrome in the US,
among people who had polio as children.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 09:43:44 -0700
From: Walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: from AT: my latest blog--how am I doing? any suggestions?
Thanks Diana. I still don't understand why anyone would be upset that PLANS
neglected to intervene in this matter.
If some parents - *not on the board or representing PLANS* - were quoted as
saying that Waldorf involves Witchcraft, why should PLANS
feel obliged to "correct" this impression of Waldorf? And Debra-from-PLANS
later stated that this (Witchcraft) is not the PLANS impression of Waldorf.
Pretty clear to me. Where's the problem?
Separate issue . . .
) PLANS accepted money from people with a
) radically different philosophy from their own.
Does "PLANS" have a philosophy? The Board seems to be made up of people with
different backgrounds and values but their mission statement seems clear to
me. Keep religion out of public schools - in this case the issue is the
public paying for Anthroposophical education a la Waldorf. It's in the
constitution and the issue deserves discussion. Plus, there are those within
Waldorf who agree with PLANS on this issue - Eugene Schwartz, for example.
It's a valuable discussion for many reasons. Now, as for clarity and
funding - if a religious member of the PLANS Board tried to push for public
money being used to promote Christianity or another religion in public
schools, I would expect the rest of the Board to act with integrity and hold
up a STOP sign. I doubt this has happened and it seems the only reason PLANS
accepted money from a religious group was to further it's own mission
statement.
)I don't think any of it was done under false premises, however.
That's always been my take, as well. Granted, it's a slippery slope but I
don't see false premises.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 17:06:54 +0000
From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: from AT: my latest blog--how am I doing? any suggestions?
Dan Dugan wrote:
)To the best of my recollection, the witchcraft issue was raised by
)one of the public school teachers who was required to go to Waldorf
)classes at Rudolf Steiner College. I believe that teacher was a
)devout Catholic.
So perhaps this teacher is the source of the remark about the "sun
flag." Perhaps she was told she needed to use the correct colors in her
classroom, and silk scarves were recommended, and she asked why they had
to be certain colors. Yellow for the sun? It's just a guess. "Sun flag"
is not a phrase I've ever heard anthroposophists use, but it isn't far
from accurate. Many things in a Waldorf classroom are color coded for
esoteric reasons, and on the nature table, yellow things represent the
sun.
I wrote:
)PLANS is perfectly logical and, again, doing the right thing, to )state
)that they are "happy" the allegations of witchcraft were made )in the
)media.
Dan:
)For the record, I wasn't happy about it at the time. I thought it )was
)going too far and would hurt the credibility of the campaign. )But I
)also respected that it was the teacher's sincere belief, and )founded in
)fact. Anthroposophy -is- about magic.
What Debra actually said she was happy about was that the case was in
the news at all. She didn't say she was happy about the witchcraft
remark; that part is Sune's twist, now repeated as truth by Deborah.
I dug some of this out of the May 1997 archive:
Deby Snell wrote:
"Public teachers are concerned that they are making the children
'practice witch craft.' They see children 'walking the pentagram' before
drawing it in the main lesson books. They see the nature tables as
alters. Chanting, saying verses in reverence to nature, walking with
their arms criss-crossed over their hearts is deeply alarming to many
public school teachers. The Hmong families, OTOH, seem deeply insulted
by the non-academic curriculum. They worry that their children will be
unprepared for college. They want computers, not knitting. The school
has taken No time to educate
them about WE. This may work against school officials.
Dan told extremely concerned families that Anthroposophists were _not_
dangerous. Emotions run high, and we have tried to be a calming force.
Keep in mind that parents were concerned long before we showed up. We
have simply educated them. The school officials, it appears, have
refused parent requested meetings to discuss concerns with Waldorf
inclusion since December."
see:
http://waldorfcritics.org/active/archives/WCA9705.html
scroll to Dan's post, "our day at Oak Ridge Elementary School"
on May 26 Deby then wrote:
"Steve Premo asks,
)Umm, Dan and Deby, you guys are not claiming that Waldorf education
)includes witchcraft or satanism, are you?
The public school teachers and parents from Oak Ridge claim witchcraft
(Wicca). According to the teachers, there _are_ some similarities. What
Wiccans call alters, Anthropops call "nature tables." Set up the same
way. The public school teachers were told to walk the pentagram (as
practice for form drawing. My son's did it in WE too.) Also, when the
children walk from classroom to lunchroom, etc., they must cross their
hands over their heart. The parents and teachers claim this is a Wiccan
gesture. PLANS says that while there may be similarities, and Steiner
_was_ an occultist, Wiccans do not like the Christianity in the
curriculum. Anthropsophy is a sect of its own. Even though there is
similarities in Anthroposophy to _many_ views that Steiner incorporated
into Anthroposophy (such as Theosophy, Zoroastrianism, medieval Europe,
Hinduisum), one really has to be an Anthroposophist because of the
mixture.
)If not, Dan, did you call the author of the story to straighten him
)or her out?
No, we did not. Many Oak Ridge teachers and parents assert that there is
witchcraft going on. Teacher bought Wiccan books and _showed_ us and the
media many similarities. Anyone who knows PLANS claims, knows that
witchcraft has _not_ been our handle. We certainly can not control what
other people think. Articles/news casts work _for_ and against PLANS. We
did not phone the Sacramento Bee to dispute Sac. City Unified School
Officials statement that PLANS claims is based on rumor either, even
though they certainly would not know _what_ we are basing our concerns
on as they won't let us speak. We're frankly happy to see the issue in
the news, and it has certainly been there lately."
I think that sums it right up. Debra never said she was happy about
witchcraft allegations in the media, and both she and Dan spoke in
public to these teachers and parents and later on this list about the
differences as well as similarities between Wicca and anthroposophy.
So to sum up, Sune et al. hang most of this "PLANS alleges witchcraft"
nonsense on the fact that Dan and Debra didn't call the Sac Bee and
request a retraction of the witchcraft remarks - which weren't made by
them in the first place, but by concerned teachers and parents at the
school - and on the appearance of these phrases in a grant application,
where it represents not a "lie" but the opinion - or rather, the
religious belief system - of a variety of people involved in the school
and whose interests the lawsuit represents.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 17:25:46 +0000
From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: from AT: my latest blog--how am I doing? any suggestions?
Walden wrote:
)Thanks Diana. I still don't understand why anyone would be upset )that
)PLANS neglected to intervene in this matter.
)If some parents - *not on the board or representing PLANS* - were
))quoted as saying that Waldorf involves Witchcraft, why should PLANS
)feel obliged to "correct" this impression of Waldorf? And
)Debra-from-)PLANS later stated that this (Witchcraft) is not the PLANS
))impression of Waldorf. Pretty clear to me. Where's the problem?
There isn't one, Sune leapt on the post from May 26 1997 wherein Steve
Premo asked Debra had they called the reporter from the Sac Bee to state
that PLANS does not allege witchcraft, and she replied no, they had not
attempted to have a clarification printed. They've stated many other
times - and told these parents - that anthroposophy is not the same
thing as witchcraft. The fact that they did not request a clarification
of a newspaper article in 1997 is the best Sune can do to show "PLANS
lied."
Of course, as Debra points out the news media often prints articles full
of half-truths about PLANS and Waldorf, and they obviously aren't going
to correct or complain about every mistake, whether it's for or against
them, it's a waste of time. They didn't complain to anyone about the
things the school board members said misrepresenting PLANS, either.
In other words, Sune just likes it because it reads, in effect, "Did you
correct this misunderstanding?" and Debra replies, "No." (There - I've
probably given him another quotable sound bite. Debra gives reasons for
her actions, of course, but they aren't such a useful sound bite.)
)Does "PLANS" have a philosophy?
Not a religious one, I would say if they have any "philosophy" they are
in favor of separation of church and state. This is in fact a philosophy
that people from lots of religions can agree with.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 17:36:14 +0000
From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: from AT: my latest blog--how am I doing? any suggestions?
Look, they're retracting it already, suddenly it was just a "mild
light-hearted hint" that PLANS lied on a grant applicaton! I'm loving
it. It was only a hint! She didn't mean it! Like fudge.
http://defendingsteiner.com/wc/index.html
)Her over-the-top, totally ridiculous response to my mild, light-)hearted
)hint that PLANS just might have lied in a grant application,
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 17:47:38 +0000
From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: from AT: my latest blog--how am I doing? any suggestions?
Oh, do read this, we were supposed to "forget" that anyone accused PLANS
of lying on a grant application! After that it's not worth reading
because it's all personal. Insults like "nutcases and fruits," and even
eventually borders on the crude. Looks like I pressed her buttons!
"I wouldn't have cared if she had ignored my remark. Nobody else would
have noticed if she had ignored my remark. Within days, everyone would
have forgotten that anyone had said anything at all about PLANS lying on
a grant application. "
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 19:02:53 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: the more ideas you express...
Walden wrote:
)
) Lemuria wrote (to Pete but I could not resist responding):
)
) )I think it's fine to tick people off while educating children.
) )I would love for Waldorf's ideas to get far enough into public schools
) )to tick a few people off.
)
) Care to elaborate on both sentences? Why on earth would you like to tick
)
) people off? And here's what you wrote on this list some months ago about
)
) Waldorf:
)
) "I tell my parents that we are a spiritual movement with Christ at our
) center, I tell them about the temperaments; physical, etheric astral and
) ego bodies; and that form drawing and Eurythmy bring spirits of form
) into the room...among many other things."
)
) While I admit to feeling pleasantly refreshed by your candour with
) parents
) in *your* class, I am surprised to learn that you would love to have
) enough
) of these Waldorf ideas getting far enough into public schools to tick a
) few
) people off. Why???
Which ideas?
I never mentioned the ideas that I would like to get into public school.
Please don't assume that assume that the ideas I was talking about are
the ones above.
)
) )I have no interest in ticking parents off. I wonder why you would think
) )that?
)
) I see. It seems you have no interest in ticking Waldorf parents off -
) who
) agree with your beliefs - but you would "love" to tick non-Waldorf
) parents/people off in public schools by forcing their children to follow
)
) your own ideas about Christ, temperaments, etc.
)
) )And your assumptions about what I do and don't express are irresponsible
) )and based on nothing.
Although I have no interest in ticking Waldorf parents off, it sometimes
happens, and it is par for the course.
I was much more adept, though at ticking off my colleagues...even when I
wasn't trying.
The reason I am not interested in angering Waldorf parents is, simply,
because we occupy the same space and have a similar goal...to educate
their children. There is a big difference betweed pandering to somebody
and trying to keep things civil while working for a common goal.
)
) We can only make assumptions based on what you write on this list. It
) seems
) that Pete's take in this discussion is not "based on nothing." We can
) only
) understand your thoughts based on what *you* have written. If you
) believe an
) assumption is wrong, I encourage you to fix it by elaborating or
) clarifying
) your position.
)
) -Walden
I'm surprised that this comment about ticking a few people off got under
some of your skins so.
How about Dan?
He's no stranger to ticking a few people off to acomplish his goal.
One of my goals, for better or worse, is to educate children to be
somewhat radical. I feel that Waldorf is a radical form of education
that should turn out radical, free-thinking-question-asking people; and,
in case you haven't noticed, radical, free-thinkers will always piss a
few peole off.
)
)
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 14:14:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: k g (barefootmamax4 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: vaccines,theories and other things
Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net) wrote:
You can give a bunch of shots at once, and the anti-vaxers will say
"Horrors, how could you pump up that tiny baby with so many terrible
substances at once!! If you must give them, give them separately," or
you can give them separately, and the anti-vaxers will report, "Horrors,
poor little Johnny had 29 shots between January and May . . ."
I am basing my decision based on what seems proven safe and proceding cautiously. I could care less about agreeing with the masses either way.
)
)the germ theory of disease. He said that childhood diseases were a
)necessary part of development. Keep in mind that Anthroposophists
)don't think untimely death is a bad thing; karma and all.
Sounds a bit like those Christain Scientists that believe it is the will of god to cause illness and death , so they do not seek medical treatment. Not my thing either.
This is the real point to be made concerning Waldorf and vaccination;
"vaccine safety" isn't their issue, the spiritual desirability of
childhood diseases is their issue
I was not aware that there was a vax issue with waldorf. thanx for letting me know.So,does that mean no children in waldorf schools are vaccinated?
_Kelly
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 21:41:27 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: the more ideas you express...
Lemuria wrote:
)
)
) Walden wrote:
) )
) ) Lemuria wrote (to Pete but I could not resist responding):
) )
) ) )I think it's fine to tick people off while educating children.
) ) )I would love for Waldorf's ideas to get far enough into public schools
) ) )to tick a few people off.
) )
) ) Care to elaborate on both sentences? Why on earth would you like to tick
) )
) )
) ) people off? And here's what you wrote on this list some months ago about
) )
) )
) ) Waldorf:
) )
) ) "I tell my parents that we are a spiritual movement with Christ at our
) ) center, I tell them about the temperaments; physical, etheric astral and
) ) ego bodies; and that form drawing and Eurythmy bring spirits of form
) ) into the room...among many other things."
) )
) ) While I admit to feeling pleasantly refreshed by your candour with
) ) parents
) ) in *your* class, I am surprised to learn that you would love to have
) ) enough
) ) of these Waldorf ideas getting far enough into public schools to tick a
) ) few
) ) people off. Why???
)
) Which ideas?
) I never mentioned the ideas that I would like to get into public school.
) Please don't assume that assume that the ideas I was talking about are
) the ones above.
Lemuria - this is getting kind of old. I wonder if your students have
this much trouble getting you to answer a simple question. All you seem
to say is that we are assuming things you haven't said - and yet you
repeatedly refuse to clarify what you are talking about. You make vague
references to *Waldorf ideas* or *Temperaments were Steiner's Gift* and
when we ask you to explain what you mean, or take what you have said at
face value, you insist we are assuming something about what you have
said. Just say what you mean Lemuria - say it clearly so everyone knows
what you're saying and let's have a real discussion about your points of
view and why you think Waldorf ideas benefit public school environments.
Is it that difficult to express youreself clearly? If so, perhaps
teaching isn't really for you.
) )
) ) )I have no interest in ticking parents off. I wonder why you would think
) ) )that?
) )
) ) I see. It seems you have no interest in ticking Waldorf parents off -
) ) who
) ) agree with your beliefs - but you would "love" to tick non-Waldorf
) ) parents/people off in public schools by forcing their children to follow
) )
) )
) ) your own ideas about Christ, temperaments, etc.
) )
) ) )And your assumptions about what I do and don't express are irresponsible
) ) )and based on nothing.
)
)
) Although I have no interest in ticking Waldorf parents off, it sometimes
)
) happens, and it is par for the course.
No, it isn't par for the course - certainly not in most schools. It's
par for the course in Waldorf, of course, because parents are surprised
by what they uncover as they learn about Waldorf and Anthroposophy.
Naturally, you have no interest in ticking Waldorf parents off, you
would prefer they go along for the ride, I'm sure, and trust you to
educate their children without interference.
) I was much more adept, though at ticking off my colleagues...even when I
)
) wasn't trying.
I'm not surprised.
) The reason I am not interested in angering Waldorf parents is, simply,
) because we occupy the same space and have a similar goal...to educate
) their children.
Except that the method of educating their children you each have in mind
is in all likelyhood dissimilar. How may of the parents in your classes
understand, intimately, the way you are educating their children? You
might share the process with them, but if you're like the vast majority
of Waldorf teachers, you don't share the Anthroposophy behind the
process with parents.
) There is a big difference betweed pandering to somebody
) and trying to keep things civil while working for a common goal.
One that you, I can imagine, don't appreciate completely since it
appears you were fired from your teaching position for not getting along
with your co-workers.
) )
) ) We can only make assumptions based on what you write on this list. It
) ) seems
) ) that Pete's take in this discussion is not "based on nothing." We can
) ) only
) ) understand your thoughts based on what *you* have written. If you
) ) believe an
) ) assumption is wrong, I encourage you to fix it by elaborating or
) ) clarifying
) ) your position.
) )
) ) -Walden
)
)
) I'm surprised that this comment about ticking a few people off got under
)
) some of your skins so.
Well, as the tickees, we critics tend to perc up our ears when a Waldorf
teacher talks about ticking people off.
) How about Dan?
) He's no stranger to ticking a few people off to acomplish his goal.
I'd be curious to see how you compare a lawsuit in Dan's case to
brainwashing children without the consent of their parents - in your
(Waldorf's case).
) One of my goals, for better or worse, is to educate children to be
) somewhat radical.
See what I mean about brainwashing.
) I feel that Waldorf is a radical form of education
) that should turn out radical, free-thinking-question-asking people;
What's wrong with just turning out educated people? Why the stress on
radical people? We all know you can't turn out free-thinking people
within the closed-minded structure of the Waldorf curriculum - so don't
even go there - but why the desire to produce radical people? Why not
have the goal of educating people to fit into society? What's the point
of producing misfits and outcasts. I say this as a parent of a
graduating high-school senior - Waldorf doesn't teach kids to think
outside the box - it teaches them to think inside a different, much
smaller box.
)and, in case you haven't noticed, radical, free-thinkers will always
)piss a
) few peole off.
Or frustrate people who can't get them to understand the simplest logic,
concept or idea. There's nothing impressive about people who are
obtuse. If you are educating people to be free-thinkers, to think
outside the box, you need to educate them about what's inside the box
first. This is where Waldorf fails miserably. And this is why so many
people are frustrated when they try to get straight answers from Waldorf
teachers and/or Anthroposophists.
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 15:05:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: k g (barefootmamax4 yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: vaccines,theories and other things
Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com) wrote:
Yes, but all ideas aren't equal. In this case their foundations are
utterly opposed. Both can't be true unless you take liberties with
one or the other.
That's right! Both cannot be true, so one has one set of beliefs, based on evidence they belive to be true ,DNA similar to Chimps, LUCY's bones,primitive campsites,carbon dating,studies of planets...and the other theory has another set of belifs based on what they belive to be true.. the world was created by God because the Bible is a true account of God's word and historical basis of real events. They BOTH believe they are right!
I believe either can be true as well as other possibilities. I am happy to say..it's a great mystery to me!
.
No knowledge is "beyond all doubt," but evolution is as close as
you're going to get.
Based on the above, I would say you have chosen to believe in the scientific theory,so this now becomes truth for you.
)There are many examples in science itself that show that MMR may cause autism,
Sorry, that idea came from a very small and not very good study. It
was subsequently studied thoroughly and thoroughly dismissed. Most
recently:
We could go back and forth putting up quotes from various studies. Both sides have a point to prove.
I do believe there are some medical professionals who don't have my child's best interest at heart. The drug industry is big $. I even asked my pediatrician who said out right that yes, DR's are often offered free vacations and other such bribes for perscribing a certain amount of a new medicine.
As far as granny dying because my son didn't get the chicken pox vaccine... If it's so effective why doesn't she get it?
Like I said, most evidence points to the risks outweighing the benifits, but there are holes, why must I sign a consent form every time my child gets a shot that states the the DR is not responsible for any adverse effects including death? Would you feel the same, 100% certain that vaccines were good ,if your child was one of the few that had an adverse reaction? On the other hand , how would you feel if you were one who chose not to vaccinate and your child got polio? Do not tell me that is no true contoversy here, because there is.
-Kelly
---------------------------------
Ring'em or ping'em. Make PC-to-phone calls as low as 1¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 12:53:12 -0700
From: Walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: the more ideas you express...
Lemuria wrote:
) Which ideas?
) I never mentioned the ideas that I would like to get into public school.
) Please don't assume that assume that the ideas I was talking about are
) the ones above.
You wrote "Waldorf's ideas" and you clearly spelled those ideas previously
on this list - "we are a spiritual movement with Christ at our center, I
tell them about the temperaments; physical, etheric astral and ego bodies;
and that form drawing and Eurythmy bring spirits of form into the
room...among many other things."
Thus, I trust you will understand that my assumption is based on what you
wrote - what YOU think of as "Waldorf ideas."
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 15:15:24 -0700
From: Walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: from AT: my latest blog--how am I doing? any suggestions?
Amazing stuff over there. It reads like a Saturday Night Live parody. This
fellow has written some totally off-the-wall posts. The sketch would be
called: *At all costs - avoid the issue and accuse others of anything and
everything.* But do not discuss particulars, etc. This Tarjei fellow is
really quite funny:
"Newcomers to the AT may need a little repeat on WC history: WC
normally stands for "Water Closet", but this particular facility has
a permanent plumbing problem that not even modern waste disposal
technology has been able to solve. That's why there is so much old
shit heaped there, and why the place is also called the Unthinkable
Facility.
In addition to this, the regular users of this WC suffer from chronic
constipation because of their materialistic thinking, as explained by
Rudolf Steiner, and because of their cultish superstitions, they
refuse to take biodynamic or homepathic laxatives. This prevents them
from producing new shit (which is why the donated Waldorf Toilet
Rolls are still intact), so they've had to recirculate the old
excrements over and over for many years. Now they have reached a
point, however, where the old shit has been recirculated so many
times that it's lost its stench, so they're hoping to find something
remotely useful here at the AT." Etc.
And to top it off the same guy writes:
"Personally, I don't think Diana is playing with a full deck of cards,
but that's a different night time story for Waldorf children."
LOL! Has Tarjei ever joined this list to discuss *issues* - has he ever
actually tried to discuss issues? Seems there are more than a few cards
missing but a sense of humour is certainly there. Rude and crude but there
might be a diamond in the rough . . . somewhere. If he could combine his
style with an ounce or two of substance there might be some value in his
contributions.
-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 2143
-- Topica Digest --
RE: the more ideas you express...
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: the more ideas you express...
By cffrey mindspring.com
Submerged Reality (was RE: the more ideas you express...)
By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
RE: from AT: my latest blog--how am I doing? any suggestions?
By Diana.Winters verizon.net
RE: Submerged Reality (was RE: the more ideas you express...)
By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
RE: vaccines,theories and other things
By Diana.Winters verizon.net
Re: vaccines,theories and other things
By barefootmamax4 yahoo.com
RE: vaccines,theories and other things
By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
RE: the more ideas you express...
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Submerged Reality (was RE: the more ideas you express...)
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: the more ideas you express...
By Diana.Winters verizon.net
Re: the more ideas you express...
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: from AT: my latest blog--how am I doing? any suggestions?
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: the more ideas you express...
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: the more ideas you express...
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: the more ideas you express...
By pkcompany netzero.net
Re: from AT: my latest blog--how am I doing? any suggestions?
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 12:11:05 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: the more ideas you express...
Walden wrote:
)
) Lemuria wrote:
) ) Which ideas?
) ) I never mentioned the ideas that I would like to get into public school.
) ) Please don't assume that assume that the ideas I was talking about are
) ) the ones above.
)
) You wrote "Waldorf's ideas" and you clearly spelled those ideas
) previously
) on this list - "we are a spiritual movement with Christ at our center, I
)
) tell them about the temperaments; physical, etheric astral and ego
) bodies;
) and that form drawing and Eurythmy bring spirits of form into the
) room...among many other things."
)
) Thus, I trust you will understand that my assumption is based on what
) you
) wrote - what YOU think of as "Waldorf ideas."
)
) -Walden
My point was only that you seemed to be implying that the small handful
of ideas above covered everything.
Of course you can't base your assumptions on what I wrote, if you want
to find out what "ideas" one uses to teach; because it would be
impossible to list them.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 13:02:46 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: the more ideas you express...
Pete Karaiskos wrote:
)
)
) Lemuria wrote:
) )
) )
) ) Walden wrote:
) ) )
) ) ) Lemuria wrote (to Pete but I could not resist responding):
) ) )
) ) ) )I think it's fine to tick people off while educating children.
) ) ) )I would love for Waldorf's ideas to get far enough into public schools
) ) ) )to tick a few people off.
) ) )
) ) ) Care to elaborate on both sentences? Why on earth would you like to tick
) ) )
) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) people off? And here's what you wrote on this list some months ago about
) ) )
) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) Waldorf:
) ) )
) ) ) "I tell my parents that we are a spiritual movement with Christ at our
) ) ) center, I tell them about the temperaments; physical, etheric astral and
) ) ) ego bodies; and that form drawing and Eurythmy bring spirits of form
) ) ) into the room...among many other things."
) ) )
) ) ) While I admit to feeling pleasantly refreshed by your candour with
) ) ) parents
) ) ) in *your* class, I am surprised to learn that you would love to have
) ) ) enough
) ) ) of these Waldorf ideas getting far enough into public schools to tick a
) ) ) few
) ) ) people off. Why???
) )
) ) Which ideas?
) ) I never mentioned the ideas that I would like to get into public school.
) ) Please don't assume that assume that the ideas I was talking about are
) ) the ones above.
)
) Lemuria - this is getting kind of old. I wonder if your students have
) this much trouble getting you to answer a simple question. All you seem
)
) to say is that we are assuming things you haven't said - and yet you
) repeatedly refuse to clarify what you are talking about. You make vague
)
) references to *Waldorf ideas* or *Temperaments were Steiner's Gift* and
) when we ask you to explain what you mean, or take what you have said at
) face value, you insist we are assuming something about what you have
) said. Just say what you mean Lemuria - say it clearly so everyone knows
)
) what you're saying and let's have a real discussion about your points of
)
) view and why you think Waldorf ideas benefit public school environments.
)
) Is it that difficult to express youreself clearly? If so, perhaps
) teaching isn't really for you.
)
) ) )
) ) ) )I have no interest in ticking parents off. I wonder why you would think
) ) ) )that?
) ) )
) ) ) I see. It seems you have no interest in ticking Waldorf parents off -
) ) ) who
) ) ) agree with your beliefs - but you would "love" to tick non-Waldorf
) ) ) parents/people off in public schools by forcing their children to follow
) ) )
) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) your own ideas about Christ, temperaments, etc.
) ) )
) ) ) )And your assumptions about what I do and don't express are irresponsible
) ) ) )and based on nothing.
) )
) )
) ) Although I have no interest in ticking Waldorf parents off, it sometimes
) )
) )
) ) happens, and it is par for the course.
)
) No, it isn't par for the course - certainly not in most schools. It's
) par for the course in Waldorf, of course, because parents are surprised
) by what they uncover as they learn about Waldorf and Anthroposophy.
) Naturally, you have no interest in ticking Waldorf parents off, you
) would prefer they go along for the ride, I'm sure, and trust you to
) educate their children without interference.
)
) ) I was much more adept, though at ticking off my colleagues...even when I
) )
) )
) ) wasn't trying.
)
) I'm not surprised.
)
) ) The reason I am not interested in angering Waldorf parents is, simply,
) ) because we occupy the same space and have a similar goal...to educate
) ) their children.
)
) Except that the method of educating their children you each have in mind
)
) is in all likelyhood dissimilar. How may of the parents in your classes
)
) understand, intimately, the way you are educating their children? You
) might share the process with them, but if you're like the vast majority
) of Waldorf teachers, you don't share the Anthroposophy behind the
) process with parents.
)
) ) There is a big difference betweed pandering to somebody
) ) and trying to keep things civil while working for a common goal.
)
) One that you, I can imagine, don't appreciate completely since it
) appears you were fired from your teaching position for not getting along
)
) with your co-workers.
)
) ) )
) ) ) We can only make assumptions based on what you write on this list. It
) ) ) seems
) ) ) that Pete's take in this discussion is not "based on nothing." We can
) ) ) only
) ) ) understand your thoughts based on what *you* have written. If you
) ) ) believe an
) ) ) assumption is wrong, I encourage you to fix it by elaborating or
) ) ) clarifying
) ) ) your position.
) ) )
) ) ) -Walden
) )
) )
) ) I'm surprised that this comment about ticking a few people off got under
) )
) )
) ) some of your skins so.
)
) Well, as the tickees, we critics tend to perc up our ears when a Waldorf
)
) teacher talks about ticking people off.
)
) ) How about Dan?
) ) He's no stranger to ticking a few people off to acomplish his goal.
)
) I'd be curious to see how you compare a lawsuit in Dan's case to
) brainwashing children without the consent of their parents - in your
) (Waldorf's case).
)
) ) One of my goals, for better or worse, is to educate children to be
) ) somewhat radical.
)
) See what I mean about brainwashing.
)
) ) I feel that Waldorf is a radical form of education
) ) that should turn out radical, free-thinking-question-asking people;
)
) What's wrong with just turning out educated people? Why the stress on
) radical people? We all know you can't turn out free-thinking people
) within the closed-minded structure of the Waldorf curriculum - so don't
) even go there - but why the desire to produce radical people? Why not
) have the goal of educating people to fit into society? What's the point
)
) of producing misfits and outcasts. I say this as a parent of a
) graduating high-school senior - Waldorf doesn't teach kids to think
) outside the box - it teaches them to think inside a different, much
) smaller box.
)
) )and, in case you haven't noticed, radical, free-thinkers will always
) )piss a
) ) few peole off.
)
) Or frustrate people who can't get them to understand the simplest logic,
)
) concept or idea. There's nothing impressive about people who are
) obtuse. If you are educating people to be free-thinkers, to think
) outside the box, you need to educate them about what's inside the box
) first. This is where Waldorf fails miserably. And this is why so many
) people are frustrated when they try to get straight answers from Waldorf
)
) teachers and/or Anthroposophists.
)
) Pete
Oh, my!
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 15:27:41 +0000
From: Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
Subject: Submerged Reality (was RE: the more ideas you express...)
Some thoughts:
- A possible model for understanding the Waldorf issues could be that
the Waldorf system frequently resembles the social patterns found in the
novel/films "1984" by George Orwell: A sort of dark, authoritarian,
manipulative, suppressive society that requires all persons to behave
and think in an identical fashion, while professing or participating in
propoganda that continously recommends/enforces the message that the
System is the best model, is idealistic, and that any other way or
expression of individualism is to be abhored. The persons enthralled
and/or convinced by the System do not understand the problems inherent
in it, being used to the conventions and rules that go some way to
mentally, emotionally and socially defining their worldview and sense
of reality.
- A paradox is that while some opponents of Waldorf practices may see
Waldorf as oppressive and repressive, some Waldorf people believe the
same thing about the general school systems and society in general -
thus, there is no awareness in common about suppressive behaviour, etc.
but attribution of the same quality to opposing parties.
- There is no way of asserting moral authority on issues when morality
is considered relative and constructed, and meditated by expediency in
the world at large.
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: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 16:02:04 +0000
From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: from AT: my latest blog--how am I doing? any suggestions?
Walden wrote:
)And to top it off the same guy writes:
)"Personally, I don't think Diana is playing with a full deck of )cards,
)but that's a different night time story for Waldorf children."
LOL I don't mind agreeing I am probably missing a few cards in my deck,
but he tempts me to come up with similar wisecracks for his merry band.
Someone used "Her cheese has slid off her cracker" recently and I like
that. I also like, "A few cupcakes short of a birthday party."
A few copper rods short of a eurythmy troupe?
A few silk scarves short of a nature table?
A few marionettes short of a puppet play?
A few colored ribbons short of a Maypole.
A few root races short of - . Can't figure out how to make that one
funny.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 16:12:04 +0000
From: Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
Subject: RE: Submerged Reality (was RE: the more ideas you express...)
Keith McLean wrote:
)
) Some thoughts:
)
)
) - A possible model for understanding the Waldorf issues could be that
) the Waldorf system frequently resembles the social patterns found in the
)
) novel/films "1984" by George Orwell: A sort of dark, authoritarian,
) manipulative, suppressive society that requires all persons to behave
) and think in an identical fashion, while professing or participating in
) propoganda that continously recommends/enforces the message that the
) System is the best model, is idealistic, and that any other way or
) expression of individualism is to be abhored. The persons enthralled
) and/or convinced by the System do not understand the problems inherent
) in it, being used to the conventions and rules that go some way to
) mentally, emotionally and socially defining their worldview and sense
) of reality.
)
I base this model on what I've been reading and "hearing" about Waldorf
from those who are in some way opposed to the Waldorf education system.
What seems to be the relationship between teachers and/or schools and/or
parents as illustrated in textual comments is the basis for my
discussion here. Some information is derived from reading and
observation of the posts by Waldorf supporters.
)
) - A paradox is that while some opponents of Waldorf practices may see
) Waldorf as oppressive and repressive, some Waldorf people believe the
) same thing about the general school systems and society in general -
) thus, there is no awareness in common about suppressive behaviour, etc.
) but attribution of the same quality to opposing parties.
)
)
) - There is no way of asserting moral authority on issues when morality
) is considered relative and constructed, and meditated by expediency in
) the world at large.
)
)
) 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])
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: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 16:19:38 +0000
From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: vaccines,theories and other things
)k g wrote:
A lot of things I can't read, since they look blank on the web site. And
actually the other day, back when my email was still working, they were
blank in email too.
Can someone who can read them copy Kelly's posts here?
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 07:37:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: k g (barefootmamax4 yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: vaccines,theories and other things
On second thought, grandma probably wouldn't die from chicken pox at all because most likely she would have live long immunity from getting it herself as a child! Instead now I have the problem of my kids never catching it in childhood because all the kids are vaccinated with no evidence of lifelong immunity for these kids.... So we will have an adult poulation that may be at risk for contacting chicken pox when older and suffering worse consequences. Unvaccinated children like mine will not have the opportunity to catch it naturally and develop livelong immunity and so I will probably be forced to take the risk of the vaccine anyway....
-Kelly
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 16:54:40 +0000
From: Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
Subject: RE: vaccines,theories and other things
Diana Winters wrote:
)
)
) )k g wrote:
)
) A lot of things I can't read, since they look blank on the web site. And
)
) actually the other day, back when my email was still working, they were
) blank in email too.
)
) Can someone who can read them copy Kelly's posts here?
1. Select text with mouse.
2. Copy text.
3. Paste text in Notepad or other text editor/word processing program.
4. "Select All" from Edit menu or select all text with mouse.
5. Copy text.
6. Paste text in waldorf-critics reply box.
Regards,
Keith
)
) Diana
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: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 10:29:28 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: the more ideas you express...
Hi Charlie,
)One of my goals, for better or worse, is to educate children to be
)somewhat radical. I feel that Waldorf is a radical form of education
)that should turn out radical, free-thinking-question-asking people; and,
)in case you haven't noticed, radical, free-thinkers will always piss a
)few peole off.
I think this is a good example of the political confusion I mentioned a
couple days ago. Many radical education activists, theorists, and proponents
criticize Waldorf not because it produces radical free-thinkers (if it did,
we'd be fans of it) but because it often produces reactionary muddled
thinkers. This isn't very surprising, since a remarkable number of Waldorf
teachers are themselves muddled thinkers with reactionary politics (which
they mistake, in their confusion, for radical politics). Pretending that
pupils can be sorted into four neat little boxes doesn't generate free
thinkers. Mixing up hatred and critique doesn't generate question-asking
people. Telling students who might go on to become environmentalists or
human rights activists -- fine examples of free-thinking radicals -- that
criticizing Greenpeace or Amnesty International will harm, not help, those
causes, does not generate question-asking people. Refusing to acknowledge,
much less criticize, racist thinking in one's own movement does not
encourage question asking or free thinking or radical anything. All of those
practices, which you have endorsed and promoted here, are likely to produce
conformism, complacency, and disinterest in challenging prevailing norms,
and discourage asking questions and thinking critically for oneself. Thus I
am sorry to say that your stated goals are starkly at odds with your own
practice. Cheers,
Peter S.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 11:18:15 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Submerged Reality (was RE: the more ideas you express...)
Hi Keith, some of my thoughts:
)The persons enthralled
)and/or convinced by the System do not understand the problems inherent
)in it, being used to the conventions and rules that go some way to
)mentally, emotionally and socially defining their worldview and sense
)of reality.
That's a common enough phenomenon with lots of different worldviews,
particularly those that are marginalized within mainstream culture. It isn't
specific as such to Waldorf or anthroposophy. What is distinctive about
Waldorf and anthroposophy is the fundamental rejection of critique, whether
internal or external. This makes it effectively impossible for
non-anthroposophists to engage in critical dialogue with anthroposophists,
and leads Steiner enthusiasts to become "enthralled" with a thought system
that seems to provide meaning to their lives. In my view, the best way to
avoid this is to cultivate critical thinking and apply it to one's own
belief systems as well as those publicly advocated by others.
)- A paradox is that while some opponents of Waldorf practices may see
)Waldorf as oppressive and repressive, some Waldorf people believe the
)same thing about the general school systems and society in general -
)thus, there is no awareness in common about suppressive behaviour, etc.
)but attribution of the same quality to opposing parties.
That is sometimes the case. But there are lots and lots of critics of "the
general school systems and society in general" who are also very critical of
anthroposophy and of Waldorf and have provided extensive arguments to
explain their critiques.
)- There is no way of asserting moral authority on issues when morality
)is considered relative and constructed, and meditated by expediency in
)the world at large.
Authority is an unhelpful way to think about morality. The wonderful thing
about moral judgement is that it can always be reconsidered, revised,
critiqued, challenged, enriched, altered, and so forth, simply through
people exercising their own capacity for judgement. When people abdicate
this capacity, then they get into moral trouble. Yours,
Peter S.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 21:52:53 +0000
From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: the more ideas you express...
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)Many radical education activists, theorists, and proponents
)criticize Waldorf not because it produces radical free-thinkers (if )it
)did, we'd be fans of it) but because it often produces )reactionary
)muddled thinkers.
Thank you, yes - people who are gullible enough to believe in concepts
like "root races" or "spiritual missions" reflected in skin color, or
that long ago in a golden age we were all clairvoyant. Or people who,
when confronted with holocaust denial, exclaim impatiently that the real
problem Hitler caused was somehow delaying more widespread acceptance of
spiritual science. (The whole Hitler thing was an occult plot against
spiritual science.) Or people who accept all sorts of pseudo-science as
spiritual truths, are afraid of doctors, believe homeopathic tablets
cure skin conditions and vaccines are a government conspiracy to harm
children, because they read it in some scandal rag or conspiracy web
site and haven't any idea how to tell scientific research from ignorant
fear mongering. People who think humans aren't related to apes (Steiner
taught that Darwin was wrong), and the Moon doesn't actually physically
exist (so we can't have landed on it; the moon landings were a
government hoax). People who think the World Trade Center must have been
demolished by explosives planted by the CIA because otherwise it would
have fallen down the way trees fall down, and anyway, the hijackers were
all Jews (dressed up as Arabs to fool us).
(Just a few of the tidbits from the intellectual heavyweights over on
the AT list, in the past few months.)
Yes this is real radical stuff.
)remarkable number of Waldorf teachers are themselves muddled )thinkers
)with reactionary politics (which they mistake, in their )confusion, for
)radical politics).
Bradford Riley is a good example. (He is a former Waldorf teacher.) He
is a big fan of Cindy Sheehan and despises George Bush. (So far so
good.) But he's recently been chastising his flock on AT for failing to
understand the occult significance of the date of the death of Cindy
Sheehan's son in Iraq, and various other occult aspects of Cindy
Sheehan's activities. Yes, more "occult insight" is just what the
anti-war movement needs. (sarcasm)
)Pretending that pupils can be sorted into four neat little boxes
))doesn't generate free thinkers. Mixing up hatred and critique )doesn't
)generate question-asking people. Telling students who might )go on to
)become environmentalists or human rights activists -- fine )examples of
)free-thinking radicals -- that criticizing Greenpeace or )Amnesty
)International will harm, not help, those causes, does not )generate
)question-asking people. Refusing to acknowledge, much less )criticize,
)racist thinking in one's own movement does not encourage )question
)asking or free thinking or radical anything. All of those )practices,
)which you have endorsed and promoted here, are likely to )produce
)conformism, complacency, and disinterest in challenging prevailing
)norms, and discourage asking questions and thinking )critically for
)oneself.
Thank you and may I add an important one: Delaying literacy as long as
possible is the exact opposite of what you'd do to produce radical,
free-thinking people who question and challenge. Waldorf encourages
children to believe the teacher knows everything and there's something
unwholesome about reading a book. Everything about the early Waldorf
environment works against encouraging students to challenge anything,
and magical thinking (a.k.a. "reverence") is encouraged for as long as
possible. Any school system that wants to call itself radical and
discourages not just reading per se but what I would call the literate
*attitude* - which I consider synonymous with a critical, challenging
attitude - has a lot to answer for.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 11:50:38 -0700
From: Walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: the more ideas you express...
Charlie wrote:
))One of my goals, for better or worse, is to educate children to be
))somewhat radical. I feel that Waldorf is a radical form of education
))that should turn out radical, free-thinking-question-asking people; and,
))in case you haven't noticed, radical, free-thinkers will always piss a
))few peole off.
Peter Staudenmaier replied:
) I think this is a good example of the political confusion I mentioned a
) couple days ago. Many radical education activists, theorists, and
) proponents criticize Waldorf not because it produces radical free-thinkers
) (if it did, we'd be fans of it) but because it often produces reactionary
) muddled thinkers. This isn't very surprising, since a remarkable number of
) Waldorf teachers are themselves muddled thinkers with reactionary politics
) (which they mistake, in their confusion, for radical politics). Pretending
) that pupils can be sorted into four neat little boxes doesn't generate
) free thinkers. Mixing up hatred and critique doesn't generate
) question-asking people. Telling students who might go on to become
) environmentalists or human rights activists -- fine examples of
) free-thinking radicals -- that criticizing Greenpeace or Amnesty
) International will harm, not help, those causes, does not generate
) question-asking people. Refusing to acknowledge, much less criticize,
) racist thinking in one's own movement does not encourage question asking
) or free thinking or radical anything. All of those practices, which you
) have endorsed and promoted here, are likely to produce conformism,
) complacency, and disinterest in challenging prevailing norms, and
) discourage asking questions and thinking critically for oneself. Thus I am
) sorry to say that your stated goals are starkly at odds with your own
) practice.
During my time with Waldorf I always found it odd that Waldorf PR "success"
stories involved folks like the CEO of Amex Corp or American soap stars.
One would think that a movement ostensibly cncerned with turning out radical
free thinkers would shy away from promoting such grads. Perhaps they are
trying to show balance but who then sits on the other end of the teeter
totter? My own experience with many Waldorf kids of different ages shows a
mixed bag of values and careers. Probably not unlike grads from other
schools - except, of course, that the Waldorf grads usually come from
families with money and history shows that patterns often repeat themselves
in socioeconomic circles. Most social or environmental free-thinking
activists do not make mega-bucks - not those I know, anyway.
Peter's point is very good. I can add - How can a movement filled with
"teachers," many of whom will not answer or deal with questions about the
founder of the their own movement, expect that students will feel compelled
to ask questions and be free thinkers? From the early grades where questions
from students are absolutely not welcome and where the authority of the
teacher is crucial to the dynamic of the class and where virtually all
instruction involves copying the teacher's work . . .to parent evenings
where the meetings are controlled and many topics are simply not allowed,
the idea that Waldorf turns out "radical, free-thinking-question-asking
people," makes little sense. I have spoken with people who quit Waldorf
teacher training for that reason - they were shocked at the level of control
and lack of freedom to deal with important issues like many of the
problematic quotes: "Steiner says." End of question period.
Again, I think Waldorf does some things well but helping kids to feel free
to think and ask questions is not one of them - especially in the early
years where such things are so very important.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 10:58:01 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: from AT: my latest blog--how am I doing? any suggestions?
Walden wrote:
)Has Tarjei ever joined this list to discuss *issues* - has he ever actually
)tried to discuss issues? Seems there are more than a few cards missing but
)a sense of humour is certainly there. Rude and crude but th