return to WCA Archive Index
This file is incomplete: digests 2244, 2246, and 2261 are missing
-- Topica Digest --
Re: school devolving from Anthroposophy [was RE: shameful connections]
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Walden's Favorate Movie
By pstaud hotmail.com
Racism, gender, guilt perceived and social (ir)responsibility
By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
RE: school devolving from Anthroposophy [was RE: shameful connections]
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
Re: school devolving from Anthroposophy [was RE: shameful connections]
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: Walden's Favorate Movie
By barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com
RE: school devolving from Anthroposophy [was RE: shameful connections]
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 00:11:59 -0700
From: Walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: school devolving from Anthroposophy [was RE: shameful connections]
Hi Baandje,
Interesting/disturbing post but I'd appreciate some clarification if
possible.
You wrote:
)Actually there's a story and a general observation, the observation
)being that small schools generally tend to have to "settle for less"
)when it comes to finding trained teachers.
You mean Waldorf trained teachers?
)The school nearby where I live for example has had to hire grade school
)teachers, simply because
)there aren't any trained teachers in this isolated part of the country.
This is a Waldorf school not able to hire Waldorf trained teachers? Who runs
the hiring committee? I ask because this is an issue in other Waldorf
schools and in our old school it was a fiasco. Very unprofessional and also
discourteous to some applicants.
)Regarding your question: that particular school was located in a fairly
)isolated yet very affluent area of the country. When I arrived, the
)school was being controlled by one anthroposophical megalomaniac who
)operated behind and within the thinly-veiled pretense of the college of
)teachers.
Seen this story before. He who shouts the loudest of his Anthroposophical
superiority . . . .
)I was one of several teachers who privately confronted him and
)his three college cronies that year. Believing in their infallibility I
)suppose, they went public and took that dispute to the community.
)In the end, the ringleader and two college members left. The three
)remaining uber-anthroposophists all left the school the following year.
)By the third year of my time there, four members of the grade school
)faculty were public school teachers, two were untrained parents who had
)a longtime interest in Waldorf, and two - myself included - were
)qualified Waldorf teachers.
I'm interested in your views on this: Do you think the school worked
*better* without the Waldorf trained teachers?
That is, were the families at the school *there* for Anthroposophy in
education or would the needs be met by
non-Waldorf trained teachers who simply desired more freedom and less
pressure than in other more conventional
schools?
I'm also curious why anyone in your particular school would, after the
BigWigs left, be interested in re-forming the college of teachers? I realize
there were still a few of the old guard around but why would the rest of the
faculty/parents entertain the thought of another hierarchical gang at the
top?
Also interesting about the eurythmist - (some of them are flexible but could
he really do as you had . . .never mind) - it seems they often hold a mighty
high role in the schools. I think the role of Eurythmy (and often power of
the teacher) in Waldorf schools is very poorly explained to parents and
kids. One of the Big problems IMO.
Sounds like to did well to reconsider your connection.
-Walden
Baandje wrote:
"end here except that you asked about my involvement on
the college. Well, after that first year, the college was disbanded,
given what had happened, and the fact the college head was no longer
there and running things. Yet shortly after the following school year
started, talk began of re-forming the college, something I was dead set
against and was VERY vocal about. I continued to insist the faculty
needed at least a year of working together - being a "faculty-run
school" in other words - before any talk of college made any sense at
all.
Remember now that two ex-college members were still with the school at
that time, along at three or four other anthroposophists and/or
anthroposophical dabblers. Anyway, long story short: I was ill one
Thursday in October, and during that afternoon faculty meeting which I
missed, the group voted to start a new college. Imagine my, umm,
"surprise" on hearing that at school the next day.
I lasted another year and several months with that school. I refused to
join the college, and I refused to acknowledge them as the school and
community decision makers. And when they demanded I attend a college
meeting to explain and account for my attitude and behavior, I refused
that as well, and told the college member/eurythmist who broke the news
to me, to go fuck himself - at which point he looked like someone had
just jammed a copper rod up his butt. So the answer to your question is:
No, I wasn't a college member there, nope. ;)
As for analysis: one thing that's obvious to me is money is power. Money
built that particular school, and IMO had plenty to do with perverting
people over the three years I was there. I saw this as well in a school
I worked at in Marin: no question the most perverted, screwed up,
dysfunctional college-controlled Steiner school I ever came across.
Truly a diseased place to work. And judging from Pete's contributions,
as bad or worse than his children's school."
=^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 09:12:44 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Walden's Favorate Movie
Walden quoted an insightful piece from the Guardian:
)Another cause lies in the desire of conservatives to defend the people who
)promoted the policy, many of whom also remain alive. The removal of
)part-Aboriginal children was advocated on the social Darwinist grounds that
)their full-blooded relatives were dying out. It was believed that the
)assimilation of these children into white society would ease the inevitable
)passing into extinction of the Aboriginal people.
)
)Such deep-rooted racism managed to taint even the character of benevolence,
)says Robert Manne, an expert on the stolen generations at La Trobe
)University. "None of the people involved were openly hostile to
)Aborigines," he says. "There were quite a lot of very decent people who
)genuinely thought what they were doing was for the best. They didn't think
)Aborigines were fully human, so they didn't think that they would suffer as
)much."'
That is a fine precis of benevolent racism, something which many
anthroposophists think doesn't exist. I'd like to recommend again a very
good and quite readable study of the notion of the inevitable dying out of
non-white races, a book that might explain to Joel the background to his own
writings on the same topic: Patrick Brantlinger, Dark Vanishings: Discourse
on the Extinction of Primitive Races, 1800-1930 (Ithaca 2003). Brantlinger
is particularly helpful on the phenomenon of "sentimental racism", which may
sound familiar to those used to reading white guys who expound on the
historical necessity of Native Americans or Australian Aborigines dying out,
while simultaneously boasting of their Native brothers.
A more general point bears repeating as well, in light of the recent
exchanges. Many people who defend Steiner's racial teachings claim that it
is precisely the spiritual component of these teachings that keeps the
teachings from being racist. This is simply a misunderstanding of the
history of racist thought. Ascribing spiritual significance to ostensibly
racial differences has been a centerpiece of
racist thinking for several centuries. The stance defended by Joel and
others may also indicate a kind of self-reinforcing dynamic within
anthroposophist circles: people who are uninformed about what racism is, not
to mention how it has developed in the past, or who are simply indifferent
to its concrete historical contours, are unlikely to be troubled by
Steiner's teachings, and quite possibly unable figure out what critics of
anthroposophical racial doctrine are saying when we draw historical
parallels and evaluate Steiner's writings (and Joel's writings, and so
forth) on this basis.
Greetings to all,
Peter Staudenmaier
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 16:03:52 +0000
From: Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
Subject: Racism, gender, guilt perceived and social (ir)responsibility
What is responsibility and the social context in which it is defined?
Racism and gender, and perception of guilt - the personal outlook versus
the social:
"On finding we're worse than we think we are"
-
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/on-finding-were-worse-than-we-think-we-are/2006/08/30/1156816965287.html
Regards,
Keith
Tyranny begets tyranny.
- K Mclean
------
Our knowledge has made us cynical,
our cleverness hard and unkind.
We think too much and feel too little:
More than machinery we need humanity;
More than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness.
Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost.
- Charlie Chaplin ("The Great Dictator" [1940])
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 16:32:53 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: school devolving from Anthroposophy [was RE: shameful connections]
Walden: “I’m interested in your views on this: Do you think the school
worked *better* without the Waldorf trained teachers? That is, were the
families at the school *there* for Anthroposophy in education or would
the needs be met by non-Waldorf trained teachers who simply desired more
freedom and less pressure than in other more conventional schools?
“I’m also curious why anyone in your particular school would, after the
BigWigs left, be interested in re-forming the college of teachers? I
realize there were still a few of the old guard around but why would the
rest of the faculty/parents entertain the thought of another
hierarchical gang at the top?”
*
Hi Walden. I don’t know much about the school near-by where I live. I
just hear about the mundane details on the grapevine. I know nothing
about how they behave or what they look for when interviewing teachers.
Yes, interesting questions you asked here. First off, IMO the school was
better off without the original gang and their “college”. It wasn’t
really a college. It was entirely dishonest – a front for one person to
have absolute control over the community. That story is amazingly
similar to Nicole Foss’: a “master teacher” running the show along with
his anthroposophically subservient yes-men and women.
The re-formed college that started up the following year was IMO a much
more honest attempt at what college work is supposed (?) to be about.
Was the change better? Well, the tension and turmoil in the school
lessened, yes.
But there was never that feeling afterwards of “one group wisely guiding
the community”. More like “people scrambling to figure out how to keep
things together”. Not that that’s necessarily bad. It was more authentic
IMO: life, happening. But maybe too amateurish for an educational
center, I’ll admit.
I look back and see I definitely overreacted to things. Now in my
infinite wisdom I think I’d just shrug my shoulders and tell people to
do what they needed to do. So it’s really impossible to say if overall
the school “worked better”. From my perspective it did, sure. But the
fact is that which was there when I arrived was an expression of the
wants and needs of that particular community. As for parents, they
appeared to be there for the stability and the “Waldorf” stuff, and not
for the anthroposophy – which is the case in all schools I think. So the
changes that happened were both good and bad for the general community,
I have to believe.
To answer another question you asked: the group that re-formed the
college was comprised of two ex-college members from the previous year,
along with four faculty members who were most definitely interested in
anthroposophy. What’s interesting to me is how IMO those four turned
from being moderately interested in anthroposophy to being
“anthroposophically consumed” once they became part of the college. I
think it’s a result of some secret occult (ha!) ingredient the
kindergarten teacher puts in the bread on baking day :)
Seriously though, from things I’ve seen in Waldorf schools, I’d say
power corrupts. And power coupled with stringent, unbending doctrine and
dogma can be a real corrupter of souls. History is full of that sort of
nonsense, so the fact it happens to individuals in Waldorf schools isn’t
surprising. What is surprising at times is how blind people can be to
the fact that they’re being controlled by the philosophy –
“anthroposophically subservient” – and are behaving horribly as a
result.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 10:19:54 -0700
From: Walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: school devolving from Anthroposophy [was RE: shameful connections]
Thanks for that, Baandje.
One more question. An important one for me. You wrote:
) As for parents, they appeared to be there for the stability and the
) "Waldorf" stuff, and not
)for the anthroposophy - which is the case in all schools I think.
By "Waldorf stuff" do you mean no standardized tests/bread baking/outside
play/etc. as opposed to follow the spiritual path via Eurythmy/chant along
with the teacher/learn about Man *and* Animal, etc.?
Do you think the majority of parents are looking for a spiritual/religious
experience for the their kids (and put up with some or all of the Anthro
oddballs)
or does their decision to choose Waldorf stem more from *not* wanting the
alternative - conventional public school, private school, etc.?
Here: Can there be "Waldorf" without Anthroposophy?
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 21:42:16 +0000
From: Barnaby McEwan (barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Walden's Favorate Movie
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
) if anything, Barnaby's portrait of Bolt was a bit too kind...
I've just been reading Australian bloggers' postings about him and read
the best descriptive phrase yet for ultra-conservative headbangers:
'rightie-tightie'.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 22:56:50 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: school devolving from Anthroposophy [was RE: shameful connections]
Walden: “By “Waldorf stuff” do you mean no standardized tests/bread
baking/outside play/etc. as opposed to follow the spiritual path via
Eurythmy/chant along with the teacher/learn about Man *and* Animal,
etc.?”
---
Absolutely. Seriously, do you recall one parent who ever thought
eurythmy was something other than some eccentric aspect of the
curriculum they’d simply have to put up with if they wanted their child
in a Waldorf school? IMO, most families who are attracted to Waldorf are
generally what could be described as round, holistic holes. They’re the
receivers. Steiner teachers are the givers. Anthroposophy with its
angular, rigid dogma is the square peg that teachers “give” by jamming
it into that hole. And if the peg doesn’t fit, they bang on the thing
until it either does or something breaks.
*
Walden: “Do you think the majority of parents are looking for a
spiritual/religious experience for their kids (and put up with some or
all of the Anthro oddballs) or does their decision to choose Waldorf
stem more from *not* wanting the alternative – conventional public
school, private school, etc.?”
-
Good question. Again, I’d guess your experiences as well might be
reflective of the reality. And I say that because from what I’ve seen,
every school seems to have about the same balance of individuals and
types of families.
Most families are looking for a gentle, holistic alternative to public
school. And while many of those families are attracted to the art-based
aspect and are generally happy with Waldorf, a good portion are also
interested in a strong academic curriculum. And those academic-oriented
families settle on Waldorf because there’s no another alternative, or
because they’ve been told the school does in fact focus on the academics
– which may or may not be the case.
And yes, there are always a small handful of families who choose Waldorf
because they’ve heard about the spiritual aspect of the curriculum. And
while some of those families are fine with the way Waldorf handles the
spiritual stuff, I think more are generally disappointed with the
static, denomination-specific manner in which spiritual ideas and
celebrations are presented.
That last one in particular bothered me a lot when I was teaching. So
many individuals feel they’ve found kindred spirits when they first
arrive at a school – believe they’ve found a “community home” where
families can live and grow and share together. And really, that’s what
parents are looking for, more than anything else. But then the square
peg of dogmatic anthroposophy rears its head, and all those happy
communal dreams are swept aside. Sad to recall the many families who
eventually left those various schools, dispirited and even
broken-hearted. And anthroposophical teachers call this unconscious,
soul-destroying activity “social development”. Any outcome is
justifiable as long as the work is undertaken in the name of Rudolf
Steiner I guess.
*
Walden: “Can there be “Waldorf” without Anthroposophy?”
-
There already is, IMO. It’s called living a healthy, holistic lifestyle,
and raising children and teaching them out of that same holistic
consciousness. Oh yeah: AND WITHOUT RELIGIOUS DOGMA MASQUERADING AS
SPIRITUAL WISDOM :)
As far as public schooling goes, the two words are synonymous: Waldorf
is anthroposophy. Therefore, dropping the word Waldorf is probably a
must. But the basic Waldorf curriculum absolutely could be transformed
into a dynamic, doctrine-free educational experience for the children.
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 2222
-- Topica Digest --
RE: more logical dynamics and questions about Peter S.'s work
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: more logical dynamics and questions about Peter S.'s work
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: another try at my basic point with regard to Peter S.'s work on
race
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: more logical dynamics and questions about Peter S.'s work
By barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com
So what is Spiritual Science really about?
By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
RE: Walden's Favorate Movie
By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
RE: So what is Spiritual Science really about?
By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
Re: So what is Spiritual Science really about?
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: So what is Spiritual Science really about?
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: shameful connections
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: another try at my basic point with regard to Peter S.'s work
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: So what is Spiritual Science really about?
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: shameful connections
By diana.winters verizon.net
Re: Walden's Favorate Movie
By mejhowell bigpond.com
RE: another try at my basic point with regard to Peter S.'s work on
race
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Nazis and Waldorf
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Walden's Favorate Movie
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: shameful connections
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 08:41:42 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: more logical dynamics and questions about Peter S.'s work
Peter quoting Joel from awhile ago (sorry I'm a bit behind, if this topic is
dead, but I saved this one):
)Modern humanity, under the influence of natural science, doesn't
)conceive of things this way at all. The "body" is the human being, that
)is all. There is no soul and no spirit.
Most of modern humanity definitely believes in body, soul, and spirit. Joel
is too busy lecturing to notice.
)So for Steiner to speak about the degeneration of the physical Saturn race
)body and forces and its influence on the soul (but not the eternal spirit)
)is to speak of something incomprehensible to your mind as a modern human
)being.
You misunderstand the reason "modern human beings," thankfully in large
numbers, reject crap like "degeneration of the physical Saturn race" as
spiritual necessity, and look at you incredulously when you babble this way.
It's not that people don't understand it, they just think it's unbelievably
creepy. Nothing about believing in a soul or spirit requires a person to
believe in racial karma.
)You look at a body and see a "person", and so to describe that body
)as Steiner does is to commit an offense (racism) against that "person".
I know absolutely nobody, nobody at all of any religious persuasion or
atheist, who is offended by hearing a human described as having a spirit or
soul. Not everyone thinks of it that way, of course, though most do. But
truly no one is offended. You've got to let go of your misunderstandings
about what the rest of the world believes, Joel - you're really not the only
one capable of thought, or the only one with convictions or beliefs about
the world.
)But Steiner is not speaking of "persons" at all. Steiner looks at a
)body and sees the physical race linage, and then also sees the etheric
)body (the life forces which enable the physical body to regenerate etc),
)and then also sees the astral body (true soul), and then to top that off
)sees the ego or eternal spirit, which is hidden deeply within the three
)other bodies.
This is an elitist fantasy. Most people not only believe in soul and spirit
but consider them very visible in daily life. The idea that you see things
that are to others "deeply hidden" or that took you "years of study" that
most people can never catch up to (although they could at least have the
decency to read your web sites and recognize your wisdom) no doubt makes you
feel spiritually superior but it just looks silly to most people.
)You don't see the same things at all,
You have no idea what other people see. You demonstrate that all the time.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 09:20:45 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: more logical dynamics and questions about Peter S.'s work
Joel:
)it could happen (and does) that a more developed spirit accepts a weaker
)body, because they are able to manifest through that weakness something of
)significance. This is obvious in the case of Downs Syndrome children,
)whose bodily garment is weak, but whose soul forces of love shine through
)anyway.
Barnaby:
)I work with Down's and other learning-disabled people. They are as
)loving, or grumpy, or rude, or malicious as anybody else, as the mood
)takes them. The remark above is patronising bollocks of the kind I
)sometimes hear from the kind of people who like to make themselves feel
)good by patting my clients on the head.
Thank you, Barnaby. "Soul forces of love" to patronize the disabled is
basically revolting talk. I ran a group home for adults with Down syndrome
years ago. Discussion of their supposedly 'extra' spiritual nature, or their
special lovingness - or I think it was Serena Blaue here at one time who
said something about their offering spiritual care to their caretakers -
just makes me sick. They are simply people, they are not more loving, more
spiritual, more *anything* than anybody else.
The only reason people look at the disabled and see them as "more" anything
than other people is that they expected, at first, to see "less." They are
revealing their own prejudices. The various racial stereotypes in Steiner
are a similar mentality.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 09:36:39 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: another try at my basic point with regard to Peter S.'s work on
race
This is directly parallel to what I was just saying about the attitude
toward the disabled:
(Joel):
)The invisible spiritual is quite superior to the merely material.
The implication is, and thank god it is so, since the "material" is so
lacking.
In other words, when you spout inflated crap about someone's superior
spiritual nature, you are revealing that you actually hold prejudices about
that person's supposedly inferior "bodily garment."
)The bodily garment is in fact a burden I bear,
Speak for yourself.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 15:02:34 +0000
From: Barnaby McEwan (barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: more logical dynamics and questions about Peter S.'s work
Diana Winters wrote:
) Thank you, Barnaby.
It had to be said.
) I ran a group home for adults with Down syndrome years ago.
) Discussion of their supposedly 'extra' spiritual nature, or their
) special lovingness - or I think it was Serena Blaue here at one
) time who said something about their offering spiritual care to
) their caretakers - just makes me sick.
I remember gagging at that too: she was defending Camphill institutions
after one she had spent time at (as a 'co-worker'?), Botton, was
featured in a voyeuristic TV documentary.
) The only reason people look at the disabled and see them as "more"
) anything than other people is that they expected, at first, to see
) "less." They are revealing their own prejudices. The various racial
) stereotypes in Steiner are a similar mentality.
Quite. There's another puke-making idea these prejudices have in common:
having a 'weak bodily vehicle' or one belonging to a 'decaying race' is
supposed to be freely chosen between incarnations so that the souls
involved can do 'karmic work'. Remember Serena's outrage when I said she
and Steiner were full of sh*t? Heh.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 15:11:39 +0000
From: Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
Subject: So what is Spiritual Science really about?
Hey Joel/everyone,
This is Spiritual Science from a source other than Steiner:
http://www.spiritualresearchfoundation.org/
Some interesting pages/excerpts:
"Based on the definition of a Saint according the science of
Spirituality, we would like to address a few misconceptions.
1. A good or religious person or one who performs miracles is a Saint
A Saint is defined by his spiritual level alone. Only when a seeker
attains a spiritual level of 70% is He recognized as a Saint by another
Saint. The average person, or even a seeker doing spiritual practice,
cannot identify a Saint with certainty.
Rope
*
It stands to reason that if we want to measure the depth of a pond
with a rope, it needs to be longer than the depth of the pond.
Similarly, if one wants to measure the spiritual maturity or level of a
Saint, one needs to be a Saint; an average person is not equipped to
make the judgement of whether a particular person is a Saint. Sainthood
cannot be bestowed upon a person by people below the spiritual level of
a Saint.
*
A child in the 4th grade would not be able to discern the
difference of knowledge of a graduate student or a post-doctorate
student. Hence, it would be ludicrous to ask the child as to which of
the students is more knowledgeable.
*
We tend to infer whether a person is a Saint based on our thinking
of what a Saint should be. This generally leads to a gross misjudgment
on our part.
*
In one’s spiritual journey, one will realize that a spiritual
level difference of even 2-3% can dramatically change one's perspective
of life.
*
A person cannot attain Sainthood by the wish of his devotees, and
neither can it be obtained by self-proclamation. It is only through
sincere efforts taken in spiritual practice that this state is
achieved."
-
http://www.spiritualresearchfoundation.org/spiritualresearch/spiritualscience/sainthood/
"What is sixth sense and how does one experience the subtle dimensions?"
-
http://www.spiritualresearchfoundation.org/spiritualresearch/spiritualscience/sixthsense/
"Basic principles of Spiritual Practice"
-
http://www.spiritualresearchfoundation.org/spiritualresearch/happiness/spirituality/basicpricinples_spirituality_d.php
"Hierarchy of power in the universe"
-
http://www.spiritualresearchfoundation.org/spiritualresearch/spiritualscience/hierarchyofpowers/
"Spiritual research methodology"
-
http://www.spiritualresearchfoundation.org/aboutspiritualresearch/spiritualresearchmethodology.php
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, 1 Sep 2006 15:27:15 +0000
From: Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
Subject: RE: Walden's Favorate Movie
Hi Michael,
Michael Howell wrote:
)
) Rabbit-proof myths
) By: Andrew Bolt
) The truth of Australia's past is hard enough to face, and untruths and
) exaggerations now will only divide us
) Phillip Noyce claims his new film, Rabbit-Proof Fence, is a true story.
) The Hollywood director's
(snip)
Not much of a fan of Andrew Bolt, for the reasons mentioned by others
here. Another point to be made is that he writes for a tabloid newspaper
- not a great qualification for open-mindedness or depth, but where
sensationalism is generally given more preference.
This is not to say there isn't a certain ideological angle in the
discussion about aboriginal treatment in the past - some just as easily
could exploit the victimisation angle for gain or advantage, just as the
ill-treatment of aborigines was advantageous for some whites as
described by the history. The Land Rights/Native Title, the former ATSIC
organisation behaviours, etc. are examples of the exploitation of
aborigines issues "in reverse".
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, 1 Sep 2006 15:38:32 +0000
From: Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
Subject: RE: So what is Spiritual Science really about?
Keith McLean wrote:
)
) Hey Joel/everyone,
)
) This is Spiritual Science from a source other than Steiner:
)
) http://www.spiritualresearchfoundation.org/
)
(snip)
And this intriguing:
"3.4.5 It should be relevant to the times"
-
http://www.spiritualresearchfoundation.org/spiritualresearch/happiness/spirituality/spirituality_asperera_i.php
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, 01 Sep 2006 10:12:09 -0700
From: Walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: So what is Spiritual Science really about?
Hi Keith,
I'm not sure if you posted those links as a lark or you're serious? As soon
as I saw the various "Holiness" fellows I saw the word "Faith" front and
center. Then comes the "science" stuff with gems like:
"This is translated as the 'Era of strife' and is the current period. The
average person's spiritual level has dropped to only 20%" Etc.
Personally, I don't disapprove of some forms of meditation but these Deepak
types really should take the word "science" out of their vocabulary. If not,
it is simply more mumbo jumbo meant to confuse well intentioned people.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 20:53:56 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: So what is Spiritual Science really about?
Walden: “This is translated as the ‘Era of strife’ and is the current
period. The average person’s spiritual level has dropped to only 20%”
*
Think of it as “around” 20%, give or take an epiphany.
It sure seems obvious to call this the ‘Era of strife’. Really, how much
intuition or spiritual insight does that take? That’s “just pick up a
newspaper for heaven’s sake” prognosticating.
And that got me thinking of Steiner’s futuristic predictions regarding a
“War of All against All”. When did he happen to predict this? Could it
have been, say, sometime during the years 1914-1918 perhaps?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 09:02:40 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: shameful connections
Joel wrote:
) As a consequence the training of Waldorf teachers is very flawed,
)but not more or less flawed then the training of non-Waldorf public
)school teachers. In the end, what makes a teacher is not the technique,
)by other more imponderable character traits. Yet, the dogmatics and
)sectarians in the Anthroposophical Movement, try to present Waldorf as
)the perfect ideal system, and ruin as many potential teachers
)(especially in America, where a pragmatic attitude to the spirit is
)quite necessary) as they play a role in the creation of good ones.
I don't think it's quite so easy to "ruin" a good teacher. The situation is
simpler than this. Someone who is attracted to, and easily influenced by and
agrees to follow slavishly the so-called wisdom of individuals who have set
themselves up as spiritual gurus to the young, is poor teaching material in
the first place. Those who are seeking a "spiritual path" for themselves in
their work with children, rather than simply being interested in working
with children, should not become teachers. These people are likely to be
both dogmatic and as they come to realize the dogmas don't work, angry and
desperate - a very bad mix in the classroom, especially with very young
children.
Lots of Steiner teachers, however, are doing their best to ignore or work
around anthroposophical dogma. They simply grit their teeth in faculty
meeting. They'd have been good teachers in any system, and even the poor
Steiner training often can't drive it out of them.
Waldorf deserves credit for the good ideas and good practices found in many
of the schools - the simple rhythms and play-focused early childhood
programs, the movement games and healthy dose of song and dance and drama.
The anthroposophy is what is simply killing them, and ruins the teacher
training.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 09:36:39 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: another try at my basic point with regard to Peter S.'s work
Pete:
)Yes, very nice. But then why bring race into it at all - if it isn't to
)point out the difference in the racial "burden" of particular races.
That is it in a nutshell. If we were all "burdened" similarly there would be
nothing to talk about regarding race. This is never anything but a prelude
to explicating which races are superior in which way to other races, which
ones belong here and which ones don't, which ones are "the future" and which
ones are "dying." Racism, in other words.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 02:52:50 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: So what is Spiritual Science really about?
Hi Keith,
Interesting chart... but they didn't list my path - the path of greatest
resistance.
Pete
Keith McLean wrote:
)
)
) Keith McLean wrote:
) )
) ) Hey Joel/everyone,
) )
) ) This is Spiritual Science from a source other than Steiner:
) )
) ) http://www.spiritualresearchfoundation.org/
) )
)
) (snip)
)
)
) And this intriguing:
)
) "3.4.5 It should be relevant to the times"
)
) -
) http://www.spiritualresearchfoundation.org/spiritualresearch/happiness/spirituality/spirituality_asperera_i.php
)
)
)
)
) 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, 01 Sep 2006 09:14:26 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: shameful connections
Joel:
)Its all a very messy business, which is one of the reasons I try to
)encourage folks here to back off of their extremism.
Walden:
)"Extremism?!" Are you having us on here? Take a look at your own posts
)over the last week. LOL
I just love it when DOF's point to "extremism" here. I am on a roll with
this after the "hate group" affair. (Note to Nordwall and friends: put that
stuff back, on Wikipedia, and expect me to start the whole discussion over
again, I can simply cut and paste, and I can do it as many times as you can.
And I think you've seen Pete's energy is even more limitless :)
It is really great when they point to "extremism" because it ends the
discussion, as well as making them look like twits. You ask them to quote
this so-called "extremism" and there won't be a reply to that question.
Remember (she says in still very great amusement) I have recently
"threatened" Sune Nordwall, and many people here are members of a "hate
group."
Sorry to hijack this in a different direction, but the "hate group" thing
was on my mind the whole time I was away and I just think the apolitical and
ahistorical (basically very immature) usage of these terms is interesting.
The rhetoric is like kids on the playground, last week someone who was your
best friend "hates" you now etc. Anthroposophists appear to have no idea
that they live in such a bubble, so unengaged with world, and don't
understand the political meaning of the terms. I mean, put down Steiner and
read a newspaper.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 16:12:33 +1000
From: "Michael Howell" (mejhowell bigpond.com)
Subject: Re: Walden's Favorate Movie
In his introduction to "Their Australia" Bolt argues, "The Australia I know
is, on the whole, happy, hard-working, easy-going, kind, practical and ready
for a laugh. But the one I read about, or see in films, is usually racist,
dull, cruel, shrunken in spirit and grim."
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barnaby McEwan" (barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 7:42 AM
Subject: RE: Walden's Favorate Movie
)
)
) Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
))
)) if anything, Barnaby's portrait of Bolt was a bit too kind...
)
) I've just been reading Australian bloggers' postings about him and read
) the best descriptive phrase yet for ultra-conservative headbangers:
) 'rightie-tightie'.
)
)
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
) New threads are always welcome.
)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 09:02:40 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: another try at my basic point with regard to Peter S.'s work on
race
Joel:
)It may help the lurkers (and perhaps, but unlikely, my various
)correspondents here) to realize that the results of Anthroposophy, in
)that this path of cognition produces a thought content, are quite varied
)and interrelated.
Whoa . . . wait a minute. On many occasions you've insisted anthroposophy
has no content at all. Anyone who tries to discuss the content of
anthroposophy is immediately slapped down for "being in love with their own
opinions," or parroting "Steinerism," as opposed to anthroposophy, which is
content-free.
How do you reconcile this with lecturing to the presumed gallery of
attentive lurkers on all the varied and interesting content anthroposophy
has produced?
)The physical body, which Scientific Material seeks to see as the whole
)of our nature, is not.
Well, of course, "Scientific Materialism" (as I presume you mean) "seeks to
see" nothing of the sort, but I think others have attempted to correct you
on this misunderstanding.
)So for Peter S., in his efforts to transform Steiner's meaning into
)something else, it is very necessary for Peter S. to deny the whole of
)the thought content produced by the New (active) Thinking.
It sure as heck doesn't look to me like Peter S. is denying the whole
thought content! How come you ignore the posts where he discusses that
thought content in detail?
)When, as members of modern society, we hold to the view that the
)physical is all, that mind is based only in the physical, as well as
)personalityn (the ego), then it is natural to find Steiner's
)considerations of race, at the very least, insensitive.
Or, it might be possible to consider Steiner's views on race, at the very
least, insensitive, because of all the derogatory remarks he made about
particular races.
Ya think?
)But to do that, we have to wish away Steiner's own teachings about the
)physical and the invisible,
We don't have to do any such thing; you merely ignore the posts asking you
to explain why this might be necessary, and pointing out to you that most
people who do acknowledge spiritual realities *still* don't adhere to
Steiner's racism.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 10:05:43 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Nazis and Waldorf
Hello critics,
a quick update on my somewhat halting correspondence with Harlan Gilbert,
who still declines to discuss these issues in public. Harlan had questioned
two basic claims of mine about the complex relations between anthroposophy
and National Socialism in the 1930s, namely that some Nazis expressed
appreciation for various aspects of anthroposophy, and that some
anthroposophists displayed conceptual and practical affinities with various
aspects of Nazism. Because Harlan is a Waldorf teacher, our discussion of
the matter has focused on the Waldorf movement specifically, though the
biodynamic movement would make an equally interesting case study. I have
tried to offer Harlan a number of quotations addressing both points above;
he had expressed doubts about two sources in particular: the report on
Waldorf schools prepared by Nazi education official Alfred Baeumler, and the
Waldorf journal Erziehungskunst ('The Art of Education'). Here are some
cursory samples from each:
Baeumler's report is largely critical of Waldorf education from a National
Socialist perspective. But even here Baeumler has several nice things to say
about Waldorf and anthroposophy. Indeed one of the most critical passages in
the document begins with praise for Steiner's "deep and correct insights"
that lie at the basis of anthroposophy, while the conclusion commends "the
great advantages of Waldorf pedagogy". The articles by Waldorf leaders in
Erziehungskunst, meanwhile, include several declarations of fidelity to the
new Nazi state and its ideals. Two brief examples: in a December 1933
article on the relation between Waldorf schools and anthroposophy, the
editor of Erziehungskunst, Caroline von Heydebrand, announces that the aim
of Waldorf education is to "place stalwart and duty-conscious people into
the nation and the state." (Heydebrand, "Waldorfschule und Anthroposophische
Gesellschaft", p. 500) In an August 1934 article, meanwhile, Richard Karutz
celebrates "love and loyalty to race and nation, to blood and homeland" as
the height of spiritual achievement. (Karutz, "Durch die Sprache zum Volk",
p. 122)
There are of course more instances of each of these phenomena -- sympathetic
statements by Nazi officials about anthroposophical efforts, and sympathetic
statements by anthroposophists about Nazi efforts -- but the above are among
those I have shared with Harlan.
Greetings to all,
Peter Staudenmaier
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 01:33:41 -0700
From: Walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Walden's Favorate Movie
Michael wrote:
) In his introduction to "Their Australia" Bolt argues, "The Australia I
) know
) is, on the whole, happy, hard-working, easy-going, kind, practical and
) ready
) for a laugh. But the one I read about, or see in films, is usually racist,
) dull, cruel, shrunken in spirit and grim."
What do think he means by that and what do think of this quote? How does it
pertain to racist thought in Rabbit Proof Fence?
-Walden
)
) ----- Original Message -----
) From: "Barnaby McEwan" (barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com)
) To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
) Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 7:42 AM
) Subject: RE: Walden's Favorate Movie
)
)
))
))
)) Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)))
))) if anything, Barnaby's portrait of Bolt was a bit too kind...
))
)) I've just been reading Australian bloggers' postings about him and read
)) the best descriptive phrase yet for ultra-conservative headbangers:
)) 'rightie-tightie'.
))
))
)) ==^================================================================
)) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
)) basic. New threads are always welcome.
))
)
)
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
) New threads are always welcome.
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 10:09:15 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: shameful connections
Diana: “I just love it when DOF’s point to “extremism” here. I am on a
roll with this after the “hate group” affair.”
*
I see. Plans can call Steiner/Waldorf an “occult sect”, but the
Steiner/Waldorf people calling Plans a “hate group” upsets you. What
goes around comes around – one doesn’t even have to be “spiritual” to
understand that ;)
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 2223
-- Topica Digest --
RE: shameful connections
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Walden's Favorate Movie
By barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com
RE: Nazis and Waldorf
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: shameful connections
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
Re: Walden's Favorate Movie
By mejhowell bigpond.com
Re: school devolving from Anthroposophy [was RE: shameful connections]
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: shameful connections
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: shameful connections
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: Walden's Favorate Movie
By barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com
RE: shameful connections
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: shameful connections
By pkcompany netzero.net
Re: shameful connections
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 08:40:28 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: shameful connections
I wrote:
)Diana: "I just love it when DOF's point to "extremism" here. I am on a
)roll with this after the "hate group" affair."
Baandje:
)I see. Plans can call Steiner/Waldorf an "occult sect", but the
)Steiner/Waldorf people calling Plans a "hate group" upsets you. What
)goes around comes around - one doesn't even have to be "spiritual" to
)understand that ;)
Um . . . I just woke up so maybe I am still rubbing my eyes and not
understanding what you are saying but . . . you think calling someone an
"occult sect" is just like calling them a "hate group"?
So you think calling someone something they *aren't* is the same as calling
them something they *are*, and the fact that one describes a religious
affiliation, and the other is a criminal accusation (slanderous, fraudulent
etc.), are equivalent?
Really? I'd really like you to reply to this, baandje. I am dead serious
about combatting this slander in public. It is very serious and it needs to
stop.
I will pose the same questions I posed to the clowns over at wikipedia who
pursued this with me. Put the evidence right here: What has PLANS done or
said, or anyone at PLANS done or said, that makes them a hate group? (You
may need to find out what a hate group is first.)
If you cannot do this, a public apology is appropriate.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 13:06:33 +0000
From: Barnaby McEwan (barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Walden's Favorate Movie
Michael Howell wrote:
)
) In his introduction to "Their Australia" Bolt argues, "The
) Australia I know is, on the whole, happy, hard-working, easy-going,
) kind, practical and ready for a laugh. But the one I read about, or
) see in films, is usually racist, dull, cruel, shrunken in spirit and
) grim."
Of course everything in Bolt's world corresponds with conservative
myths: I daresay his part of the world resembles the set of Neighbours
(a soap opera which has rarely, if ever, featured dark-skinned people)
rather than an urban slum or some godforsaken outback station.
What has the Australian loony right got to do with anthroposophy, apart
from the similarities of its style of defending cherished myths?
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 13:51:21 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Nazis and Waldorf
Thank you Peter,
This is of special interest to me because Harlan, on Wikipedia, claims
that no legitimate historian has ever connected Steiner to racism or, by
extension (of his comment), Nazism. It would be good to have references
that I can cite to demonstrate this to be false. I even asked him if he
has ever heard of Peter Staudenmaier, knowing full well of his exchanges
with you on-line and off-line.
Pete
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
)
) Hello critics,
)
) a quick update on my somewhat halting correspondence with Harlan
) Gilbert,
) who still declines to discuss these issues in public. Harlan had
) questioned
) two basic claims of mine about the complex relations between
) anthroposophy
) and National Socialism in the 1930s, namely that some Nazis expressed
) appreciation for various aspects of anthroposophy, and that some
) anthroposophists displayed conceptual and practical affinities with
) various
) aspects of Nazism. Because Harlan is a Waldorf teacher, our discussion
) of
) the matter has focused on the Waldorf movement specifically, though the
) biodynamic movement would make an equally interesting case study. I have
)
) tried to offer Harlan a number of quotations addressing both points
) above;
) he had expressed doubts about two sources in particular: the report on
) Waldorf schools prepared by Nazi education official Alfred Baeumler, and
) the
) Waldorf journal Erziehungskunst ('The Art of Education'). Here are some
) cursory samples from each:
)
) Baeumler's report is largely critical of Waldorf education from a
) National
) Socialist perspective. But even here Baeumler has several nice things to
) say
) about Waldorf and anthroposophy. Indeed one of the most critical
) passages in
) the document begins with praise for Steiner's "deep and correct
) insights"
) that lie at the basis of anthroposophy, while the conclusion commends
) "the
) great advantages of Waldorf pedagogy". The articles by Waldorf leaders
) in
) Erziehungskunst, meanwhile, include several declarations of fidelity to
) the
) new Nazi state and its ideals. Two brief examples: in a December 1933
) article on the relation between Waldorf schools and anthroposophy, the
) editor of Erziehungskunst, Caroline von Heydebrand, announces that the
) aim
) of Waldorf education is to "place stalwart and duty-conscious people
) into
) the nation and the state." (Heydebrand, "Waldorfschule und
) Anthroposophische
) Gesellschaft", p. 500) In an August 1934 article, meanwhile, Richard
) Karutz
) celebrates "love and loyalty to race and nation, to blood and homeland"
) as
) the height of spiritual achievement. (Karutz, "Durch die Sprache zum
) Volk",
) p. 122)
)
) There are of course more instances of each of these phenomena --
) sympathetic
) statements by Nazi officials about anthroposophical efforts, and
) sympathetic
) statements by anthroposophists about Nazi efforts -- but the above are
) among
) those I have shared with Harlan.
)
)
) Greetings to all,
)
) Peter Staudenmaier
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 14:39:33 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: shameful connections
Diana: “...you think calling someone an “occult sect” is just like
calling them a “hate group”?
“So you think calling someone something they *aren’t* is the same as
calling them something they *are*, and the fact that one describes a
religious affiliation, and the other is a criminal accusation
(slanderous, fraudulent etc.), are equivalent?
“Really? I’d really like you to reply to this, baandje. I am dead
serious about combatting this slander in public. It is very serious and
it needs to stop.
“If you cannot do this, a public apology is appropriate.”
*
LOL. No Diana, I would never think to apologize for other people’s word
wars. I’m a spectator. It wasn’t me who labeled Steiner’s esoteric
movement an “occultist sect”, nor did I call whatever Plans a “hate
group”.
Steiner people “slandering” Plans… LOL! That’s a good one! :)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 23:29:27 +1000
From: "Michael Howell" (mejhowell bigpond.com)
Subject: Re: Walden's Favorate Movie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barnaby McEwan" (barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 11:06 PM
Subject: RE: Walden's Favorate Movie
)
)
) Michael Howell wrote:
))
)) In his introduction to "Their Australia" Bolt argues, "The
)) Australia I know is, on the whole, happy, hard-working, easy-going,
)) kind, practical and ready for a laugh. But the one I read about, or
)) see in films, is usually racist, dull, cruel, shrunken in spirit and
)) grim."
)
) Of course everything in Bolt's world corresponds with conservative
) myths: I daresay his part of the world resembles the set of Neighbours
) (a soap opera which has rarely, if ever, featured dark-skinned people)
) rather than an urban slum or some godforsaken outback station.
)
His message in "My Australia" seems partly to
be that a pragmatic kind of tolerance was widespread in rural areas when he
was a boy. For example, Bolt's closest friend at school was Aboriginal and
this was neither here nor there.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 23:47:40 -0700
From: Walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: school devolving from Anthroposophy [was RE: shameful connections]
Baandje wrote
" Seriously, do you recall one parent who ever thought
eurythmy was something other than some eccentric aspect of the
curriculum they'd simply have to put up with if they wanted their child
in a Waldorf school?"
lol Memories. I remember some of the first *real* discussions in our grade
one class happened when one parent finally
had the guts to actually tell others that his kid hated Eurythmy and mom and
dad didn't get it, either. A huge sigh of relief
went around the pot-luck dinner table as most of us looked over our
shoulders to see how close the teacher might be.
It was a given that Eurythmy was something special but we were in the dark.
Weird how most of us just played into the stupid
game - almost feeling and acting inferior, avoiding the obvious questions
and/or accepting the half baked answers and excuses.
"Oh - it's a lovely *verse* the children recite daily."
"Oh - it's a form of dance - good exercise for the children." Blah blah blah
bull.
)Most families are looking for a gentle, holistic alternative to public
)school. And while many of those families are attracted to the art-based
)aspect and are generally happy with Waldorf, a good portion are also
)interested in a strong academic curriculum.
My experience tells the same story - most families choose Waldorf not for
what it *is* but for what it is *not.*
The parents I know - even those who are still involved with Waldorf - are
not necessarily "happy" with it. It's more like making a change now would be
very difficult for the kids. Everyone *knows* there's something odd about it
but as one very bright parent told me some time ago - "better the devil I
know."
)And yes, there are always a small handful of families who choose Waldorf
)because they've heard about the spiritual aspect of the curriculum.
I remember one father who was continually frustrated at the lack of Anthro
knowledge amongst parents. He was a decent fellow and he was pissed that the
school did not insist that parents understand the Anthro significance of
Waldorf.
)And while some of those families are fine with the way Waldorf handles the
)spiritual stuff, I think more are generally disappointed with the
)static, denomination-specific manner in which spiritual ideas and
)celebrations are presented.
I agree. Anyone trying to bring a non-Steiner spiritual anything into the
school had a hard time finding space or Anthro interest. And of course my
idea for a Three Stooges video night at the school did not go over very well
(serious - I brought it up during a long, frustrating, boring community
meeting).
)That last one in particular bothered me a lot when I was teaching. So
)many individuals feel they've found kindred spirits when they first
)arrive at a school - believe they've found a "community home" where
)families can live and grow and share together. And really, that's what
)parents are looking for, more than anything else. But then the square
)peg of dogmatic anthroposophy rears its head, and all those happy
)communal dreams are swept aside. Sad to recall the many families who
)eventually left those various schools, dispirited and even
)broken-hearted. And anthroposophical teachers call this unconscious,
)soul-destroying activity "social development". Any outcome is
)justifiable as long as the work is undertaken in the name of Rudolf
)Steiner I guess.
Very well put. I read the above twice. That is *exactly* what happened to
many wonderful families I know.
Very sad.
)There already is, IMO. It's called living a healthy, holistic lifestyle,
)and raising children and teaching them out of that same holistic
)consciousness. Oh yeah: AND WITHOUT RELIGIOUS DOGMA MASQUERADING AS
)SPIRITUAL WISDOM :)
Yup - that's what many people were/are looking for. Not so much me and my
family these days but that's what most people think
they're buying into with Waldorf.
)As far as public schooling goes, the two words are synonymous: Waldorf
)is anthroposophy. Therefore, dropping the word Waldorf is probably a
)must. But the basic Waldorf curriculum absolutely could be transformed
)into a dynamic, doctrine-free educational experience for the children.
The day Waldorf comes clean with it's mission is the day a new movement
begins.
It's interesting how the Waldorf PR/Leaders try to have it both ways. Even
take the goofy guys at WaldorfAnswers/Americans4Waldorf - they all seem to
believe that Waldorf schools tell prospective parents about "Anthroposophy"
so the parents should take the blame when they leave the schools feeling
frustrated that they did not understand the Anthro foundation of the
school(s). In reality, any mention of Anthroposophy is usually not front
and center at Waldorf school websites. Second, any hint of Anthro or the
foundation of the pedagogy is treated with the softest and most disingenuous
gloves imaginable. I was told repeatedly that it was simply about using all
the "wisdom of Man" in order to help educate the children. They would take
the literal meaning of "Anthroposophy." It never occured to me that some
people were simply hiding something from me and my family. Why *would* they
do such a thing? Now I know they wanted my kids and my money with the best
of intentions. *Their* intentions - not mine. The people are "nice" but they
need a reminder of what it means to be "human" and how humans best
communicate. Little do most parents know that the powers-that-be do not even
think of words like "human" and "development" in the same terms as
non-Anthro inspired people. I mean, there's a whole new dictionary needed to
translate Anthro-Speak. "Will" or "imagination" and I suspect they have an
interesting version of "honesty," as well. The word "race" does not seem to
exist even though their leader used it frequently to help his followers with
the concept of "evolution." Etc.
Yes - you are right: Waldorf is Anthroposophy. All they need to do is
explain Anthroposophy. Good luck. They could make it easy and assume that
most parents can take it - dish it out and let us savour the dogma. Some
might like it - others not. Give parents a list of Waldorf teachers required
reading during training. That sort of thing would be very helpful. Stop
sticking inaccurate labels to Steiner's forehead. "Oh, he was an educator,
an artist . . . a tap dancer . . . ."
Will the REAL Rudolf Steiner please stand up? Will the REAL Anthroposophy
please show itself? Will Joel Wendt run for president of AWSNA so everyone
can get a handle on this stuff out in the open - from racism to Anthro Power
Trippers? Give parents the chance to look at the belly of the beast. We can
take it.
Or not.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 16:14:52 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: shameful connections
I’ll try and make this clear once more. Steiner/Waldorf is an “esoteric
spiritual movement”. One could even call it an “esoteric Christian
spiritual movement”.
What it’s not is a “sect”. And combine that word with “occultist” and
the uninformed general public think “Satanic cult”. Which obviously is
the point of Plans calling it an “occultist sect”. Paint as negative and
scary a picture as possible, for maximum effect.
And you Diana wonder why Steiner people would retaliate and label Plans
a “hate group”? This is a case of two wrongs making a wrong, nothing
more. Two groups who have no real interest in understanding the other,
fighting like children in a playground and calling each other hurtful
names.
Honestly, if Plans chooses to play “terminology wars” with the Steiner
movement, what do you expect their reaction to be?
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 17:40:04 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: shameful connections
Hi Baandje,
baandje wrote:
)
) I’ll try and make this clear once more. Steiner/Waldorf is an “esoteric
) spiritual movement”. One could even call it an “esoteric Christian
) spiritual movement”.
)
) What it’s not is a “sect”.
Sect: from WordWeb:
1) A subdivision of a larger religious group
2) A dissenting clique
How does this not EXACTLY describe Anthroposophy with relation to
Theosophy?
Pete
) And combine that word with “occultist” and
) the uninformed general public think “Satanic cult”. Which obviously is
) the point of Plans calling it an “occultist sect”. Paint as negative and
)
) scary a picture as possible, for maximum effect.
)
) And you Diana wonder why Steiner people would retaliate and label Plans
) a “hate group”? This is a case of two wrongs making a wrong, nothing
) more. Two groups who have no real interest in understanding the other,
) fighting like children in a playground and calling each other hurtful
) names.
)
) Honestly, if Plans chooses to play “terminology wars” with the Steiner
) movement, what do you expect their reaction to be?
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 18:10:50 +0000
From: Barnaby McEwan (barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Walden's Favorate Movie
Michael Howell wrote:
)
) His message in "My Australia" seems partly to be that a pragmatic kind
) of tolerance was widespread in rural areas when he was a boy. For
) example, Bolt's closest friend at school was Aboriginal and this was
) neither here nor there.
It's neither here nor there, here. Please help us out. Are you making
some point about Walden's taste in movies? Are you saying he's some kind
of bleeding-heart liberal crybaby because he liked 'Rabbbit Proof
Fence'? What are you trying to say?
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 18:23:30 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: shameful connections
Pete, I look at dictionary definitions of “sect” and what stands out are
words like “religious faith”, “heretical”, “strict qualifications for
membership”, and “specific doctrine/doctrinal leader”.
Anthroposophy is a spiritual path, the purpose of which is individual
inner development. No religious faith needed. Nothing heretical about
it. No strict qualifications needed with regards to the attainment of
higher wisdom. And as much as people here would like to believe
otherwise, no adherence to a doctrine or leader necessary.
Truthfully, the word “sect” pretty much describes every organized
religion I’ve ever come across, LOL. But definitely not Anthroposophy as
I experienced it. People here talk about wanting to get to the real
truth of this or that. Well, labeling Steiner/Waldorf an “occultist
sect” is a long ways from the truth and reality. Maybe vacuous
generalizations of the “occultist sect” variety are the reason for the
“hate group” responses, hum?
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 19:37:41 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: shameful connections
baandje wrote:
)
) Pete, I look at dictionary definitions of “sect” and what stands out are
)
) words like “religious faith”, “heretical”, “strict qualifications for
) membership”, and “specific doctrine/doctrinal leader”.
)
) Anthroposophy is a spiritual path, the purpose of which is individual
) inner development. No religious faith needed.
Other than the faith required to believe what Steiner said was true?
) Nothing heretical about it.
You don't believe Steiner's ideas were heretical? Who believed these
ideas before Steiner?
) No strict qualifications needed with regards to the attainment of
) higher wisdom. And as much as people here would like to believe
) otherwise, no adherence to a doctrine or leader necessary.
Hmmm... say something against Steiner in Anthroposophical circles and
see what happens...(G)
) Truthfully, the word “sect” pretty much describes every organized
) religion I’ve ever come across, LOL. But definitely not Anthroposophy as
)
) I experienced it.
So you don't see Anthroposophy as an offshoot of Theosophy? Who in the
general public doesn't lump Steiner and Blavatsky together?
) People here talk about wanting to get to the real
) truth of this or that. Well, labeling Steiner/Waldorf an “occultist
) sect” is a long ways from the truth and reality.
I'm still waiting to be convinced of this.
) Maybe vacuous
) generalizations of the “occultist sect” variety are the reason for the
) “hate group” responses, hum?
You really think characterizing Anthroposophy as occultist (what was
Steiner if not an occultist) sect (offshoot of Theosophy) is inaccurate?
I guess I don't - but then I don't find the term very offensive. "Hate
group" however, I find very offensive. If somebody called WC an
occultist sect, I'd actually feel kinda special...
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 15:55:09 -0700
From: Walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: shameful connections
I'd like to jump in here because I can almost see both sides of this issue.
Baandje wrote:
)'ll try and make this clear once more. Steiner/Waldorf is an "esoteric
)piritual movement". One could even call it an "esoteric Christian
)piritual movement".
)hat it's not is a "sect". And combine that word with "occultist" and
)he uninformed general public think "Satanic cult". Which obviously is
)he point of Plans calling it an "occultist sect". Paint as negative and
)cary a picture as possible, for maximum effect.
)and you Diana wonder why Steiner people would retaliate and label Plans
)a"hate group"? This is a case of two wrongs making a wrong, nothing
)more. Two groups who have no real interest in understanding the other,
)fighting like children in a playground and calling each other hurtful
)names.
)Honestly, if Plans chooses to play "terminology wars" with the Steiner
)movement, what do you expect their reaction to be?
First, I must say that I agree completely with Pete and Diana's position.
But then . . . I *do* understand where Baandje is coming from.
I think the disagreement is one of semantics. When we use a dictionary
definition, clearly PLANS is correct with Anthroposophy as an "occult sect"
(for reasons already given by Diana and Pete) and by he same criteria the
few Anthros who use the PLANS=hate group bit are incorrect. But, as Baandje
says, the general public might have a different grasp of the term "occult
sect" and while I doubt anyone sees it meaning "satanic cult," there *is* a
negative connotation to the description - even though it is actually
accurate.
Now, is it advantageous for PLANS to use terms like "occultist sect" in
describing Anthroposophy - even if such a term is dictionary accurate? Good
question. If I were on the Board, I would probably argue against it but
that's just me. Perhaps the folks at PLANS are inviting such a discussion by
using such language - inviting the "terminology war" so people will actually
pick up a dictionary, etc. Maybe.
Of course, if I were Anthroposophically inclined I think I would look for an
argument to defend my position or promote the idea
that Anthroposophy is actually a "spiritual movement" rather than lashing
out with nonsense about PLANS = Hate Group. That response only hurts the
Anthro cause, IMO. It is demonstrably incorrect and just plain stupid. Btw,
baandje, I suspect your description of Anthroposophy as an "esoteric
Christian spiritual movement" would be equally as offensive to some
Anthroposophists as is the PLANS label of it being an "occultist sect."
You say to-may-to and I say to-mah-to.
-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 2224
-- Topica Digest --
RE: shameful connections
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: shameful connections
By diana.winters verizon.net
Anger at divided school [Australia]
By dan dandugan.com
occultism again
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Nazis and Waldorf
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Nazis and Waldorf
By pkcompany netzero.net
Re: shameful connections
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
occultism again
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: shameful connections
By barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com
RE: shameful connections
By diana.winters verizon.net
Re: shameful connections
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
A Wikipedia update (was RE: shameful connections)
By diana.winters verizon.net
Koetzsch's Anthroposophy 101
By dan dandugan.com
RE: A Wikipedia update (was RE: shameful connections)
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: A Wikipedia update (was RE: shameful connections)
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: A Wikipedia update (was RE: shameful connections)
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: A Wikipedia update (was RE: shameful connections)
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: A Wikipedia update (was RE: shameful connections)
By diana.winters verizon.net
Re: A Wikipedia update (was RE: shameful connections)
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 11:16:16 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: shameful connections
I said originally:
)It is really great when they point to "extremism" because it ends the
)discussion, as well as making them look like twits. You ask them to quote
)this so-called "extremism" and there won't be a reply to that question.
And baandje deftly proved the point, replying with no further information on
the so-called "extremism," just a jeer and a snigger of pleasure that PLANS
is called a hate group. Retaliation feels good and why shouldn't baandje get
a piece too?
I would advise prospective Waldorf parents, who are told that Waldorf is
wonderful - and by the way anyone who tells you otherwise is a hate group -
to consider whether it makes a lot of sense that a "hate group" has targeted
Waldorf education.
If you're told this, try to find out what PLANS has done or said to make
them a hate group. Try to find the documentation of this, or try at least to
get to the bottom of what the anthroposophists are claiming happened. What
did PLANS say or do that's like a hate group?
It proves oddly difficult. It is a thorny business to even determine *what*
they are alleging, let alone whether it is true. There are a couple of web
sites alleging PLANS is a hate group. They have lots of links, many of them
to each other (since they're all the same people making the charge, quoting
each other and linking to each other).
Examine the links - you'll find "summaries," long bulleted lists, The Ten
Myths of This and That and the Protocol of PLANS, etc. FAQ's that say things
like "Is PLANS a hate group? Click here," and clicking there leads to more
long unreadable discourses yet again "summarizing" incomprehensible material
and containing links within links. Links to various items whose significance
is very difficult to determine, that often lead back to one another, or to
material that doesn't seem even *remotely* related to the question. Some
stuff seems so completely off the subject that it appears to have been
inserted by mistake, or just to make the list longer.
But when you're done - here's the question.
What did PLANS say or do to make them a hate group? What do anthroposophists
*claim* PLANS did?
If you figure it out, please come and report it here.
There's various other ways to research this, of course, such as looking for
news articles that report the "hate" actions of this group, or trying to
find other (non-anthroposophical) sources that have listed PLANS as a hate
group or expressed concern about this group's activities. (Sune Nordwall has
recently claimed that PLANS is in the "early stages" of becoming a hate
group.) There are a number of organizations that concern themselves with
tracking hate groups - try to find out if they've got an eye on PLANS.
Inquire of the editors or organizers of these groups.
Of course, look at PLANS' own web site, perhaps follow the mailing list for
awhile. Google a few people at PLANS, try to figure out if there's any
reason to believe the rumors flying around. Are these people who have lost
custody of their children? Are these people fundamentalists who think any
alternative religion is a "cult," ranting about devil worship? Are these
people who show some evidence of being unstable, bigoted, personally
dangerous individuals? People with police records, or people whose names are
linked with other extremist groups or unsavory activities? Maybe their kids
were trouble makers, the kids were kicked out of a Waldorf school and the
parents are mad about it?
Certainly most prospective Waldorf parents are intelligent enough to
research information about hate groups for themselves, and know how to
recognize retaliation techniques versus actual information that might show
PLANS as a hate group.
The "hate group" charge has proven a really diabolically successful strategy
for them. It was a stroke of genius.
References to PLANS as a hate group have been removed at wikipedia, but I
think critics need to continue to combat it.
Diana
-----Original Message-----
From: baandje [mailto:bangus nb.sympatico.ca]
Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 11:15 AM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: RE: shameful connections
I'll try and make this clear once more. Steiner/Waldorf is an "esoteric
spiritual movement". One could even call it an "esoteric Christian
spiritual movement".
What it's not is a "sect". And combine that word with "occultist" and
the uninformed general public think "Satanic cult". Which obviously is
the point of Plans calling it an "occultist sect". Paint as negative and
scary a picture as possible, for maximum effect.
And you Diana wonder why Steiner people would retaliate and label Plans
a "hate group"? This is a case of two wrongs making a wrong, nothing
more. Two groups who have no real interest in understanding the other,
fighting like children in a playground and calling each other hurtful
names.
Honestly, if Plans chooses to play "terminology wars" with the Steiner
movement, what do you expect their reaction to be?
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 11:17:10 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: shameful connections
I gotta say for once I don't agree, Walden. There aren't two sides to
whether it's okay to call PLANS a hate group. It isn't okay because PLANS
isn't a hate group. I have my opinions on the "occult sect" question, of
course, but that has nothing to do with whether PLANS is a hate group.
It's not okay to call PLANS a hate group, because they aren't one. That's
all there is to this issue.
Diana
-----Original Message-----
From: Walden [mailto:awaldenpond shaw.ca]
Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 5:55 PM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: shameful connections
I'd like to jump in here because I can almost see both sides of this issue.
Baandje wrote:
)'ll try and make this clear once more. Steiner/Waldorf is an "esoteric
)piritual movement". One could even call it an "esoteric Christian
)piritual movement".
)hat it's not is a "sect". And combine that word with "occultist" and
)he uninformed general public think "Satanic cult". Which obviously is
)he point of Plans calling it an "occultist sect". Paint as negative and
)cary a picture as possible, for maximum effect.
)and you Diana wonder why Steiner people would retaliate and label Plans
)a"hate group"? This is a case of two wrongs making a wrong, nothing
)more. Two groups who have no real interest in understanding the other,
)fighting like children in a playground and calling each other hurtful
)names.
)Honestly, if Plans chooses to play "terminology wars" with the Steiner
)movement, what do you expect their reaction to be?
First, I must say that I agree completely with Pete and Diana's position.
But then . . . I *do* understand where Baandje is coming from.
I think the disagreement is one of semantics. When we use a dictionary
definition, clearly PLANS is correct with Anthroposophy as an "occult sect"
(for reasons already given by Diana and Pete) and by he same criteria the
few Anthros who use the PLANS=hate group bit are incorrect. But, as Baandje
says, the general public might have a different grasp of the term "occult
sect" and while I doubt anyone sees it meaning "satanic cult," there *is* a
negative connotation to the description - even though it is actually
accurate.
Now, is it advantageous for PLANS to use terms like "occultist sect" in
describing Anthroposophy - even if such a term is dictionary accurate? Good
question. If I were on the Board, I would probably argue against it but
that's just me. Perhaps the folks at PLANS are inviting such a discussion by
using such language - inviting the "terminology war" so people will actually
pick up a dictionary, etc. Maybe.
Of course, if I were Anthroposophically inclined I think I would look for an
argument to defend my position or promote the idea
that Anthroposophy is actually a "spiritual movement" rather than lashing
out with nonsense about PLANS = Hate Group. That response only hurts the
Anthro cause, IMO. It is demonstrably incorrect and just plain stupid. Btw,
baandje, I suspect your description of Anthroposophy as an "esoteric
Christian spiritual movement" would be equally as offensive to some
Anthroposophists as is the PLANS label of it being an "occultist sect."
You say to-may-to and I say to-mah-to.
-Walden
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2006 09:24:22 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Anger at divided school [Australia]
NEWS.com.au
Anger at divided school
Mary Papadakis
September 03, 2006 12:00am
Article from: Sunday Herald Sun
A STATE school has banned award presentations and
discos because of opposition from an alternative
education stream, parents say.
Footscray City Primary School has been accused of
turning its back on the parents of pupils
studying the normal curriculum in favour of those
enrolled in a controversial Steiner school
program.
Parents said the mainstream curriculum had been
"hijacked" by the Steiner philosophy, which did
not support recorded music or competitiveness.
They said plans for a family film night last year
also had met opposition because of what they said
was politically correct disapproval of electronic
media. About 40 per cent of the school's students
are in the Steiner stream.
Parents called on Education Minister Lynne Kosky
to resolve growing tension between Steiner and
mainstream parents.
Education Services Minister Jacinta Allan is also
considering a request to dissolve the divided
school council.
But principal Winsome Warren said only a "small
core" of parents were opposed to Steiner.
"They've chosen to bring their children to this
school. They're under no compulsion to be at this
school," she said.
Several angry parents have removed children.
Jenny Lans, who has a child at the school, said
alternative streams such as Steiner, where
children used colourful crayons instead of pens
during their early years, studied the Old
Testament and started to read about age seven,
did not belong in secular, independent state
schools.
"The public taxpayer system is supporting this
stream and there's no research to say it's any
good," she said.
A spokeswoman for Ms Kosky said Steiner should be
an adjunct to the curriculum and not dominate.
An Education Department spokeswoman said new
"comprehensive and rigorous criteria" were being
developed for schools planning alternative
streams.
© Herald and Weekly Times. All times AEST (GMT + 10).
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 13:31:02 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: occultism again
Hi Baandje,
it sounds like your argument depends on some sort of distinction between
'esoteric' and 'occult'. You like the former term and dislike the latter.
Moreover, you seem to impute this same distinction, and this same
preference, to the "general public". Can you explain why you think either of
these views is held by people other than you, much less by the public as a
whole? There have been, as it happens, several scholarly attempts to
establish a distinction between the two terms, but aside from the fact that
none of them has been widely adopted even among scholars, the proposed
distinctions do not involve any preference for one term over the other. What
is your own distinction based on? Regards,
Peter S.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 13:29:56 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Nazis and Waldorf
Hi Pete,
)This is of special interest to me because Harlan, on Wikipedia, claims
)that no legitimate historian has ever connected Steiner to racism or, by
)extension (of his comment), Nazism.
I'm sorry I haven't been able to follow the wikipedia exchanges. The notion
that historians have not "connected Steiner to racism" is mistaken.
Historian Helmut Zander, for example, has written two very good articles on
that topic. I'll give you the citations below. Harlan reads German.
)It would be good to have references
)that I can cite to demonstrate this to be false.
Most of the literature is unsurprisingly in German. The two best treatments
are:
Helmut Zander, “Der Weltgeist auf dem Weg durch die Rassengeschichte.
Anthroposophische Rassentheorie” in Stefanie von Schnurbein and Justus
Ulbricht, eds., Völkische Religion und Krisen der Moderne (Würzburg:
Königshausen & Neumann, 2001)
Helmut Zander, “Sozialdarwinistische Rassentheorien aus dem okkulten
Untergrund des Kaiserreichs” in Uwe Puschner, Walter Schmitz, and Justus
Ulbricht, eds., Handbuch zur ‘Völkischen Bewegung’ 1871-1918 (Munich: Saur,
1996)
There is also a very good earlier study by a theologian, not a historian:
Georg Schmid, “Die Anthroposophie und die Rassenlehre Rudolf Steiners
zwischen Universalismus, Eurozentrik und Germanophilie” in Joachim Müller,
ed., Anthroposophie und Christentum: Eine kritisch-konstruktive
Auseinandersetzung (Freiburg: Paulus, 1995)
As for the connections between anthroposophy and Nazism, historians have
examined these as well. I'll give one particularly even-handed example:
Wolfgang Jacobeit and Christoph Kopke, Die biologisch-dynamische
Wirtschaftsweise im KZ (Berlin: Trafo, 1999), a study of the network of
biodynamic plantations established by the SS at several concentration camps.
I think the subject of greater interest, however, is probably Waldorf
schools in the Nazi era. Harlan has already read the best historical article
on that topic, by Achim Leschinsky. I am about to leave for a year of
research in Germany and don't yet know what my internet access will be like,
but when I have an opportunity I will try to post a brief summary on this
theme, based on the variety of anthroposophical sources I have recommended
several times lately.
Greetings to all,
Peter S.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2006 19:28:47 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Nazis and Waldorf
Thank you Peter. I'll make Mr. Gilbert aware of these.
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
)
)
) Hi Pete,
)
)
) )This is of special interest to me because Harlan, on Wikipedia, claims
) )that no legitimate historian has ever connected Steiner to racism or, by
) )extension (of his comment), Nazism.
)
)
) I'm sorry I haven't been able to follow the wikipedia exchanges. The
) notion
) that historians have not "connected Steiner to racism" is mistaken.
) Historian Helmut Zander, for example, has written two very good articles
) on
) that topic. I'll give you the citations below. Harlan reads German.
)
)
) )It would be good to have references
) )that I can cite to demonstrate this to be false.
)
)
) Most of the literature is unsurprisingly in German. The two best
) treatments
) are:
)
)
) Helmut Zander, “Der Weltgeist auf dem Weg durch die Rassengeschichte.
) Anthroposophische Rassentheorie” in Stefanie von Schnurbein and Justus
) Ulbricht, eds., Völkische Religion und Krisen der Moderne (Würzburg:
) Königshausen & Neumann, 2001)
)
) Helmut Zander, “Sozialdarwinistische Rassentheorien aus dem okkulten
) Untergrund des Kaiserreichs” in Uwe Puschner, Walter Schmitz, and Justus
)
) Ulbricht, eds., Handbuch zur ‘Völkischen Bewegung’ 1871-1918 (Munich:
) Saur,
) 1996)
)
)
) There is also a very good earlier study by a theologian, not a
) historian:
) Georg Schmid, “Die Anthroposophie und die Rassenlehre Rudolf Steiners
) zwischen Universalismus, Eurozentrik und Germanophilie” in Joachim
) Müller,
) ed., Anthroposophie und Christentum: Eine kritisch-konstruktive
) Auseinandersetzung (Freiburg: Paulus, 1995)
)
)
) As for the connections between anthroposophy and Nazism, historians have
)
) examined these as well. I'll give one particularly even-handed example:
) Wolfgang Jacobeit and Christoph Kopke, Die biologisch-dynamische
) Wirtschaftsweise im KZ (Berlin: Trafo, 1999), a study of the network of
) biodynamic plantations established by the SS at several concentration
) camps.
)
)
) I think the subject of greater interest, however, is probably Waldorf
) schools in the Nazi era. Harlan has already read the best historical
) article
) on that topic, by Achim Leschinsky. I am about to leave for a year of
) research in Germany and don't yet know what my internet access will be
) like,
) but when I have an opportunity I will try to post a brief summary on
) this
) theme, based on the variety of anthroposophical sources I have
) recommended
) several times lately.
)
) Greetings to all,
)
)
) Peter S.
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 14:58:37 -0700
From: Walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: shameful connections
Diana wrote:
) I gotta say for once I don't agree, Walden.
Yes you do (g)
)There aren't two sides to whether it's okay to call PLANS a hate group. It
)isn't okay because PLANS
) isn't a hate group.
Just to be clear, I did not state or come close to inferring anything of the
sort. In fact, I wrote the opposite:
"[. . .] the few Anthros who use the PLANS=hate group bit are incorrect."
And:
"It is demonstrably incorrect and just plain stupid."
Perhaps you confused my post with something else.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 17:01:25 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: occultism again
Hi Baandje,
it sounds like your argument depends on some sort of distinction between
'esoteric' and 'occult'. You like the former term and dislike the latter.
Moreover, you seem to impute this same distinction, and this same
preference, to the "general public". Can you explain why you think either of
these views is held by people other than you, much less by the public as a
whole? There have been, as it happens, several scholarly attempts to
establish a distinction between the two terms, but aside from the fact that
none of them has been widely adopted even among scholars, the proposed
distinctions do not involve any preference for one term over the other. What
is your own distinction based on? Regards,
Peter S.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2006 22:52:30 +0000
From: Barnaby McEwan (barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: shameful connections
Diana Winters wrote:
) References to PLANS as a hate group have been removed at wikipedia...
I haven't been following what's going on over there: I'm impressed. It's
just as well that not everyone's as cynical and lazy as me!
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 19:19:24 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: shameful connections
I said:
)There aren't two sides to whether it's okay to call PLANS a hate group. It
)isn't okay because PLANS
)isn't a hate group.
Walden:
)Just to be clear, I did not state or come close to inferring anything of
)the sort. In fact, I wrote the opposite:
)Perhaps you confused my post with something else.
No, and I know you don't think PLANS should be called a hate group. I just
think that, while the terminology debate over "occult" vs. "esoteric" is
interesting, on-topic etc. (tho it seems to me we had this debate awfully
recently, or maybe it's all a blur to me now) . . . it is also a shame for
us to accept the way baandje framed this as legitimate, and debate on the
terms he proposed.
His terms were very explicitly that it is all right with him for PLANS to be
called a hate group (not that he necessarily even agrees, just that it's to
be expected, "What goes around comes around" he said quite clearly, and
he'll be damned if he's not entitled to get a laugh out of it too, and share
the enjoyment at seeing PLANS squirm; arguably an even *worse* position,
ethically, than if he actually agreed with the hate group charge). It is all
right, he tells us, because PLANS calls anthroposophy an "occultist sect"!
So then when we all start debating "occult" vs. "esoteric" once again, it's
like implicitly agreeing that we've got to show that PLANS is correct in
their terminology, *or else* accept the hate group label.
I know you don't think that. It's just that the discussion can easily be
swayed that way - defenders of the faith sort of win points rhetorically for
controlling the discussion in this way. (You may recall a friend elsewhere
suggesting this sort of thing to a few us just recently. It's an example of
what he's talking about. An example of, You can't win arguing with
fanatics.)
I'm probably coming across like I'm just trying to control the discussion
myself. I've been in dog-with-bone mode on the hate group thing - gnawing on
it, waking and sleeping, at the beach and at the farm . . . I've been
thinking over the various reasons I see to combat this hate-group thing more
vigorously than before, versus the reasons to just ignore it - one good
reason being it turns me into a shrieking harpy pretty fast. Sorry!
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 17:42:14 -0700
From: Walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: shameful connections
Baandje wrote:
)Well, labeling Steiner/Waldorf an "occultist
)sect" is a long ways from the truth and reality.
)Maybe vacuous generalizations of the "occultist sect" variety are the
)reason for the
)"hate group" responses, hum?
Speaking of truth and reality and generalizations - did PLANS ever label
"Waldorf" an "occultist sect?"
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 19:41:53 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: A Wikipedia update (was RE: shameful connections)
Barnaby (regarding removal of "hate group" garbage at wikipedia):
)I haven't been following what's going on over there: I'm impressed. It's
)just as well that not everyone's as cynical and lazy as me!
A brief wikipedia update. I haven't been there this weekend other than to
skim through quickly seeing what others have done.
Two weekends ago, or was it three, I spent the ENTIRE weekend on the project
of getting the hate group rhetoric removed. Y'all know me here, so you know
what I did. I ranted and raved, and then I ranted and raved. I ranted and
raved systematically, every 2 hours or oftener (kind of like feeding a baby;
is it really 2 hours between feedings, if you time it from the start, and
the baby nurses for an hour and forty-five minutes?), anyway I did this in
reply to every single *$%^## piece of smoke Sune Nordall could blow. I
practically slept at the computer.
I was *very* pleased when he basically cried uncle.
And he's on notice, I'll do it again if I have to. I told him he had several
choices: Remove the hate group nonsense. Re-state the comment to say
"Anthroposophists describe PLANS as a hate group" rather than "Some people
describe PLANS as a hate group" knowing that, obviously, once the comment is
sourced, it is no use to them; it is then merely a trick exposed, and makes
them look bad. If neither alternative was acceptable, I promised him I would
keep the issue VERY visible, and expose his tactics, both there and
elsewhere. I promised him, for instance, that every time the comparison of
PLANS to "Jewwatch" appeared, I would post Steiner's comments on the Jews
again, so everyone could see why PLANS needed to be discredited via this
sort of juvenile "Bounces off of you and sticks to me" tactic.
(This was when he accused me of "threatening" him.)
But not long after that, all hate group references were removed, and haven't
been replaced.
Having tooted my own horn now - and I REALLY was thrilled (boy, it doesn't
take much, does it) - but it's really Pete who deserves a big round of
applause. I restricted myself to insisting, till I was literally blue in the
face, that this one slanderous remark needed to be removed, and not
reverted. I can't tell you how many hours making this one change stick took.
Pete, on the other hand, is working, apparently round the clock, on about a
dozen articles at the same time, literally rewriting them, and he has the
patience and stamina to deal with these people on all these minutiae - which
I don't, not for this long, without sanity going out the window.
There are 18, yes I said EIGHTEEN articles on anthroposophy on wikipedia,
simply through the "Spirituality Portal." That excludes numerous other
anthroposophy-related articles that don't appear on that list. There are
individual articles on notable anthroposophists, everyone from Marie von
Who's-it to Bernard Lievegood to Ita Wegman. There is an article on the
Goetheanum (described as widely acknowledged as a masterpiece of 20th
century architecture - a view sourced to the Anthroposophical Society, of
course). There are several articles on biodynamics. It goes on. Camphill,
threefolding, eurythmy. It is a real problem. Anthroposophic fanatics are
VERY busy over there.
Bravo to Pete! He sure could use some help. (Hint hint.) I'm coming back,
but needed a day or two off. (I've already been chastised by a moderator for
referring to one of Sune's bogus "summaries" of the "evidence" that PLANS is
a hate group as "sleaze.")
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2006 18:03:05 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Koetzsch's Anthroposophy 101
The current issue of *Renewal: A Journal for Waldorf Education*
[Spring/Summer 2006, Vol. 15 No. 1] includes an extraordinary
editorial column by Ronald Koetzsch, PhD. He tells about his stand-up
comedy routine "The Beeswax Conspiracy" that he performs at Waldorf
schools. His show includes his "five-minute introduction to the basic
ideas of Spiritual Science" that he calls "Anthroposophy 101." He
publishes it for the first time in the column.
Anthroposophy is notoriously difficult to pin down. You won't find a
creed anywhere. Everything is in 40 books and 6000 lectures by Rudolf
Steiner, but it isn't organized, and in any given lecture Steiner
jumps around from topic to topic. Anthroposophists are rarely able to
give a short or even truthful answer to a direct question about their
world-view.
Koetzsch has done the public a great service by summarizing the
doctrine succinctly. With the exception of one contradictory sentence
(see below), this summary should be given to every parent who
expresses interest in Waldorf.
*** quoted text follows
1) Behind every material phenomenon and process, even those that
appear inert and lifeless, is a spiritual reality with consciousness,
thought, and intention. We live in a conscious universe. This
spiritual dimension of reality is primary and creative and the
material manifestation derivative. Spirit survives the transformation
and disappearance of the material. This is a counterpoise to the
materialistic view of the primacy of matter.
2) The invisible, spiritual world comprises a multiplicity of beings.
These include: the elemental spirits that ensoul the phenomena and
processes of the natural world; the group souls of the minerals,
plants, and animals; the souls of the so-called dead--human beings
who are in the life between death and rebirth; the folk souls of
different ethnic and national groups; and the nine celestial
heirarchies--from the angels and archangels up through the cherubim
and seraphim. The hierarchies are manifestations of attributes of a
single creator God, but are also independent beings.
3) The human being is a creation of the celestial hierarchies. With
conscious intent and out of self-sacrificial love, they have created
the human being and the world as a manifestation of cosmic wisdom.
The human being is the crowning jewel of the creation. The entire
universe has been brought into being so that the human being might
come into existence. We are not the chance product of an impersonal,
mechanistic evolutionary process.
4) The human being, in fact the entire cosmos, is a work in progress.
The aeons-long, divinely guided process of creation and development
is still going on and will go on indefinitely into the future.
5) Each individual human being is going through his own unique
history and spiritual development. This individual destiny is
realized over multiple earthly incarnations. Each human individuality
has an undying spiritual essence that incarnates or takes on human
form in different cultures at successive points in history. One's
circumstances and personality in one life are largely determined by
one's karma, the carried-over effects of one's decisions and deeds in
former lives.
6) Part of our individual and collective human task at this stage in
history is to rediscover, as something intimately experienced and
known, the spiritual dimension of reality. Every human being has the
potential, though conscious striving and self-discipline, to directly
perceive and experience the spiritual world.
7) Another part of our task is to become able to act in freedom and
out of selfless love for other beings.
8) Human culture needs to be transformed according to a spiritual
vision of the human being. Every domain of human thought and
activity--education, medicine, agriculture, social, economic and
political life, art, architecture, religious life, care for the
elderly, and so on--must be renewed on the basis of a spiritual
understanding of the human being. Only if we do this will the
development of humanity and of the Earth continue in a positive way.
9) Among the myriad spiritual beings, there are certain powerful
entities who oppose the divine plan. In other words, there are "bad
guys" out there as well as "good guys," and the former are very
skilled at drawing people away from the path of development intended
by the higher spiritual beings, away from the realization of freedom
and love. These adversarial powers are necessary, however, because
without evil there would be no choice for human beings and hence no
true freedom.
10) The incarnation of the Christ, a divine being intimately
connected to the Father God, in the human being, Jesus of Nazareth,
in Palestine 2000 years ago, was a unique and pivotal event in human
history. At a point when the adversarial forces threatened to
overwhelm humanity, the suffering, death on the cross, resurrection,
and ascension of Christ Jesus made possible the continued spiritual
development of the human being and of the Earth. Despite this
important Christological element, however, Anthroposophy is not a
church, a religious sect or denomination, and is not connected to
any. The resurrection forces of the cosmic Christ have been and are
still today available to all human beings, regardless of culture,
religion, nationality, or ethnic group.
*** end quoted text
Koetzsch comments that these ideas are "part of the foundation of
Waldorf Education." "One need not subscribe to this view, but
understanding it will perhaps help one comprehend Waldorf Education
within its larger context."
The ringer sentence is in No. 10: "Despite this important
Christological element, however, Anthroposophy is not a church, a
religious sect or denomination, and is not connected to any." After
the refreshingly clear explanation of the beliefs of a group that
couldn't, after reading the above, be categorized as anything other
than a religious sect, why was it necessary to make a flat-out
contradiction? It's unfortunate that Koetzsch felt he had to repeat
the traditional Anthroposophical denial.
Koetzsch is close to joining Eugene Schwartz in a pantheon of heroes
of the coming-out of Anthroposophy in the 21st century.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 02:55:38 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: A Wikipedia update (was RE: shameful connections)
Diana: “There are 18, yes I said EIGHTEEN articles on anthroposophy on
wikipedia, simply through the “Spirituality Portal.” That excludes
numerous other anthroposophy-related articles that don’t appear on that
list.
“There are several articles on biodynamics. It goes on. Camphill,
threefolding, eurythmy. It is a real problem. Anthroposophic fanatics
are VERY busy over there.”
*
So you’re saying it’s a “real problem” that people who are interested in
anthroposophy are writing anthroposophical articles? How does that
qualify as a problem? Because you don’t approve, or because it upsets
you to an unreasonable degree? Could one call that “fanatical” on your
part, maybe?
Anthroposophy is taught in Waldorf schools indirectly via the
curriculum. That teachers do not disclose this, is the one and only
actual problem with Anthroposophy, Steiner or Waldorf, regardless of how
much people here – myself included – talk and gab and gossip about
racism and Nazis and a hundred other hateful, hurtful topics.
The simple truth is Anthroposophists and Waldorf teachers are entirely
free to think, teach, speak, or write whatever they wish. And there’s no
point getting all worked up about it, because there’s nothing you can do
about it.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 23:36:52 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: A Wikipedia update (was RE: shameful connections)
I wrote:
"There are 18, yes I said EIGHTEEN articles on anthroposophy on
wikipedia, simply through the "Spirituality Portal." That excludes
numerous other anthroposophy-related articles that don't appear on that
list.
"There are several articles on biodynamics. It goes on. Camphill,
threefolding, eurythmy. It is a real problem. Anthroposophic fanatics
are VERY busy over there."
baandje:
"So you're saying it's a "real problem" that people who are interested in
anthroposophy are writing anthroposophical articles?"
I'm saying there is a problem with a lot of the articles. They're heavily
biased.
"How does that qualify as a problem? Because you don't approve, or because
it upsets you to an unreasonable degree? Could one call that "fanatical" on
your part, maybe?"
I describe problems as I see them, as do you. It's a problem, in my view,
because wikipedia can be edited by anyone. This can be both good and bad;
for truthful articles about anthroposophy, it's tending to be bad.
Anthroposophists are using wikipedia as a vehicle for propaganda. It's free
advertising. Critics can edit, and critics can argue, and point out biased
sources and editorial sleight of hand, but unless we want to give up our day
jobs and spend 24 hours a day babysitting the articles, a lot of really
biased material is available for public consumption. Large parts of what I
have read are downright ludicrous. (Actually, I think you'd agree if you
checked it out.) One can only hope that people are generally aware of what
wikipedia is, and that because anyone can edit it regardless of whether they
have any idea what they are talking about, it is unreliable, especially on
controversial topics. The writing by anthroposophists is so full of howlers
(like the Goetheanum as "masterpiece of 20th century architecture") that
likely the bias is obvious. But probably not to everybody, not to the very
gullible.
I don't think that describing the articles at wikipedia as a "problem" would
qualify to anyone as a "fanatical" view, no.
But your comments are helpful. I enjoy collecting evidence of what Waldorf
supporters see as my "fanaticism." Add to list: calling biased articles on
wikipedia a "problem." I am such a loose cannon!
"Anthroposophy is taught in Waldorf schools indirectly via the
curriculum. That teachers do not disclose this, is the one and only
actual problem with Anthroposophy,"
Oh, is that a problem? Why do you say it's a problem? Why baandje, what a
fanatic you are.
You owe PLANS - and others smeared by association - an apology for your
reckless, offensive, dishonest, and distasteful remarks - your support of
criminal accusations against PLANS that have no basis. You should be
ashamed.
"What goes around comes around" - that's despicable.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 03:50:51 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: A Wikipedia update (was RE: shameful connections)
baandje wrote:
)
)The simple truth is Anthroposophists and Waldorf teachers are entirely
)free to think, teach, speak, or write whatever they wish. And there’s no
)point getting all worked up about it, because there’s nothing you can do
)about it.
Actually there is something you can do about it. Everyone else is free to
think, speak and write whatever they wish. Some of that can even be
criticism of what Anthroposophists write.
See you, Peter
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 00:20:42 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: A Wikipedia update (was RE: shameful connections)
I wrote:
"There are 18, yes I said EIGHTEEN articles on anthroposophy on
wikipedia, simply through the "Spirituality Portal." That excludes
numerous other anthroposophy-related articles that don't appear on that
list.
"There are several articles on biodynamics. It goes on. Camphill,
threefolding, eurythmy. It is a real problem. Anthroposophic fanatics
are VERY busy over there."
Apparently lots of cults are using wikipedia this way.
Check out the scientology material on wikipedia sometime. I just typed in a
few of the terms I am familiar with from scientology, and found a dozen
articles. There are probably dozens more.
Try it; type scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, dianetics, auditing, engram,
thetans, space opera, E-meter, reactive mind, Purification Rundown, ARC
Triangle - all have their own articles. "Scientology Beliefs and Practices"
is a separate article from "Scientology." A great strategy huh? I'd worry
I'm giving anthroposophists ideas, but obviously they're way ahead of me. I
don't know a lot of names from scientology, excepting Tom Cruise and Katie
Holmes (oh - they DID have a silent birth, and "silent birth" also has its
own article). If you know more names from scientology you can probably find
lots more articles that way.
(If you really want an eye-popper, type "Xenu.")
And if you want to see a real brawl, some of the Discussion pages for these
articles make anthroposophical back-and-forth with critics look like a tea
party. Administrators are crawling all over them, some are locked, legal
threats etc.
Christian Science makes an interesting contrast. There is controversy, but
much more restrained. (Christian Scientists never raise their voices.)
Polite comments such as "The addition of a link to an external web site
maintained by former Christian Scientists would seem to add some balance to
this article. The link, however, has been repeatedly deleted." Sound
familiar Pete?
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 00:28:50 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: A Wikipedia update (was RE: shameful connections)
The whole discussion was actually about karma, you know. I mean, he said it
clearly: "What goes around comes around." The whole "nothing you can do
about it" fatalism comes out of that, and baandje has expresed this before,
calling it "spirituality."
It was said lightly and as a joke, but it's not a joke. He means - and this
is obvious as he blew off my requests for evidence or substantation of the
"hate group" charge - just totally ignored that - he means that whether
anthroposophists call PLANS a hate group or not has *nothing to do with*
whether the charge is true. And that's *okay*, right, and good, because
that's how the universe works, or specifically, howe karma works.
So they might be telling lies about PLANS, yeah sure so what? We might need
to look further than the present lifetimes of those involved, in other
words, to find out what they did to deserve being slandered and lied about
and falsely accused. Karma can be used to treat any request for truth or
justice this way.
Diana
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Farrell [mailto:feetapparel hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 10:51 PM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: RE: A Wikipedia update (was RE: shameful connections)
baandje wrote:
)
)The simple truth is Anthroposophists and Waldorf teachers are entirely
)free to think, teach, speak, or write whatever they wish. And there's no
)point getting all worked up about it, because there's nothing you can do
)about it.
Actually there is something you can do about it. Everyone else is free to
think, speak and write whatever they wish. Some of that can even be
criticism of what Anthroposophists write.
See you, Peter
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 21:37:43 -0700
From: Walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: A Wikipedia update (was RE: shameful connections)
)So you're saying it's a "real problem" that people who are interested in
)anthroposophy are writing anthroposophical articles? How does that
)qualify as a problem? Because you don't approve, or because it upsets
)you to an unreasonable degree? Could one call that "fanatical" on your
)part, maybe?
Are you serious here baandje? I wonder if you're looking too hard for a
disagreement? You know enough about Anthroposophy and people involved in
Anthroposophy to know what Diana is talking about here. You've commented on
the "problem" many times. How about a group of Scientologists writing a
bunch of articles about Scientology for an encyclopaedia? You want your kids
to use *that* as a legitimate source for a school project? No room for
discussion or concern? If you raise an eyebrow and mention your concerns you
are labelled "fanatical." This makes no sense.
If the Anthro articles in question *were* balanced and relatively objective,
perhaps a case could be made for accepting that those people with knowledge
of the subject were simply sharing that knowledge with the public - not a
bad idea. But a simple reading of the articles clearly demonstrates the
reason for the "real problem."
)Anthroposophy is taught in Waldorf schools indirectly via the
)curriculum. That teachers do not disclose this, is the one and only
)actual problem with Anthroposophy, Steiner or Waldorf,
I very much disagree on a few points there. But for now, a movement of
people with dishonesty issues (to which you have just alluded) and you
suddenly accept their (demonstrably problematic) articles at wikipedia?
Someone says this is a problem and you see her as fanatical . . . helllooo?
)regardless of how much people here - myself included - talk and gab and
)gossip about
)racism and Nazis and a hundred other hateful, hurtful topics.
What?! Better not look at the history of a movement in case someone thinks
such a look is hateful and hurtful (whatever that means)? The Catholic
Church, for example, seems just fine - someone once said that history is
written by the winners. Shall we just forget about looking at something that
might not be comfy/cozy to some people? Gosh, it was hurtful and hateful to
talk about the captain's use of alcohol as he tipped the Exxon Valdez. Poor
guy . . . .
)The simple truth is Anthroposophists and Waldorf teachers are entirely
)free to think, teach, speak, or write whatever they wish. And there's no
)point getting all worked up about it, because there's nothing you can do
)about it.
But what if *their* thinking, teaching, speaking and writing hurts people?
The appropriate social response is, IMO, to *get* worked up and *do*
something about it. Your position seems confusing to me.
-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 2225
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Koetzsch's Anthroposophy 101
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: A Wikipedia update (was RE: shameful connections)
By pkcompany netzero.net
Re: Koetzsch's Anthroposophy 101
By campaign ipwebdev.com
Re: Koetzsch's Anthroposophy 101
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: Koetzsch's Anthroposophy 101
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 12:47:21 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: Koetzsch's Anthroposophy 101
Dan: “Anthroposophists are rarely able to give a short or even truthful
answer to a direct question about their world-view.”
*
This is carrying the anthropop loathing too far. People usually give
truthful answers to direct questions when privately asked about their
world view. The problem is teachers don’t give parents honest answers
regarding the anthroposophy in the curriculum. And part of that is they
don’t see it that way in the first place. Ignorance in other words, but
not necessarily untruthfulness.
---
Dan: “After the refreshingly clear explanation of the beliefs of a group
that couldn’t, after reading the above, be categorized as anything other
than a religious sect, why was it necessary to make a flat-out
contradiction? It’s unfortunate that Koetzsch felt he had to repeat the
traditional Anthroposophical denial.”
*
“Flat out”? No, flat out in your mind only. It’s all a matter of
perspective. As I stated already, the Church is more a “sect” than
Anthroposophy, LOL. And of course others here will argue back and forth
about all this while tossing in this or that comment about Nazis and
what have you. Anything to avoid the reality and fact there are many
ways of looking at all this – many ways to interpret, use and abuse the
meaning of specific words.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 14:57:17 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: A Wikipedia update (was RE: shameful connections)
Yes, it sounds familiar. This is the Anthro tactic at Wikipedia. I
posted, last night, what I consider to be irrefutable proof that Steiner
told teachers exactly how to teach Anthroposophy in schools. It is on
the Waldorf project page if anyone is interested. I'll check in today
to see how it has been defended by the Anthros. For people interested,
it's basically several pages of instruction by Steiner in "Faculty
Meetings with Rudolf Steiner" (pp 80 - 86) that tells teachers how to
introduce Anthroposophy as religion to children and that they should
doing doing this. Defenders say - "but Steiner himself said
Anthroposophy shouldn't be taught in schools" - and my answer is - "yes,
of course, he followed his own instructions". Let's see what they do
with this one.
Pete
Diana Winters wrote:
)
)
) I wrote:
)
)
)
) "There are 18, yes I said EIGHTEEN articles on anthroposophy on
) wikipedia, simply through the "Spirituality Portal." That excludes
) numerous other anthroposophy-related articles that don't appear on that
) list.
)
) "There are several articles on biodynamics. It goes on. Camphill,
) threefolding, eurythmy. It is a real problem. Anthroposophic fanatics
) are VERY busy over there."
)
) Apparently lots of cults are using wikipedia this way.
)
) Check out the scientology material on wikipedia sometime. I just typed
) in a
) few of the terms I am familiar with from scientology, and found a dozen
) articles. There are probably dozens more.
)
) Try it; type scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, dianetics, auditing, engram,
) thetans, space opera, E-meter, reactive mind, Purification Rundown, ARC
) Triangle - all have their own articles. "Scientology Beliefs and
) Practices"
) is a separate article from "Scientology." A great strategy huh? I'd
) worry
) I'm giving anthroposophists ideas, but obviously they're way ahead of
) me. I
) don't know a lot of names from scientology, excepting Tom Cruise and
) Katie
) Holmes (oh - they DID have a silent birth, and "silent birth" also has
) its
) own article). If you know more names from scientology you can probably
) find
) lots more articles that way.
)
) (If you really want an eye-popper, type "Xenu.")
)
) And if you want to see a real brawl, some of the Discussion pages for
) these
) articles make anthroposophical back-and-forth with critics look like a
) tea
) party. Administrators are crawling all over them, some are locked, legal
) threats etc.
)
) Christian Science makes an interesting contrast. There is controversy,
) but
) much more restrained. (Christian Scientists never raise their voices.)
) Polite comments such as "The addition of a link to an external web site
) maintained by former Christian Scientists would seem to add some balance
) to
) this article. The link, however, has been repeatedly deleted." Sound
) familiar Pete?
)
)
) Diana
)
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 09:08:31 -0700
From: Joel Wendt (campaign ipwebdev.com)
Subject: Re: Koetzsch's Anthroposophy 101
Dan Dugan wrote:
(snip)
)
) 10) The incarnation of the Christ, a divine being intimately connected
) to the Father God, in the human being, Jesus of Nazareth, in Palestine
) 2000 years ago, was a unique and pivotal event in human history. At a
) point when the adversarial forces threatened to overwhelm humanity,
) the suffering, death on the cross, resurrection, and ascension of
) Christ Jesus made possible the continued spiritual development of the
) human being and of the Earth. Despite this important Christological
) element, however, Anthroposophy is not a church, a religious sect or
) denomination, and is not connected to any. The resurrection forces of
) the cosmic Christ have been and are still today available to all human
) beings, regardless of culture, religion, nationality, or ethnic group.
)
) *** end quoted text
)
) Koetzsch comments that these ideas are "part of the foundation of
) Waldorf Education." "One need not subscribe to this view, but
) understanding it will perhaps help one comprehend Waldorf Education
) within its larger context."
)
) The ringer sentence is in No. 10: "Despite this important
) Christological element, however, Anthroposophy is not a church, a
) religious sect or denomination, and is not connected to any." After
) the refreshingly clear explanation of the beliefs of a group that
) couldn't, after reading the above, be categorized as anything other
) than a religious sect, why was it necessary to make a flat-out
) contradiction? It's unfortunate that Koetzsch felt he had to repeat
) the traditional Anthroposophical denial.
)
) Koetzsch is close to joining Eugene Schwartz in a pantheon of heroes
) of the coming-out of Anthroposophy in the 21st century.
What you like to overlook Dan, is number 6), quoted next below, which is
true, and which then undercuts all your assertions to the contrary. It
is here, of course, where the discourse* concerning "Steiner's racial
theories" must begin if it is to be at all intelligent.
[*see discussion of discourse and debate below]
"6) Part of our individual and collective human task at this stage in
history is to rediscover, as something intimately experienced and known,
the spiritual dimension of reality. Every human being has the potential,
though conscious striving and self-discipline, to directly perceive and
experience the spiritual world."
Previously on this list, I have laboriously explained again and again,
that it is possible (and often probable) that many in Waldorf and the
Anthroposophical Movement take this world view described above and put
it in their souls in the place where religion often resides. Many
others do not. Most of those within the Anthroposophical Movement are a
mix, a very human mix, of belief and knowledge.
Steiner did not do this (as do many of his students), and for this
reason was able to put Anthroposophy forward as something quite distinct
from Religion.
What is sad in this regard, and with respect to this list, is that few
here will admit that their relationship to Scientific Materialism and/or
Secular Humanism is the same. That is to say that many in Western
culture, several of whom write to this list, take the scientific
paradigm and place that in their souls in the place religion used to
occupy, such that they too have a mixture of belief and knowledge.
This mixture of belief and knowledge is ever present as well in public
schools. But since so many in Western culture are in denial of the fact
that scientific theory is itself a belief system, it is a common
hypocrisy to hold that which speaks of the spirit, or of religion, as
somehow less than the religion of Scientism.
This is nothing new historically, for there is always in any culture
(modern Western culture included) a paradigm or world view that
considers itself superior to all others. In point of fact, the only
real difference today is that some many such paradigms seem to compete
with each other. If we look deeper, we will find that it is precisely
those questions which science avoids trying to answer (or so says Peter
F.) which makes for the trouble, for the deepest yearnings of the soul
are for meaning, and Scientific Materialism has pretty much driven the
questions of human beings regarding these deeper meanings out of the
picture.
For example, there are people today (such as HBO's Bill Maher) who
denigrate anyone who finds problems with what should technically be
known as neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. Maher is an excellent
example of someone who has never really carefully thought about the
problem and who is unfamiliar with the science, yet holds to the belief
that human beings are descended from apes, and that the world is the
outcome of blind chance.
Many scientists play this game as if no one actually questions their
views - that is they will appear and tell the story that there is no
discussion going on anywhere that conflicts with their evolutionary
views, except for some Christian fringe. So someone like Maher, a true
believer in evolution, will pronounce that no one with a rational mind
could disagree with the theory.
For any member of the list with an open mind, here is a good place to
start:
http://www.natureinstitute.org/txt/rb/dogma/dogmadoubt.htm and this
website as well:
http://www.difficulttruths.com/
Now before those who are waiting to pounce on the above, and insert all
manner of why Wendt is wrong statements into the above do so, they
should know I could care less. During the time I have been silent for
the last several days, I've been reviewing what goes on here and come to
the conclusion that this is actually not a place of discourse, although
it does give a semblance of being a place of debate.
In discourse there would be respect for the different points of view,
and a desire to exchange views in such a way that one or another member
of the discourse might change their mind and/or learn something new. In
a debate, the sides are already taken, and one simply presents one's
reasons for one's view, and then the other debaters offer their reasons.
Yet, the reason I say there is here only a semblance of debate, is
because it is closer to the truth to see that much of what is said
amounts to claims the other guy (or girl) doesn't know what they are
talking about. That is not debate, it is simply an assertion, which if
repeted with enough frequency and intensity amounts to little more than
an word fight in a school yard on the order of: yes you are, no I'm not,
yes you are, no I'm not - etc. etc. etc.
Such activity is pointless, although I have observed here, especially
after I seemed to quit the field of battle, several self congradulatory
interchanges, as if the claims that Wendt is wrong become more true or
more real if the collective mind here comes to agreement that this is so.
The truth, however, is never a matter of popularity or vote. For
example, that "leading scientists agree", a statement often seen in the
press, means nothing more than the idea that the priests of scientism
have a shared set of dogmas, and do not properly practice that aspect of
the discipline connected to doubt. Would that even a bit of such a mode
of operation penetrate into this aethereal space - what a breath of
fresh air would arise