return to WCA Archive Index
There are 2 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Field trip to Swedish waldorf school: Photos!
From: Zooey
1b. Re: Field trip to Swedish waldorf school: Photos!
From: Margaret Sachs
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Field trip to Swedish waldorf school: Photos!
Posted by: "Zooey" skottehund yahoo.com zooey_stockholm
Date: Sat Dec 1, 2007 10:09 am ((PST))
Hi,
One week ago i visited the annual big event of my former school, where I wasted my life from age 3,5 to 12,5.
This is just a start - I will post more photos during the upcoming weeks. (Takes some time to go through them!)
This is the link:
http://zooey.wordpress.com/category/photos/
Interestingly enough, compared to the time when I was a student there, the school really didn't seem to be thriving. Few people attending, sad display of things to buy or watch, well, overall, not imressive. This is, btw, the largest and oldest waldorf school in Sweden, which makes the 'deficits' even more surprising.
-zooey
---------------------------------
Sent from Yahoo! - the World's favourite mail.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Field trip to Swedish waldorf school: Photos!
Posted by: "Margaret Sachs" powerofjoy2004 yahoo.com powerofjoy2004
Date: Sat Dec 1, 2007 1:20 pm ((PST))
Zooey, thanks for the great pictures. Seeing that
Atlantis book makes me wish I could go back in time
and take a close look at what is in Highland Hall's
library. Your former Waldorf school looks run-down and
some of the stuff on display was ugly by anyone's
standards.
Best,
Margaret
--- Zooey (skottehund yahoo.com) wrote:
) Hi,
) One week ago i visited the annual big event of my
) former school, where I wasted my life from age 3,5
) to 12,5.
)
) This is just a start - I will post more photos
) during the upcoming weeks. (Takes some time to go
) through them!)
)
) This is the link:
) http://zooey.wordpress.com/category/photos/
)
) Interestingly enough, compared to the time when I
) was a student there, the school really didn't seem
) to be thriving. Few people attending, sad display of
) things to buy or watch, well, overall, not
) imressive. This is, btw, the largest and oldest
) waldorf school in Sweden, which makes the 'deficits'
) even more surprising.
)
) -zooey
)
)
) ---------------------------------
) Sent from Yahoo! - the World's favourite
) mail.
)
) [Non-text portions of this message have been
) removed]
)
)
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
(*) To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/
(*) Your email settings:
Digest Email | Traditional
(*) To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
(*) To change settings via email:
mailto:waldorf-critics-normal yahoogroups.com
mailto:waldorf-critics-fullfeatured yahoogroups.com
(*) To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
waldorf-critics-unsubscribe yahoogroups.com
(*) Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 6 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Field trip: Photos! /Creation of the World!
From: zooey_stockholm
1b. Re: Field trip: Photos! /Creation of the World!
From: winters_diana
1c. Re: Field trip: Photos! /Creation of the World!
From: winters_diana
1d. Re: Field trip: Photos! /Creation of the World!
From: Zooey
1e. Re: Field trip: Photos! /Creation of the World!
From: zooey_stockholm
2a. Re: Field trip to Swedish waldorf school: Photos!
From: winters_diana
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Field trip: Photos! /Creation of the World!
Posted by: "zooey_stockholm" skottehund yahoo.com zooey_stockholm
Date: Sun Dec 2, 2007 12:53 pm ((PST))
Thanks.
It always baffles me when someone says waldorf or anthroposophy is so
aesthetically beautiful - when some of the things I've seen have been
a total contradiction to beauty!
Now i've uploded the pics of/from the biblically-inclined version of
the creation. The Norse mythology version is coming later.
-zooey
--- In waldorf-critics yahoogroups.com, Margaret Sachs
(powerofjoy2004 ...) wrote:
)
) Zooey, thanks for the great pictures. Seeing that
) Atlantis book makes me wish I could go back in time
) and take a close look at what is in Highland Hall's
) library. Your former Waldorf school looks run-down and
) some of the stuff on display was ugly by anyone's
) standards.
)
) Best,
) Margaret
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Field trip: Photos! /Creation of the World!
Posted by: "winters_diana" diana.winters verizon.net winters_diana
Date: Sun Dec 2, 2007 1:59 pm ((PST))
Zooey:
)It always baffles me when someone says waldorf or anthroposophy is so
)aesthetically beautiful - when some of the things I've seen have been
)a total contradiction to beauty!
It's parents who have been to an open house who say that, or who long
for Waldorf because of brochures or knitted toys they'v seen or a few
main lesson books - or who are at most a couple of years into
Waldorf, and have been spoon-fed anthroposophically correct beauty at
festivals, puppet shows, craft faires, and carefully managed events
in the classroom like birthday parties.
Kids who've been in the school awhile see the underside, like Zooey
who put in, was it 10 years?
)Now i've uploded the pics of/from the biblically-inclined version of
)the creation. The Norse mythology version is coming later.
Those are great, and your explanations are great. How to claim that
Waldorf is not religious after looking at that? Your point is very
well taken on your blog that this is not taught as "This is what
Christians believe" etc. but simply taught as "This is creation."
Diana
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: Field trip: Photos! /Creation of the World!
Posted by: "winters_diana" diana.winters verizon.net winters_diana
Date: Sun Dec 2, 2007 2:02 pm ((PST))
Zooey, in the creation pictures, you have a question about a
translation of something like a "grip," in most versions in English it
would be something like:
"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and
let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament,
and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters
which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the
firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day."
(the word you probably want is "firmament")
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Re: Field trip: Photos! /Creation of the World!
Posted by: "Zooey" skottehund yahoo.com zooey_stockholm
Date: Sun Dec 2, 2007 2:29 pm ((PST))
Yes, I realized that later, because 'firmament' was the word I used on the subsequent pics. I will add a correction in connection with the picture, though.
The thing is that I misinterpreted was god was about to do. There was separation of water and something to hold it there, as in separated. I thought what was going to happen was the placement of a land barrier in between seas/oceans. I had that Steiner-thing in mind: landmasses/continents are floating on the sea but are attached with some device to the bottom of it. That's the 'grip' or 'hold' I thought. My attention was pointed in the wrong direction!
(I actually have a bible within reach, so I could have checked for the correct swedish wording, but it didn't cross my mind.)
-zooey
winters_diana (diana.winters verizon.net) wrote:
Zooey, in the creation pictures, you have a question about a
translation of something like a "grip," in most versions in English it
would be something like:
"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and
let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament,
and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters
which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the
firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day."
(the word you probably want is "firmament")
---------------------------------
Support the World Aids Awareness campaign this month with Yahoo! for Good
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
1e. Re: Field trip: Photos! /Creation of the World!
Posted by: "zooey_stockholm" skottehund yahoo.com zooey_stockholm
Date: Sun Dec 2, 2007 2:41 pm ((PST))
--- In waldorf-critics yahoogroups.com, "winters_diana"
(diana.winters ...) wrote:
) It's parents who have been to an open house who say that, or who long
) for Waldorf because of brochures or knitted toys they'v seen or a few
) main lesson books - or who are at most a couple of years into
) Waldorf, and have been spoon-fed anthroposophically correct beauty at
) festivals, puppet shows, craft faires, and carefully managed events
) in the classroom like birthday parties.
And here, the media perpetrates this view as well. Not long ago there
was an article on the anthro-centre south of Stockholm, recommending
it for a day trip to watch the beauty of the art, buildings and stuff.
Not far from where I live, in central Stockholm, there is a small
farm, caf and restaurant establishment where they also sell their
products - highly popular, and gets great reviews because of the beuty
and the biodynamics and 'back to nature'-romanticism. (Yeah, city
people...) In this latter place there are no anthro buildings, but the
whole thing is managed by anthroposophists. Contrary to my old school,
they seem to have a successful marketing department, though.
But generally, the one thing people seem to know about anthros is the
style and design, and surprisingly many seem to think it is beautiful,
but somewhat weird.
)
) Kids who've been in the school awhile see the underside, like Zooey
) who put in, was it 10 years?
3 years of kindergarten + 6 years in school!
) )Now i've uploded the pics of/from the biblically-inclined version of
) )the creation. The Norse mythology version is coming later.
)
) Those are great, and your explanations are great. How to claim that
) Waldorf is not religious after looking at that? Your point is very
) well taken on your blog that this is not taught as "This is what
) Christians believe" etc. but simply taught as "This is creation."
)
) Diana
)
Yes, exactly, and returning there now, I saw religousness/spiritual
stuff all over the place! And I thought that part was worth
mentioning, because for someone who hasn't been through it, they may
not think of the distinction.
-zooey
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: Field trip to Swedish waldorf school: Photos!
Posted by: "winters_diana" diana.winters verizon.net winters_diana
Date: Sun Dec 2, 2007 7:09 pm ((PST))
Zooey:
)Hi,
)One week ago i visited the annual big event of my former school,
)where I wasted my life from age 3,5 to 12,5.
) http://zooey.wordpress.com/category/photos/
The anthro-style boiler room and janitor's shed cracks me up. Is there
any small square of life these people can't obsessively
anthroposophize?
Diana
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
(*) To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/
(*) Your email settings:
Digest Email | Traditional
(*) To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
(*) To change settings via email:
mailto:waldorf-critics-normal yahoogroups.com
mailto:waldorf-critics-fullfeatured yahoogroups.com
(*) To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
waldorf-critics-unsubscribe yahoogroups.com
(*) Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 18 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Field trip to Swedish waldorf school: Photos!
From: winters_diana
1b. Re: Field trip to Swedish waldorf school: Photos!
From: Zooey
1c. Re: Field trip to Swedish waldorf school: Photos!
From: winters_diana
1d. Re: Field trip to Swedish waldorf school: Photos!
From: winters_diana
1e. Re: Field trip to Swedish waldorf school: Photos!
From: winters_diana
1f. Re: Field trip to Swedish waldorf school: Photos!
From: winters_diana
1g. Re: Field trip to Swedish waldorf school: Photos!
From: Debra Snell
1h. Re: Field trip to Swedish waldorf school: Photos!
From: Zooey
1i. Re: Field trip to Swedish waldorf school: Photos!
From: Zooey
1j. Re: Field trip to Swedish waldorf school: Photos!
From: Zooey
1k. Re: Field trip to Swedish waldorf school: Photos!
From: Debra Snell
1l. Re: Field trip to Swedish waldorf school: Photos!
From: Zooey
1m. Re: Field trip to Swedish waldorf school: Photos!
From: Debra Snell
1n. Admin: this board is text only
From: Dan Dugan
1o. Re: Admin: this board is text only
From: winters_diana
2a. Re: Harlan's pretense
From: Peter Staudenmaier
2b. Re: Harlan's pretense
From: winters_diana
3a. Re: Fwd: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Peter S. and that thing c
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Field trip to Swedish waldorf school: Photos!
Posted by: "winters_diana" diana.winters verizon.net winters_diana
Date: Mon Dec 3, 2007 5:38 am ((PST))
I suggest also checking out the students' art work, and Zooey's cogent
comment that the amorphous blobs painted by the seventh graders are
virtually identical to those painted by the first graders!
And I really love the geography lesson - more watercolor blobs - this
time one can make out hazy impressions of north and south America,
Africa, Europe, otherwise scantly distinguishable from all the other
watercolor blobs. Zooey understates the problem:
"Try to learn geography like thisˇ No, it doesn't work."
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Messages in this topic (23)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Field trip to Swedish waldorf school: Photos!
Posted by: "Zooey" skottehund yahoo.com zooey_stockholm
Date: Mon Dec 3, 2007 9:49 am ((PST))
Yes, that's it, it's impossible. And the sad thing is that they don't have printed school books - so this is it, I guess. Maybe I should have made a note about that along with the photos. I mean, this is known to us who know waldorf, but people in general may not have any idea.
Another thing that I forgot to mention is that it is awfully boring to paint one amorphous blob after an other. The never ending blob project. Someone viewing my site might think 'well, they painted a few strange blobs' - but you know, we painted blobs all the time, several times a week during all the years I spent in waldorf. That is many blobs.
What I kind of enjoy with the 'normal' types of schools is that there's development. You just wouldn't be stuck for 9 years painting blobs that look all the same using the same technique again and again. You try one thing, learn one thing, then move on and learn something new.
That's much more fun, and I think most kids will agree with me on this. To try to go somewhere, learn and develop, not just blob around in the same place for years.
-zooey
winters_diana (diana.winters verizon.net) wrote:
I suggest also checking out the students' art work, and Zooey's cogent
comment that the amorphous blobs painted by the seventh graders are
virtually identical to those painted by the first graders!
And I really love the geography lesson - more watercolor blobs - this
time one can make out hazy impressions of north and south America,
Africa, Europe, otherwise scantly distinguishable from all the other
watercolor blobs. Zooey understates the problem:
"Try to learn geography like thisˇ No, it doesn't work."
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
---------------------------------
Sent from Yahoo! - the World's favourite mail.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Messages in this topic (23)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: Field trip to Swedish waldorf school: Photos!
Posted by: "winters_diana" diana.winters verizon.net winters_diana
Date: Mon Dec 3, 2007 11:48 am ((PST))
Please excuse me while I try this out (posting images here).
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Messages in this topic (23)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Re: Field trip to Swedish waldorf school: Photos!
Posted by: "winters_diana" diana.winters verizon.net winters_diana
Date: Mon Dec 3, 2007 11:48 am ((PST))
) Please excuse me while I try this out (posting images here).
Well ... guess I haven't got that figured out! Sorry
Messages in this topic (23)
________________________________________________________________________
1e. Re: Field trip to Swedish waldorf school: Photos!
Posted by: "winters_diana" diana.winters verizon.net winters_diana
Date: Mon Dec 3, 2007 11:59 am ((PST))
trying again
(img
src="http://www.waldorffamilynetwork.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderp
ictur"es/adventspiral2003.jpg"height="50" width="50"
Messages in this topic (23)
________________________________________________________________________
1f. Re: Field trip to Swedish waldorf school: Photos!
Posted by: "winters_diana" diana.winters verizon.net winters_diana
Date: Mon Dec 3, 2007 12:00 pm ((PST))
Eek, sorry everyone.
Messages in this topic (23)
________________________________________________________________________
1g. Re: Field trip to Swedish waldorf school: Photos!
Posted by: "Debra Snell" snell gv.net debrasnell
Date: Mon Dec 3, 2007 12:13 pm ((PST))
Diana,
I clicked on the link and received the 'Page Unavailable' notice.
Keep trying.
-ds
On Dec 3, 2007, at 11:59 AM, winters_diana wrote:
)
)
) trying again
)
) (img
) src="http://www.waldorffamilynetwork.com/sitebuildercontent/
) sitebuilderp
) ictur"es/adventspiral2003.jpg"height="50" width="50"
)
)
)
Messages in this topic (23)
________________________________________________________________________
1h. Re: Field trip to Swedish waldorf school: Photos!
Posted by: "Zooey" skottehund yahoo.com zooey_stockholm
Date: Mon Dec 3, 2007 12:28 pm ((PST))
What exactly were your trying to achieve? Posting a photo or posting a link to a photo? I think only the latter is possbile (or allowed?) on the critics list.
http://www.waldorffamilynetwork.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/adventspiral2003.jpg
(And I happened to erase the post with the link/pic, so maybe this wasn't the one you were trying with. Anyway, I posted the link, just in case!)
winters_diana (diana.winters verizon.net) wrote: Eek, sorry everyone.
---------------------------------
Sent from Yahoo! - the World's favourite mail.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Messages in this topic (23)
________________________________________________________________________
1i. Re: Field trip to Swedish waldorf school: Photos!
Posted by: "Zooey" skottehund yahoo.com zooey_stockholm
Date: Mon Dec 3, 2007 12:29 pm ((PST))
http://www.waldorffamilynetwork.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/adventspiral2003.jpg
this should work!
Debra Snell (snell gv.net) wrote:
Diana,
I clicked on the link and received the 'Page Unavailable' notice.
Keep trying.
-ds
On Dec 3, 2007, at 11:59 AM, winters_diana wrote:
)
)
) trying again
)
) (img
) src="http://www.waldorffamilynetwork.com/sitebuildercontent/
) sitebuilderp
) ictur"es/adventspiral2003.jpg"height="50" width="50"
)
)
)
---------------------------------
Sent from Yahoo! - the World's favourite mail.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Messages in this topic (23)
________________________________________________________________________
1j. Re: Field trip to Swedish waldorf school: Photos!
Posted by: "Zooey" skottehund yahoo.com zooey_stockholm
Date: Mon Dec 3, 2007 12:41 pm ((PST))
No, I wouldn't think so. And it's just crazy how everything is so waldorf. Every piece of furniture, all toys, decorations, buildings. I think one explanation is that they buy from anthroposophist manufacturers, architects, craftsmen, because this keeps the money and resources within the movement. (Also, provides jobs for people who would be hard to employ on the normal market.)
The other explanation is of course the meaning the design has. I'm sure Steiner had something to say about hard angles and use of materials
But there isn't one single non-anthroposophical door handle in those buildings.
The boiler/janitor's place is kind of cute in comparison to some of the other monstrous buildings. One thing I didn't observe until right now, is that it is the only building in a dark (reddish dark brown) colour.
-z
winters_diana (diana.winters verizon.net) wrote:
Zooey:
)Hi,
)One week ago i visited the annual big event of my former school,
)where I wasted my life from age 3,5 to 12,5.
) http://zooey.wordpress.com/category/photos/
The anthro-style boiler room and janitor's shed cracks me up. Is there
any small square of life these people can't obsessively
anthroposophize?
Diana
---------------------------------
Sent from Yahoo! - the World's favourite mail.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Messages in this topic (23)
________________________________________________________________________
1k. Re: Field trip to Swedish waldorf school: Photos!
Posted by: "Debra Snell" snell gv.net debrasnell
Date: Mon Dec 3, 2007 1:23 pm ((PST))
On Dec 3, 2007, at 12:41 PM, Zooey wrote:
) No, I wouldn't think so. And it's just crazy how everything is so
) waldorf. Every piece of furniture, all toys, decorations,
) buildings. I think one explanation is that they buy from
) anthroposophist manufacturers, architects, craftsmen, because this
) keeps the money and resources within the movement. (Also, provides
) jobs for people who would be hard to employ on the normal market.)
Everything is purchased from Anthro businesses. It's a closed system.
On Facebook, the 'Facbook Waldorf Kids' (yep, 'Facbook'), posters
seemed amazed Waldorf's blue paint smells like "rotten eggs," no
matter where they went to school. They communicate on 'The Wall' and
laugh about how all Waldorf kids' can't spell.
When one lives in a closed environment, it's easy to forget how the
rest of the world thinks. Oh to live in a world where wacky is normal!!
-ds
Messages in this topic (23)
________________________________________________________________________
1l. Re: Field trip to Swedish waldorf school: Photos!
Posted by: "Zooey" skottehund yahoo.com zooey_stockholm
Date: Mon Dec 3, 2007 1:32 pm ((PST))
Oh, no, the paint smell. That was disgusting. I thought maybe there are eggs in the paint, but then it wouldn't be watercolour paint anymore?
There are some internet shops that sell all the waldorf stuff. It's a walk through horror land for me. Nothing has changed at all in those in between years.
-z
Debra Snell (snell gv.net) wrote:
On Dec 3, 2007, at 12:41 PM, Zooey wrote:
) No, I wouldn't think so. And it's just crazy how everything is so
) waldorf. Every piece of furniture, all toys, decorations,
) buildings. I think one explanation is that they buy from
) anthroposophist manufacturers, architects, craftsmen, because this
) keeps the money and resources within the movement. (Also, provides
) jobs for people who would be hard to employ on the normal market.)
Everything is purchased from Anthro businesses. It's a closed system.
On Facebook, the 'Facbook Waldorf Kids' (yep, 'Facbook'), posters
seemed amazed Waldorf's blue paint smells like "rotten eggs," no
matter where they went to school. They communicate on 'The Wall' and
laugh about how all Waldorf kids' can't spell.
When one lives in a closed environment, it's easy to forget how the
rest of the world thinks. Oh to live in a world where wacky is normal!!
-ds
---------------------------------
Sent from Yahoo! - the World's favourite mail.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Messages in this topic (23)
________________________________________________________________________
1m. Re: Field trip to Swedish waldorf school: Photos!
Posted by: "Debra Snell" snell gv.net debrasnell
Date: Mon Dec 3, 2007 2:53 pm ((PST))
On Dec 3, 2007, at 1:32 PM, Zooey wrote:
) Oh, no, the paint smell. That was disgusting. I thought maybe there
) are eggs in the paint, but then it wouldn't be water colour paint
) anymore?
)
) There are some internet shops that sell all the waldorf stuff. It's
) a walk through horror land for me. Nothing has changed at all in
) those in between years.
)
And it can't change because Steiner is dead...
Reminds me of that old joke - How many Anthroposophists does it take
to change a light bulb?... We don't know. Steiner didn't give an
indication... Kind of says it all.
Messages in this topic (23)
________________________________________________________________________
1n. Admin: this board is text only
Posted by: "Dan Dugan" dan dandugan.com dandugan_1999
Date: Mon Dec 3, 2007 3:50 pm ((PST))
winters_diana wrote:
) ) Please excuse me while I try this out (posting images here).
)
)Well ... guess I haven't got that figured out! Sorry
This list only accepts text.
-Dan Dugan
Moderator
Messages in this topic (23)
________________________________________________________________________
1o. Re: Admin: this board is text only
Posted by: "winters_diana" diana.winters verizon.net winters_diana
Date: Mon Dec 3, 2007 6:33 pm ((PST))
) This list only accepts text.
Okay. I was thinking about all the great photographs on Zooey's blog,
and thinking it would be great if we could look at them on the list
instead of hoping people click on them.
Diana
Messages in this topic (23)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: Harlan's pretense
Posted by: "Peter Staudenmaier" pstaud hotmail.com pstauden
Date: Mon Dec 3, 2007 9:15 am ((PST))
Looks like Harlan has dropped out debate again, at least under his own name. So much for "scholarship." Over the next few weeks I will try to post some material from my research on the Waldorf movement in Nazi Germany. I very much encourage critical response from admirers of Waldorf. Greetings to all,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live.
http://www.windowslive.com/connect.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_Wave2_newways_112007
Messages in this topic (22)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: Harlan's pretense
Posted by: "winters_diana" diana.winters verizon.net winters_diana
Date: Mon Dec 3, 2007 11:34 am ((PST))
Peter:
)Looks like Harlan has dropped out debate again, at least under his
)own name.
Last time this happened, if I recall, Harlan announced later that you
had never answered him. When he got indignant replies to this
falsehood, he replied that he had left the critics list right at that
time - left conveniently *after* posting questions and *before* getting
replies.
Diana
Messages in this topic (22)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: Fwd: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Peter S. and that thing c
Posted by: "Peter Staudenmaier" pstaud hotmail.com pstauden
Date: Mon Dec 3, 2007 9:16 am ((PST))
Hi Filo,
) Your points are all well-taken. Basically what I am proposing is a way
) of talking about Steiner that is both accurate in a scholarly sense
) and reflective of the extraordinary complexity and specificity of his
) philosophy.
I don't want to step on your toes, but I think you may be depending on an inadequate conception of what counts as "accurate in a scholarly sense." I'm also not sure what you see as extraordinary about the complexity and specificity of Steiner's philosophy. In contrast to the uncomplex and unspecific work of all those other philosophers?
) Of course, any summarial formulation necessarily
) simplifies, but some formulations are obviously much more successful
) than others in serving as accurate metonyms for the broader
) complexities that they index. In this sense, I find some of your
) general statements about Steiner a bit misleading. It was with this
) observation in mind that I chose to question the accuracy of your
) statement about Steiner's attitude towards historical scholarship.
My statement was accurate. You seemed to find it insufficiently comprehensive.
) But let's take the example of Steiner's attitude toward criticism. On
) the one hand, Steiner observed in various contexts the way in which
) being judgmental carries with it, say, a negative "soul quality." He
) taught exercises for developing open-mindedness, and he felt that
) education should inspire more reverence and so forth. On the other
) hand, he obviously loved to engage in critical debate,
About his own doctrines?
) and he
) constantly and vociferously criticized other philosophical viewpoints.
) He never implied that the comments about meditation that he made in
) Knowledge of Higher Worlds should be taken to be calling for the
) abandonment of criticism in a general intellectual sense. It is a
) typical example of the complexity (not contradictoriness) of Steiner's
) thought that he advocated rigorous logical (I would say critical)
) thinking while at the same time encouraging people to become more
) open-minded and "heart-centered" in their approach.
Many anthroposophists believe that. It would be interesting to see an argument in support of this notion.
) To me this seems
) quite straightforward. In my own life I constantly strive to become
) more open-minded and to minimize the the presence of any sort of
) judgmental (in an emotional sense) attitude in my thinking process.
) But that certainly doesn't stop me from disagreeing with people and
) welcoming disagreement from them. The point is that when I disagree I
) try not to do so with a negative ("judgmental") attitude.
For what it's worth, I think that's silly. But mostly I think it's irrelevant here, since it has little to do with Steiner's stated stance on criticism.
) It seems
) quite clear to me that this is the sort of balance that Steiner was
) pointing to.
Why does this seem clear to you? Are there particular Steiner texts or passages you have in mind? I don't much care one way or the other if we attribute this perspective to Steiner (it certainly wouldn't be a compliment to him, in my eyes), but it would help to see some evidence for doing so. Otherwise it sounds like you have imputed your own preferred views to Steiner.
) So, this is an example of where the truth is complex and
) our summarial statements must reflect that. (Your discussion of
) Steiner's statements on criticism in your last post seems to imply
) that we can conflate the different contexts within which he made these
) statements.)
All but one of them came from the same context.
) We can't say that Steiner was anti-criticism. That's just
) not true.
Of course it's true. I just gave you a number of unequivocal statements from Steiner himself rejecting criticism. If all you mean is that there are other statements from Steiner that do not reject criticism, I am happy to shrug my shoulders and say sure. We could discuss some of those other statements, if you like. Which ones did you have in mind?
) We could say something like, "Steiner felt that most people
) were too judgmental in their thinking and this prevented them from
) actually developing a deeper understanding of reality." Or something
) like that. But the point is that we should try to be fair to Steiner's
) complexity and specificity of context.
That's true for all historical figures. Steiner is not somehow special in that regard. In any case, I think a considerably more accurate formulation of your claim would be that Steiner held that criticism prevented people from developing a deeper understanding of reality. That's why he rejected criticism. Greetings,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live.
http://www.windowslive.com/connect.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_Wave2_newways_112007
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
(*) To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/
(*) Your email settings:
Digest Email | Traditional
(*) To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
(*) To change settings via email:
mailto:waldorf-critics-normal yahoogroups.com
mailto:waldorf-critics-fullfeatured yahoogroups.com
(*) To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
waldorf-critics-unsubscribe yahoogroups.com
(*) Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 12 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Fwd: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Peter S. and that thing calle
From: filosofer52
1b. Fwd: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Peter S. and that thing calle
From: filosofer52
1c. Fwd: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Peter S. and that thing calle
From: filosofer52
1d. Re: Fwd: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Peter S. and that thing c
From: Peter Staudenmaier
2a. Re: Field trip to Swedish waldorf school: Photos!
From: emanuel
3a. WALDORF CRITICS WIN APPEAL IN CHURCH-STATE CASE
From: PLANS Secretary
3b. Re: WALDORF CRITICS WIN APPEAL IN CHURCH-STATE CASE
From: filosofer52
3c. Re: WALDORF CRITICS WIN APPEAL IN CHURCH-STATE CASE
From: Debra Snell
3d. Re: WALDORF CRITICS WIN APPEAL IN CHURCH-STATE CASE
From: filosofer52
3e. Re: WALDORF CRITICS WIN APPEAL IN CHURCH-STATE CASE
From: winters_diana
3f. Waldorf in "in pre-WWII Germany"
From: Peter Staudenmaier
4a. Re: Field trip: Photos! /Creation of the World!
From: Walden
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Fwd: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Peter S. and that thing calle
Posted by: "filosofer52" openminded1 gmail.com filosofer52
Date: Tue Dec 4, 2007 7:49 am ((PST))
Hi Peter,
I certainly appreciate the need to ground our discussion around what
Steiner actually said rather than imputing our own views. So it would
certainly be a worthwhile exercise to review all of Steiner's
statements on criticism and the like and do a comprehensive analysis
that might present a more balanced picture than the one you drew in
your post. But at the moment, regrettably, I don't think I'll be able
to make the time to do that.
However, I don't think it requires such a rigorous degree of analysis
to make the simple observation that if someone writes an instruction
handbook on how to develop the ability to see into the spiritual
world, it is intellectually dishonest (or mistaken) for us to assume
that the instructions therein are intended as general guidelines for
how to engage in the practice of scholarship. Steiner wasn't saying,
"Listen, people of the world, criticism is bad" (which, incidentally,
would be oxymoronic). Rather, he was saying, "If you want to awaken
your faculties of spiritual perception, you will need to become less
judgmental." He wasn't telling people what to do, or what is good and
what is bad, or how they should relate to historical scholarship, or
anything like that. He was speaking in the highly specific context of
the practical steps one must take in order to develop a particular
kind of perception.
If I write a book called, "How to live in the present moment," and in
the book I say that in order to live in the present moment, one can
undertake such-and-such exercise to bring about the process of
forgetting the past, would you therefore say that I am someone who
rejects history forthrightly? That would be an utter non-sequiter.
(Of course, if one were doing a sort of meta-analysis of Steiner's
views on criticism, it would be essential to include the views he
expresses in Knowledge of Higher Worlds, but it is silly to regard
those views as representative of his overall views on criticism, given
the specialized context of that book.)
There's more to say, but I must sign out for now. In the meantime, I
am interested to hear any new thoughts.
Best,
F
--- In waldorf-critics yahoogroups.com, Peter Staudenmaier
(pstaud ...) wrote:
)
)
)
)
)
)
) Hi Filo,
)
)
) ) Your points are all well-taken. Basically what I am proposing is a way
) ) of talking about Steiner that is both accurate in a scholarly sense
) ) and reflective of the extraordinary complexity and specificity of his
) ) philosophy.
)
)
) I don't want to step on your toes, but I think you may be depending
on an inadequate conception of what counts as "accurate in a scholarly
sense." I'm also not sure what you see as extraordinary about the
complexity and specificity of Steiner's philosophy. In contrast to the
uncomplex and unspecific work of all those other philosophers?
)
)
) ) Of course, any summarial formulation necessarily
) ) simplifies, but some formulations are obviously much more successful
) ) than others in serving as accurate metonyms for the broader
) ) complexities that they index. In this sense, I find some of your
) ) general statements about Steiner a bit misleading. It was with this
) ) observation in mind that I chose to question the accuracy of your
) ) statement about Steiner's attitude towards historical scholarship.
)
)
) My statement was accurate. You seemed to find it insufficiently
comprehensive.
)
)
) ) But let's take the example of Steiner's attitude toward criticism. On
) ) the one hand, Steiner observed in various contexts the way in which
) ) being judgmental carries with it, say, a negative "soul quality." He
) ) taught exercises for developing open-mindedness, and he felt that
) ) education should inspire more reverence and so forth. On the other
) ) hand, he obviously loved to engage in critical debate,
)
)
) About his own doctrines?
)
)
) ) and he
) ) constantly and vociferously criticized other philosophical viewpoints.
) ) He never implied that the comments about meditation that he made in
) ) Knowledge of Higher Worlds should be taken to be calling for the
) ) abandonment of criticism in a general intellectual sense. It is a
) ) typical example of the complexity (not contradictoriness) of Steiner's
) ) thought that he advocated rigorous logical (I would say critical)
) ) thinking while at the same time encouraging people to become more
) ) open-minded and "heart-centered" in their approach.
)
)
) Many anthroposophists believe that. It would be interesting to see
an argument in support of this notion.
)
)
) ) To me this seems
) ) quite straightforward. In my own life I constantly strive to become
) ) more open-minded and to minimize the the presence of any sort of
) ) judgmental (in an emotional sense) attitude in my thinking process.
) ) But that certainly doesn't stop me from disagreeing with people and
) ) welcoming disagreement from them. The point is that when I disagree I
) ) try not to do so with a negative ("judgmental") attitude.
)
)
) For what it's worth, I think that's silly. But mostly I think it's
irrelevant here, since it has little to do with Steiner's stated
stance on criticism.
)
)
) ) It seems
) ) quite clear to me that this is the sort of balance that Steiner was
) ) pointing to.
)
)
) Why does this seem clear to you? Are there particular Steiner texts
or passages you have in mind? I don't much care one way or the other
if we attribute this perspective to Steiner (it certainly wouldn't be
a compliment to him, in my eyes), but it would help to see some
evidence for doing so. Otherwise it sounds like you have imputed your
own preferred views to Steiner.
)
)
) ) So, this is an example of where the truth is complex and
) ) our summarial statements must reflect that. (Your discussion of
) ) Steiner's statements on criticism in your last post seems to imply
) ) that we can conflate the different contexts within which he made these
) ) statements.)
)
)
) All but one of them came from the same context.
)
)
) ) We can't say that Steiner was anti-criticism. That's just
) ) not true.
)
)
) Of course it's true. I just gave you a number of unequivocal
statements from Steiner himself rejecting criticism. If all you mean
is that there are other statements from Steiner that do not reject
criticism, I am happy to shrug my shoulders and say sure. We could
discuss some of those other statements, if you like. Which ones did
you have in mind?
)
)
) ) We could say something like, "Steiner felt that most people
) ) were too judgmental in their thinking and this prevented them from
) ) actually developing a deeper understanding of reality." Or something
) ) like that. But the point is that we should try to be fair to Steiner's
) ) complexity and specificity of context.
)
)
) That's true for all historical figures. Steiner is not somehow
special in that regard. In any case, I think a considerably more
accurate formulation of your claim would be that Steiner held that
criticism prevented people from developing a deeper understanding of
reality. That's why he rejected criticism. Greetings,
)
)
) Peter S.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) _________________________________________________________________
) Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live.
)
http://www.windowslive.com/connect.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_Wave2_newways_112007
)
Messages in this topic (12)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Fwd: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Peter S. and that thing calle
Posted by: "filosofer52" openminded1 gmail.com filosofer52
Date: Tue Dec 4, 2007 11:10 am ((PST))
--- In waldorf-critics yahoogroups.com, Peter Staudenmaier
(pstaud ...) wrote:
)
) ) To me this seems
) ) quite straightforward. In my own life I constantly strive to become
) ) more open-minded and to minimize the the presence of any sort of
) ) judgmental (in an emotional sense) attitude in my thinking process.
) ) But that certainly doesn't stop me from disagreeing with people and
) ) welcoming disagreement from them. The point is that when I disagree I
) ) try not to do so with a negative ("judgmental") attitude.
)
)
) For what it's worth, I think that's silly.
I'll take that as a compliment.
Messages in this topic (12)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Fwd: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Peter S. and that thing calle
Posted by: "filosofer52" openminded1 gmail.com filosofer52
Date: Tue Dec 4, 2007 12:37 pm ((PST))
--- In waldorf-critics yahoogroups.com, Peter Staudenmaier
(pstaud ...) wrote:
)
)
) I don't want to step on your toes, but I think you may be depending
on an inadequate conception of what counts as "accurate in a scholarly
sense." I'm also not sure what you see as extraordinary about the
complexity and specificity of Steiner's philosophy. In contrast to the
uncomplex and unspecific work of all those other philosophers?
)
Fair enough. But it strikes me that if a historian were to set out to
write a biography of Steiner, he or she would indeed find it
relatively difficult to summarize Steiner's views since he gave so
many thousands of lectures on so many different themes.
)
)
) ) But let's take the example of Steiner's attitude toward criticism. On
) ) the one hand, Steiner observed in various contexts the way in which
) ) being judgmental carries with it, say, a negative "soul quality." He
) ) taught exercises for developing open-mindedness, and he felt that
) ) education should inspire more reverence and so forth. On the other
) ) hand, he obviously loved to engage in critical debate,
)
)
) About his own doctrines?
)
)
I think it's probably fair to say that Steiner encouraged
anthroposophists to have a sort of faith in anthroposophical ideas,
even though at other times he seemed to admonish his listeners not to
just believe things because he said so, but rather to test things out
for themselves. I would say that this tension between faith and
critical thinking is pervasive in anthroposophy and probably spiritual
and religious circles in general.
)
) ) We could say something like, "Steiner felt that most people
) ) were too judgmental in their thinking and this prevented them from
) ) actually developing a deeper understanding of reality." Or something
) ) like that. But the point is that we should try to be fair to Steiner's
) ) complexity and specificity of context.
)
)
) That's true for all historical figures. Steiner is not somehow
special in that regard. In any case, I think a considerably more
accurate formulation of your claim would be that Steiner held that
criticism prevented people from developing a deeper understanding of
reality. That's why he rejected criticism. Greetings,
)
The problem with the latter formulation is that it suggests that
Steiner rejected criticism in some absolute sort of way, whereas in
fact he rather rejected certain forms of criticism in certain contexts.
Thanks for your other points as well. And sorry for serializing my reply.
F
Messages in this topic (12)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Re: Fwd: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Peter S. and that thing c
Posted by: "Peter Staudenmaier" pstaud hotmail.com pstauden
Date: Tue Dec 4, 2007 8:14 pm ((PST))
Hi Filo,
) I certainly appreciate the need to ground our discussion around what
) Steiner actually said rather than imputing our own views. So it would
) certainly be a worthwhile exercise to review all of Steiner's
) statements on criticism and the like and do a comprehensive analysis
) that might present a more balanced picture than the one you drew in
) your post. But at the moment, regrettably, I don't think I'll be able
) to make the time to do that.
There are other readers here. It might make sense simply to point to a text by Steiner that you think supports your view, and let others check it out for themselves.
) However, I don't think it requires such a rigorous degree of analysis
) to make the simple observation that if someone writes an instruction
) handbook on how to develop the ability to see into the spiritual
) world, it is intellectually dishonest (or mistaken) for us to assume
) that the instructions therein are intended as general guidelines for
) how to engage in the practice of scholarship.
Indeed. Knowledge of Higher Worlds is among other things a rejection of criticism, not primarily a rejection of scholarship. In the course of our exchange, I mentioned the book and offered quotes from it as an instance of Steiner rejecting criticism, not as an instance of his rejection of scholarship.
) Steiner wasn't saying,
) "Listen, people of the world, criticism is bad" (which, incidentally,
) would be oxymoronic). Rather, he was saying, "If you want to awaken
) your faculties of spiritual perception, you will need to become less
) judgmental." He wasn't telling people what to do, or what is good and
) what is bad, or how they should relate to historical scholarship, or
) anything like that. He was speaking in the highly specific context of
) the practical steps one must take in order to develop a particular
) kind of perception.
Yes. That's what the whole book is about. Steiner says there that criticism repels the powers of the soul to attain higher knowledge, and is thus to be rejected in favor of devotional reverence. As I understood you, you claimed that Steiner advocated the pursuit of knowledge and was not anti-criticism. That claim is incompatible with Steiner's book. The book advocates the pursuit of knowledge via the rejection of criticism.
) If I write a book called, "How to live in the present moment," and in
) the book I say that in order to live in the present moment, one can
) undertake such-and-such exercise to bring about the process of
) forgetting the past, would you therefore say that I am someone who
) rejects history forthrightly?
That depends on whether you reject history forthrightly in the book. And speaking of forgetting the past... I didn't cite Knowledge of Higher Worlds as an instance of Steiner's rejection of historical scholarship. Take another look at our exchange.
) (Of course, if one were doing a sort of meta-analysis of Steiner's
) views on criticism, it would be essential to include the views he
) expresses in Knowledge of Higher Worlds, but it is silly to regard
) those views as representative of his overall views on criticism, given
) the specialized context of that book.)
I don't think I addressed his "overall views on criticism" (not least because I'm not sure there is such a thing, especially not in a "representative" sense). In any case, perhaps you could say more about what you think the specialized context of the book in question was. Knowledge of Higher Worlds is one of the central texts of anthroposophy, and is moreover a fully anthroposophical work, in contrast to, say, Philosophy of Freedom. If you have formed an impression of Steiner's overall views on criticism based on some other anthroposophical works by Steiner, you could identify them and we can discuss what he says about criticism in those works. Or we could look more closely at what Steiner wrote in Knowledge of Higher Worlds.
) Fair enough. But it strikes me that if a historian were to set out to
) write a biography of Steiner, he or she would indeed find it
) relatively difficult to summarize Steiner's views since he gave so
) many thousands of lectures on so many different themes.
I agree that attempting to summarize Steiner's overall views (about criticism or many other topics) across the course of his life is largely a vain enterprise, though it seems to me the reason does not lie primarily in the quantity of lectures but in the internally inconsistent and contradictory character of the content of both the lectures and the print publications, particularly when comparing his pre-anthroposophical and anthroposophical periods.
))
)) That's true for all historical figures. Steiner is not somehow
) special in that regard. In any case, I think a considerably more
) accurate formulation of your claim would be that Steiner held that
) criticism prevented people from developing a deeper understanding of
) reality. That's why he rejected criticism. Greetings,
))
)
) The problem with the latter formulation is that it suggests that
) Steiner rejected criticism in some absolute sort of way, whereas in
) fact he rather rejected certain forms of criticism in certain contexts.
Sort of. I'd say he rejected criticism, plain and simple, in certain contexts, including central anthroposophical works. Those rejections are both broad and firm. They are not particularly circumscribed or nuanced. It would be interesting to look at an anthroposophical work in which he endorsed the practice of criticism rather than portraying it as a hindrance to higher knowledge. Do you have an example of this?
Greetings,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live.
http://www.windowslive.com/connect.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_Wave2_newways_112007
Messages in this topic (12)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: Field trip to Swedish waldorf school: Photos!
Posted by: "emanuel" emanuel.landeholm gmail.com emanuel.landeholm
Date: Tue Dec 4, 2007 10:14 am ((PST))
That url required some cut&pasting due to line wrap. Try this one:
http://tinyurl.com/35qb9v
On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 12:13 -0800, Debra Snell wrote:
) Diana,
) I clicked on the link and received the 'Page Unavailable' notice.
) Keep trying.
) -ds
)
) On Dec 3, 2007, at 11:59 AM, winters_diana wrote:
)
) )
) )
) ) trying again
) )
) ) (img
) ) src="http://www.waldorffamilynetwork.com/sitebuildercontent/
) ) sitebuilderp
) ) ictur"es/adventspiral2003.jpg"height="50" width="50"
Messages in this topic (25)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. WALDORF CRITICS WIN APPEAL IN CHURCH-STATE CASE
Posted by: "PLANS Secretary" dan dandugan.com dandugan_1999
Date: Tue Dec 4, 2007 10:32 am ((PST))
PEOPLE FOR LEGAL AND NONSECTARIAN SCHOOLS, INC. (PLANS)
http://www.waldorfcritics.org
Debra Snell, President
12562 Rough and Ready Highway
Grass Valley, CA 95945
(530) 273-1005 president waldorfcritics.org
Dan Dugan, Secretary
290 Napoleon St. Studio E
San Francisco, CA 94124
(415) 821-9776 secretary waldorfcritics.org
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, DECEMBER 4, 2007
WALDORF CRITICS WIN APPEAL IN CHURCH-STATE CASE
People for Legal and Nonsectarian Schools (PLANS) filed suit against
two California school districts in 1998, alleging that the districts
were running religious programs in public schools. At the opening of
the September, 2005 trial, PLANS refused to present its case without
key witnesses and evidence that Judge Frank C. Damrell had excluded
based on his interpretation of federal court rules. This gave the
judge no option but to dismiss the case.
PLANS contended that Damrell's rulings were incorrect, and appealed
to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. After a two-year wait, the
appeal was heard November 9, 2007. PLANS was represented by Scott
Kendall of Elk Grove, California.
The three-judge panel included John T. Noonan (Harvard, Reagan
appointee), M. Margaret McKeown (Georgetown, Clinton appointee), and
Edward R. Korman (Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court, Eastern
District of New York, New York University, Reagan appointee).
Kendall told how the case was ten years old. He pointed out that
Waldorf teacher trainer Betty Staley had been listed as both an
expert and a percipient witness. Kendall pointed out where in the
record Judge Damrell had said that it was a rule that an expert
witness couldn't be a percipient witness. Kendall asserted that there
was no such rule. He referred to Brown v. Woodland, where the value
of experts in a church-state case was questioned, as the rationale
for PLANS not calling any experts.
Michelle Cannon argued for the defendants. Cannon insisted that the
defendants hadn't heard of Staley being a percipient witness until
the day of the trial. That position strained credibility, given that
Staley had been deposed by PLANS years ago. Judge Korman interrupted
to object that there was no rule, and in any case, what was the harm
in having Staley testify? Judge McKeown also asked pointed questions.
Judge Korman suggested a compromise where the district court might
hold a hearing to determine whether Staley's testimony was relevant.
Kendall said he wanted all three excluded witnesses, Betty Staley
(Rudolf Steiner College), Crystal Olson (California State University,
Sacramento), and Robert Anderson (WestEd).
Judge McKeown asked Kendall to address the issue that defendant Twin
Ridges Elementary School District no longer has jurisdiction over the
Yuba River Charter School (a Waldorf school). Kendall said PLANS
didn't dispute that fact. McKeown suggested that the substitution of
the Nevada County Office of Education, now the chartering authority
for the school, as one of the Does named in the complaint was a
matter for the district court.
The Court issued a memorandum on November 21, 2007 (Case No.
05-17193). Judge Korman wrote for the court "The district court erred
in excluding the testimony of the witnesses in question. Because
PLANS intended to call the witnesses as percipient witnesses, it did
not need to comply with the court's deadline for expert witness
disclosure. Moreover, the record indicates that PLANS disclosed the
witnesses as early as January 2001. Even if the witnesses had not
been properly disclosed, there was no prejudice as the School
Districts had previously designated the same witnesses as expert
witnesses." The court reversed the decision of the district court
(Case No. CV-98-0266 FCD PAN) and remanded the case back to that
court.
BACKGROUND
Anthroposophy is the spiritual movement behind the world-wide network
of Waldorf schools. PLANS alleges that for Establishment Clause
purposes, Anthroposophy is a religious sect. The defendants claim
that it is a philosophy. This is a crucial issue in the case. If
Anthroposophy isn't a religious activity, then PLANS can't allege
that taxpayer-funded Waldorf schools violate the Constitution by
being entangled with religion. Common references classify
Anthroposophy as religious; for example, Encarta: "a religious
philosophy developed by Rudolf Steiner from theosophy, holding that
spiritual development should be humankind's foremost concern."
PLANS contends that public Waldorf schools are intrinsically and
inseparably based on Anthroposophy. Curriculum decisions and teacher
training are based on Anthroposophy's child development theory, which
defines stages of reincarnation, a religious doctrine. Science
teaching in Waldorf schools includes crackpot Anthroposophical
doctrines like "the heart is not a pump." The framework for history
in Waldorf schools is based on Anthroposophy's proto-Nazi racial
theory. Publicly funded use and reliance on the doctrines of
Anthroposophy endorses that religion in violation of the United
States and California constitutions.
PLANS filed its federal lawsuit in Sacramento on February 11, 1998,
naming as defendants the Sacramento Unified School District, which
operates a "Waldorf Methods" magnet school, and the Twin Ridges
Elementary School District, which carried on a veritable franchise
operation, establishing six "Waldorf-inspired" charter schools, all
located in other school districts.
In May, 2001, Judge Damrell dismissed the PLANS lawsuit against the
two school districts, based on lack of standing. PLANS appealed the
decision, and in February, 2003, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
confirmed PLANS' right to sue the school districts as taxpayers and
reinstated the case.
When the U.S. District Court tried the case in September, 2005, PLANS
refused to proceed without the key witnesses and evidence that the
judge had excluded, forcing a dismissal. PLANS appealed, and the
appeal succeeded. The case now goes back to the Federal District
Court, Eastern District of California, in Sacramento.
WHAT IS PLANS?
PLANS was organized in late 1995 by former Waldorf parents and
teachers concerned about both private and public Waldorf schools. It
became a California non-profit corporation in 1997. PLANS' mission is
to provide parents, teachers, and school boards with views of Waldorf
education from outside the cult of Rudolf Steiner, to expose the
illegality of public funding for Waldorf school programs in the US,
and to litigate against schools violating the Establishment Clause of
the First Amendment.
For more information, please see the PLANS web site,
http://www.waldorfcritics.org.
-30-
-Dan Dugan, Secretary
PLANS, Inc.
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: WALDORF CRITICS WIN APPEAL IN CHURCH-STATE CASE
Posted by: "filosofer52" openminded1 gmail.com filosofer52
Date: Tue Dec 4, 2007 11:05 am ((PST))
Congratulations. While I love anthroposophy and cannot accept your
characterizations of it, I agree that it is unconstitutional to use
taxpayer money to fund a Waldorf school, although my reasons may be a
bit different. (Of course, the Federal Department of Education itself
is, arguably, unconstitutional, but that's another matter. I think the
best solution is some version of tax credits. This would allow for
affordable school choice in a way that should be acceptable to both
parties.) Anyway, I'm sure Steiner would agree that it's best to
separate "Waldorf school and State".
--- In waldorf-critics yahoogroups.com, PLANS Secretary (dan ...) wrote:
)
) PEOPLE FOR LEGAL AND NONSECTARIAN SCHOOLS, INC. (PLANS)
) http://www.waldorfcritics.org
)
) Debra Snell, President
) 12562 Rough and Ready Highway
) Grass Valley, CA 95945
) (530) 273-1005 president ...
)
) Dan Dugan, Secretary
) 290 Napoleon St. Studio E
) San Francisco, CA 94124
) (415) 821-9776 secretary ...
)
) FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, DECEMBER 4, 2007
)
) WALDORF CRITICS WIN APPEAL IN CHURCH-STATE CASE
)
) People for Legal and Nonsectarian Schools (PLANS) filed suit against
) two California school districts in 1998, alleging that the districts
) were running religious programs in public schools. At the opening of
) the September, 2005 trial, PLANS refused to present its case without
) key witnesses and evidence that Judge Frank C. Damrell had excluded
) based on his interpretation of federal court rules. This gave the
) judge no option but to dismiss the case.
)
) PLANS contended that Damrell's rulings were incorrect, and appealed
) to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. After a two-year wait, the
) appeal was heard November 9, 2007. PLANS was represented by Scott
) Kendall of Elk Grove, California.
)
) The three-judge panel included John T. Noonan (Harvard, Reagan
) appointee), M. Margaret McKeown (Georgetown, Clinton appointee), and
) Edward R. Korman (Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court, Eastern
) District of New York, New York University, Reagan appointee).
)
) Kendall told how the case was ten years old. He pointed out that
) Waldorf teacher trainer Betty Staley had been listed as both an
) expert and a percipient witness. Kendall pointed out where in the
) record Judge Damrell had said that it was a rule that an expert
) witness couldn't be a percipient witness. Kendall asserted that there
) was no such rule. He referred to Brown v. Woodland, where the value
) of experts in a church-state case was questioned, as the rationale
) for PLANS not calling any experts.
)
) Michelle Cannon argued for the defendants. Cannon insisted that the
) defendants hadn't heard of Staley being a percipient witness until
) the day of the trial. That position strained credibility, given that
) Staley had been deposed by PLANS years ago. Judge Korman interrupted
) to object that there was no rule, and in any case, what was the harm
) in having Staley testify? Judge McKeown also asked pointed questions.
) Judge Korman suggested a compromise where the district court might
) hold a hearing to determine whether Staley's testimony was relevant.
) Kendall said he wanted all three excluded witnesses, Betty Staley
) (Rudolf Steiner College), Crystal Olson (California State University,
) Sacramento), and Robert Anderson (WestEd).
)
) Judge McKeown asked Kendall to address the issue that defendant Twin
) Ridges Elementary School District no longer has jurisdiction over the
) Yuba River Charter School (a Waldorf school). Kendall said PLANS
) didn't dispute that fact. McKeown suggested that the substitution of
) the Nevada County Office of Education, now the chartering authority
) for the school, as one of the Does named in the complaint was a
) matter for the district court.
)
) The Court issued a memorandum on November 21, 2007 (Case No.
) 05-17193). Judge Korman wrote for the court "The district court erred
) in excluding the testimony of the witnesses in question. Because
) PLANS intended to call the witnesses as percipient witnesses, it did
) not need to comply with the court's deadline for expert witness
) disclosure. Moreover, the record indicates that PLANS disclosed the
) witnesses as early as January 2001. Even if the witnesses had not
) been properly disclosed, there was no prejudice as the School
) Districts had previously designated the same witnesses as expert
) witnesses." The court reversed the decision of the district court
) (Case No. CV-98-0266 FCD PAN) and remanded the case back to that
) court.
)
) BACKGROUND
)
) Anthroposophy is the spiritual movement behind the world-wide network
) of Waldorf schools. PLANS alleges that for Establishment Clause
) purposes, Anthroposophy is a religious sect. The defendants claim
) that it is a philosophy. This is a crucial issue in the case. If
) Anthroposophy isn't a religious activity, then PLANS can't allege
) that taxpayer-funded Waldorf schools violate the Constitution by
) being entangled with religion. Common references classify
) Anthroposophy as religious; for example, Encarta: "a religious
) philosophy developed by Rudolf Steiner from theosophy, holding that
) spiritual development should be humankind's foremost concern."
)
) PLANS contends that public Waldorf schools are intrinsically and
) inseparably based on Anthroposophy. Curriculum decisions and teacher
) training are based on Anthroposophy's child development theory, which
) defines stages of reincarnation, a religious doctrine. Science
) teaching in Waldorf schools includes crackpot Anthroposophical
) doctrines like "the heart is not a pump." The framework for history
) in Waldorf schools is based on Anthroposophy's proto-Nazi racial
) theory. Publicly funded use and reliance on the doctrines of
) Anthroposophy endorses that religion in violation of the United
) States and California constitutions.
)
) PLANS filed its federal lawsuit in Sacramento on February 11, 1998,
) naming as defendants the Sacramento Unified School District, which
) operates a "Waldorf Methods" magnet school, and the Twin Ridges
) Elementary School District, which carried on a veritable franchise
) operation, establishing six "Waldorf-inspired" charter schools, all
) located in other school districts.
)
) In May, 2001, Judge Damrell dismissed the PLANS lawsuit against the
) two school districts, based on lack of standing. PLANS appealed the
) decision, and in February, 2003, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
) confirmed PLANS' right to sue the school districts as taxpayers and
) reinstated the case.
)
) When the U.S. District Court tried the case in September, 2005, PLANS
) refused to proceed without the key witnesses and evidence that the
) judge had excluded, forcing a dismissal. PLANS appealed, and the
) appeal succeeded. The case now goes back to the Federal District
) Court, Eastern District of California, in Sacramento.
)
) WHAT IS PLANS?
)
) PLANS was organized in late 1995 by former Waldorf parents and
) teachers concerned about both private and public Waldorf schools. It
) became a California non-profit corporation in 1997. PLANS' mission is
) to provide parents, teachers, and school boards with views of Waldorf
) education from outside the cult of Rudolf Steiner, to expose the
) illegality of public funding for Waldorf school programs in the US,
) and to litigate against schools violating the Establishment Clause of
) the First Amendment.
)
) For more information, please see the PLANS web site,
) http://www.waldorfcritics.org.
)
) -30-
)
) -Dan Dugan, Secretary
) PLANS, Inc.
)
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
3c. Re: WALDORF CRITICS WIN APPEAL IN CHURCH-STATE CASE
Posted by: "Debra Snell" snell gv.net debrasnell
Date: Tue Dec 4, 2007 2:36 pm ((PST))
On Dec 4, 2007, at 11:05 AM, filosofer52 wrote:
) Congratulations. While I love anthroposophy and cannot accept your
) characterizations of it, I agree that it is unconstitutional to use
) taxpayer money to fund a Waldorf school, although my reasons may be a
) bit different.
Debra:
Thanks. So what are your reasons?
) (Of course, the Federal Department of Education itself
) is, arguably, unconstitutional, but that's another matter. I think the
) best solution is some version of tax credits. This would allow for
) affordable school choice in a way that should be acceptable to both
) parties.)
Debra:
Waldorf Schools and Anthroposophists should be leading the fight to
change the laws instead of slithering on their bellies through the
back door - forced to lie about who they are and what they do. (What
ever happened to self respect?)
) Anyway, I'm sure Steiner would agree that it's best to
) separate "Waldorf school and State".
Debra:
Steiner didn't want to be controlled by the state but he didn't seem
to have many problems about deceiving the State. ("... and inwardly
make fools of them".) Karma and destiny over morality and the end
justifies the means. (gagging)
)
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
3d. Re: WALDORF CRITICS WIN APPEAL IN CHURCH-STATE CASE
Posted by: "filosofer52" openminded1 gmail.com filosofer52
Date: Tue Dec 4, 2007 4:53 pm ((PST))
--- In waldorf-critics yahoogroups.com, Debra Snell (snell ...) wrote:
)
)
) On Dec 4, 2007, at 11:05 AM, filosofer52 wrote:
)
) ) Congratulations. While I love anthroposophy and cannot accept your
) ) characterizations of it, I agree that it is unconstitutional to
use
) ) taxpayer money to fund a Waldorf school, although my reasons may
be a
) ) bit different.
)
)
) Debra:
)
) Thanks. So what are your reasons?
)
In a healthy, free society, there will be all sorts of competing
visions of how our culture should be shaped, and schools are some of
the primary sites of cultural transmission. In this regard, the
federal goverment has no business playing the role of cultural
arbiter. I think the 'establishment clause' argument is weak, but
even if Waldorf education is un-religious and entirely harmless,
there's no reason to force taxpayers to support it. A tax credit
system allows parents, rather than the State, to shape which methods
of education will be viable.
)
) ) (Of course, the Federal Department of Education itself
) ) is, arguably, unconstitutional, but that's another matter. I
think the
) ) best solution is some version of tax credits. This would allow for
) ) affordable school choice in a way that should be acceptable to
both
) ) parties.)
)
) Debra:
)
) Waldorf Schools and Anthroposophists should be leading the fight
to
) change the laws instead of slithering on their bellies through the
) back door - forced to lie about who they are and what they do.
(What
) ever happened to self respect?)
)
)
Minus the invective, I agree in principle. I believe Gary Lamb has
been working on this, and I'm sure there are others. Of course I
disagree with your characterization of anthroposophists, but I
respect your opinion.
) ) Anyway, I'm sure Steiner would agree that it's best to
) ) separate "Waldorf school and State".
)
)
) Debra:
)
) Steiner didn't want to be controlled by the state but he didn't
seem
) to have many problems about deceiving the State. ("... and
inwardly
) make fools of them".) Karma and destiny over morality and the end
) justifies the means. (gagging)
)
Deception? No. Playing the system? Maybe. If ever there was a good
time to refuse unquestioning servility to government bureaucracy, it
was in pre-WWII Germany.
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
3e. Re: WALDORF CRITICS WIN APPEAL IN CHURCH-STATE CASE
Posted by: "winters_diana" diana.winters verizon.net winters_diana
Date: Tue Dec 4, 2007 7:03 pm ((PST))
Filosofer:
) Deception? No. Playing the system? Maybe. If ever there was a good
) time to refuse unquestioning servility to government bureaucracy, it
) was in pre-WWII Germany.
Errr . . . speaking of slithering . . .
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
3f. Waldorf in "in pre-WWII Germany"
Posted by: "Peter Staudenmaier" pstaud hotmail.com pstauden
Date: Tue Dec 4, 2007 8:15 pm ((PST))
Filo wrote:
) Deception? No. Playing the system? Maybe. If ever there was a good
) time to refuse unquestioning servility to government bureaucracy, it
) was in pre-WWII Germany.
"Pre-WWII Germany" is a rather long period, historically speaking, and a very heterogenous period, politically speaking. It sounds like Filo may believe that Waldorf education was founded in the 1930s, during the Nazi era. If so, she or he is mistaken. Waldorf was founded in 1919, in the immediate aftermath of World War One, just as the very first democracy in Germany was getting on its feet. This period, from 1918 until 1933, is referred to as the Weimar republic. The Weimar republic replaced the authoritarian state of the German Empire, which had collapsed at the end of WWI. The democratic system of the Weimar era was established by the opponents of Nazism and represented everything that the Nazis loathed.
The founders of Waldorf weren't too keen on it either. Some of them viewed democracy as an un-German aberration inflicted on Germany by its enemies. Steiner held that democracy was inappropriate in both the economic sphere and the cultural-spiritual sphere, and according to him schools belonged in the latter category. Another of the founding fathers of the first Waldorf school, E.A. Karl Stockmeyer, opposed the new German democracy from the beginning. In a December 1918 pamphlet, Stockmeyer called for erecting an anti-democratic "ethno-nationalist state" (ăvlkischen Staatä) in Germany rather than submitting to ăthe democracy imposed on us by the West.ä (E. A. Karl Stockmeyer, Vom deutschen Volksstaat und von der deutschen Erziehung, Mannheim 1918) After the Nazis destroyed the Weimar democracy in 1933, Waldorf representatives aggressively condemned the Weimar system and compared it unfavorably to the "new Germany" created by the Nazis. I will provide lots of excerpts from Waldorf spokespeople during the Nazi era in a following series of posts, but here's a little sneak preview for now:
In a 1935 letter to the Nazi Ministry of Education, the leader of the League of Waldorf Schools, Ren Maikowski, argued that Waldorf schools were not really private schools, because they did not pursue private interests, but the interests of the entire "national community" ("Volksgemeinschaft," a notorious Nazi term that anthroposophists also used copiously). Waldorf pedagogy, Maikowski explained, was a boon to all of Germany and was ăurgently needed for the national strengthening of our growing youth.ä Referring contemptuously to the Weimar era as ăMarxist,ä Maikowski emphasized that the ănew Germanyä under National Socialist auspices presented the long-awaited opportunity for Waldorf to unfold its true potential. Whereas the success of the Waldorf schools in their effort toward "national strengthening" had been ămade extremely difficult by the narrow bureaucratic handling of the matter in Marxist Germany,ä Maikowski wrote, ăI would like to express the hope and the expectation that in the new Germany, genuine life will at last be able to blossom and that the pedagogical labor of the Waldorf schools will find sympathy and encouragement.ä (League of Waldorf Schools to Ministry of Education, March 9, 1935)
In other words, Filo's remark is pretty much exactly backwards. As it happens, the founding the first Waldorf school in 1919 depended on an unusually advantageous bureaucratic environment in the early stages of the Weimar republic, when the state educational authorities made several exceptions for Waldorf. For a thorough description of this history, see Helmut Zander, Anthroposophie in Deutschland: Theosophische Weltanschauung und gesellschaftliche Praxis 1884ö1945 (Gttingen 2007), pp. 1368-69 and 1376-77.
Greetings to all,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
You keep typing, we keep giving. Download Messenger and join the iâm Initiative now.
http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGLM
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Re: Field trip: Photos! /Creation of the World!
Posted by: "Walden" awaldenpond shaw.ca awaldenpond
Date: Tue Dec 4, 2007 11:35 am ((PST))
Hi Zooey,
You wrote:
)And here, the media perpetrates this view as well. Not long ago there
)was an article on the anthro-centre south of Stockholm, recommending
)it for a day trip to watch the beauty of the art, buildings and stuff.
)Not far from where I live, in central Stockholm, there is a small
)farm, caf and restaurant establishment where they also sell their
)products - highly popular, and gets great reviews because of the beuty
)and the biodynamics and 'back to nature'-romanticism. (Yeah, city
)people...) In this latter place there are no anthro buildings, but the
)whole thing is managed by anthroposophists. Contrary to my old school,
)they seem to have a successful marketing department, though.
)But generally, the one thing people seem to know about anthros is the
)style and design, and surprisingly many seem to think it is beautiful,
)but somewhat weird.
I find it interesting to see how the media often deals (or not) with certain subjects. There is always that "objective" angle interfering with the real story. If a group of people decided to report that they can add 5 years to their lives by worshipping a herd of unicorns that graze in a secret field somewhere, the media would probably start the story by interviewing an academic globetrotter regarding the possible locations of these hidden fields. No matter how goofy the claim, there must be a certain level of "objective" reporting. The Anthro/Waldorf movement is often left unquestioned/unchallenged for this reason, plus the fact that critique of anything faith based is just not nice. And any decent journalist will find that the time needed to look under the silks and behind the bees wax candles is more than even the most patient of editors will usually allow.
So, the public relies on anecdotes and disingenuous Anthro/Waldorf PR. Yep - one often comes away with a water downed version of "beautiful but somewhat weird."
-Walden
Recent Activity
a.. 1New Members
Visit Your Group
Yahoo! Kickstart
Sign up today!
Find great recruits
for your company.
Win free airfare
from Yahoo!
Fly home for the
Holidays on us.
Best of Y! Groups
Check it out
and nominate your
group to be featured.
.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Messages in this topic (25)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
(*) To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/
(*) Your email settings:
Digest Email | Traditional
(*) To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
(*) To change settings via email:
mailto:waldorf-critics-normal yahoogroups.com
mailto:waldorf-critics-fullfeatured yahoogroups.com
(*) To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
waldorf-critics-unsubscribe yahoogroups.com
(*) Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 14 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Waldorf in "in pre-WWII Germany"
From: filosofer52
1b. Re: Waldorf in "in pre-WWII Germany"
From: Peter Staudenmaier
1c. Re: Waldorf in "in pre-WWII Germany"
From: filosofer52
2a. Re Steiner on criticism
From: filosofer52
2b. Re: Re Steiner on criticism
From: Peter Staudenmaier
2c. Re: Re Steiner on criticism
From: filosofer52
3.1. Re: Field trip: Photos! /Creation of the World!
From: Zooey
4.1. Re: Field trip to Swedish waldorf school: Photos!
From: Zooey
4.2. Re: Field trip to Swedish waldorf school: Photos!
From: filosofer52
4.3. Re: Field trip to Swedish waldorf school: Photos!
From: Debra Snell
4.4. Re: Field trip to Swedish waldorf school: Photos!
From: winters_diana
4.5. Re: Field trip to Swedish waldorf school: Photos!
From: winters_diana
4.6. Re: Field trip to Swedish waldorf school: Photos!
From: filosofer52
4.7. Re: Field trip to Swedish waldorf school: Photos!
From: Debra Snell
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Waldorf in "in pre-WWII Germany"
Posted by: "filosofer52" openminded1 gmail.com filosofer52
Date: Wed Dec 5, 2007 2:57 am ((PST))
--- In waldorf-critics yahoogroups.com, Peter Staudenmaier
(pstaud ...) wrote:
)
)
)
)
) Filo wrote:
)
)
) ) Deception? No. Playing the system? Maybe. If ever there was a good
) ) time to refuse unquestioning servility to government bureaucracy, it
) ) was in pre-WWII Germany.
)
)
) "Pre-WWII Germany" is a rather long period, historically speaking,
) and a very heterogenous period, politically speaking. It sounds like
) Filo may believe that Waldorf education was founded in the 1930s,
) during the Nazi era. If so, she or he is mistaken. Waldorf was founded
) in 1919, in the immediate aftermath of World War One, just as the very
) first democracy in Germany was getting on its feet. This period, from
) 1918 until 1933, is referred to as the Weimar republic. The Weimar
) republic replaced the authoritarian state of the German Empire, which
) had collapsed at the end of WWI. The democratic system of the Weimar
) era was established by the opponents of Nazism and represented
) everything that the Nazis loathed.
1919 was post-WWI. It was also pre-WWII. Either way, I was not making
a statement about political history. If someone wants to demonstrate
why the quote from Steiner that Debra referred to actually points to
unethical behavior or intentions, I'm interested to hear.
As for the other historical information about Waldorf's relationship
with German politics, it's all very interesting, but I do I not have
much knowledge about that subject, nor is it my particular interest. I
have no intention of trying to defend the representatives of Waldorf,
since I think they often departed from Steiner's intentions.
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Waldorf in "in pre-WWII Germany"
Posted by: "Peter Staudenmaier" pstaud hotmail.com pstauden
Date: Wed Dec 5, 2007 1:18 pm ((PST))
Hi again Filo,
)) Filo wrote:
))
))
))) Deception? No. Playing the system? Maybe. If ever there was a good
))) time to refuse unquestioning servility to government bureaucracy, it
))) was in pre-WWII Germany.
))
))
)) "Pre-WWII Germany" is a rather long period, historically speaking,
)) and a very heterogenous period, politically speaking. It sounds like
)) Filo may believe that Waldorf education was founded in the 1930s,
)) during the Nazi era. If so, she or he is mistaken. Waldorf was founded
)) in 1919, in the immediate aftermath of World War One, just as the very
)) first democracy in Germany was getting on its feet. This period, from
)) 1918 until 1933, is referred to as the Weimar republic. The Weimar
)) republic replaced the authoritarian state of the German Empire, which
)) had collapsed at the end of WWI. The democratic system of the Weimar
)) era was established by the opponents of Nazism and represented
)) everything that the Nazis loathed.
)
) 1919 was post-WWI. It was also pre-WWII.
Yes indeed. 1935 was also post-WWI and pre-WWII. (World War II began in 1939, after the Nazis had been in power for six and a half years.) But 1919 and 1935 were very different as far as the government of Germany goes. That's why your original formulation above was inadequate. It makes a significant difference which system the Waldorf movement was trying to play, which form of government it denounced and which form of government it endorsed.
) Either way, I was not making
) a statement about political history.
I sort of figured that, and I don't mean to corner you into a debate on that topic. But your original claim did among other things depend on particular assumptions about political history -- you appear to be saying that some times may be better than others for refusing to cooperate with a specific form of government -- and the choices the early Waldorf movement made were themselves very much embedded in political history. I think it helps to understand those choices, and thus understand the history of Waldorf more fully, if we have a better sense of what the historical and political context was at various points. From that perspective, the general trend among Waldorfers and anthroposophists to denigrate the fledgling democracy in Weimar Germany does not stand out as one of Waldorf's shining moments.
) If someone wants to demonstrate
) why the quote from Steiner that Debra referred to actually points to
) unethical behavior or intentions, I'm interested to hear.
)
) As for the other historical information about Waldorf's relationship
) with German politics, it's all very interesting, but I do I not have
) much knowledge about that subject, nor is it my particular interest. I
) have no intention of trying to defend the representatives of Waldorf,
) since I think they often departed from Steiner's intentions.
You mention Steiner's intentions twice here. Intentions are pretty much always a tricky historical category. Since Steiner isn't around, we can't ask him to clarify what he intended. What we can do is examine what he said and wrote and did, and examine what his followers said and wrote and did. Since those actual actions, unlike intentions, are what have effects in the real world, they are the legitimate focus when we're trying to figure out how the Waldorf movement developed. Greetings,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Put your friends on the big screen with Windows Vista¨ + Windows Liveú.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/shop/specialoffers.mspx?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_CPC_MediaCtr_bigscreen_102007
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: Waldorf in "in pre-WWII Germany"
Posted by: "filosofer52" openminded1 gmail.com filosofer52
Date: Wed Dec 5, 2007 4:36 pm ((PST))
Hi Peter,
--- In waldorf-critics yahoogroups.com, Peter Staudenmaier
(pstaud ...) wrote:
)
) Yes indeed. 1935 was also post-WWI and pre-WWII. (World War II began
in 1939, after the Nazis had been in power for six and a half years.)
But 1919 and 1935 were very different as far as the government of
Germany goes. That's why your original formulation above was
inadequate. It makes a significant difference which system the Waldorf
movement was trying to play, which form of government it denounced and
which form of government it endorsed.
)
I agree.
)
) ) Either way, I was not making
) ) a statement about political history.
)
)
) I sort of figured that, and I don't mean to corner you into a debate
on that topic. But your original claim did among other things depend
on particular assumptions about political history -- you appear to be
saying that some times may be better than others for refusing to
cooperate with a specific form of government -- and the choices the
early Waldorf movement made were themselves very much embedded in
political history. I think it helps to understand those choices, and
thus understand the history of Waldorf more fully, if we have a better
sense of what the historical and political context was at various
points. From that perspective, the general trend among Waldorfers and
anthroposophists to denigrate the fledgling democracy in Weimar
Germany does not stand out as one of Waldorf's shining moments.
)
My original formulation certainly glossed over some key historical
political details, but I am happy to expand what I said to include all
governments. No government (that I know of) is perfect, and I think a
healthy moral sensibility would demand that one does not adopt
unquestioning cooperation with government bureaucracy as an a priori
behavioral code. But that's just my personal view, and as I said, I
don't know much about the early history of Waldorf. Again, however, if
someone wants to elucidate why the quote Debra originally referenced
actually indicates unethical behavior, I'm interested to hear. As far
as your point about the importance of historical and political
context, I completely agree.
)
) ) If someone wants to demonstrate
) ) why the quote from Steiner that Debra referred to actually points to
) ) unethical behavior or intentions, I'm interested to hear.
) )
) ) As for the other historical information about Waldorf's relationship
) ) with German politics, it's all very interesting, but I do I not have
) ) much knowledge about that subject, nor is it my particular interest. I
) ) have no intention of trying to defend the representatives of Waldorf,
) ) since I think they often departed from Steiner's intentions.
)
)
) You mention Steiner's intentions twice here. Intentions are pretty
much always a tricky historical category. Since Steiner isn't around,
we can't ask him to clarify what he intended. What we can do is
examine what he said and wrote and did, and examine what his followers
said and wrote and did. Since those actual actions, unlike intentions,
are what have effects in the real world, they are the legitimate focus
when we're trying to figure out how the Waldorf movement developed.
This all makes good sense. Since I have a personal interest in
understanding Steiner, I naturally try to understand his intentions,
but for the purpose of discussion I am happy to stick to what he said,
wrote, and did. Indeed, it is on the basis of my reading of what
Steiner said and wrote that I make the observation that many
anthroposophists have departed from his (stated) intentions. As for
the history of anthroposophists and the Waldorf movement in general,
it certainly can shed some light on Steiner himself and his ideas, but
it is important not to assume that the words and actions of people in
this broader movement are necessarily somehow representative of
Steiner and his ideas. They are merely representative of the people
that said or did them.
Greetings and thanks,
Filo
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re Steiner on criticism
Posted by: "filosofer52" openminded1 gmail.com filosofer52
Date: Wed Dec 5, 2007 6:48 am ((PST))
A few points:
Indeed, Steiner more often spoke out against criticism than in favor
of it, and upon further consideration, I think my distinction between
Knowledge of Higher Worlds and his other work may have been
overstated. But Steiner's denunciations of criticism were specific,
that is, they rejected certain predominant styles of criticism, but
they did not reject criticism per se. Indeed, even in the context of
the sort of inner training described in Knowledge of Higher Worlds,
Steiner clarified that criticism is not abandoned. For instance, he
said in 1922:
"But when undergoing this higher training of the soul that has been
described, when we are developing this higher knowledge, imagination,
inspiration and intuition in the soul, all the time there is standing
beside us, fully present and fully there, the ordinary human being
with his feet on the ground, his firm and sound judgment unhampered,
entirely capable of exercising criticism, and with the full presence
of mind of the ordinary healthy human being at the present stage."
(Obtained from URL:
http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/Places/London/19220414p01.html)
--- In waldorf-critics yahoogroups.com, Peter Staudenmaier
(pstaud ...) wrote:
)
)
) ) If I write a book called, "How to live in the present moment," and
in
) ) the book I say that in order to live in the present moment, one can
) ) undertake such-and-such exercise to bring about the process of
) ) forgetting the past, would you therefore say that I am someone who
) ) rejects history forthrightly?
)
)
) That depends on whether you reject history forthrightly in the book.
And speaking of forgetting the past... I didn't cite Knowledge of
Higher Worlds as an instance of Steiner's rejection of historical
scholarship. Take another look at our exchange.
)
I never said you did. Take another look at our exchange
)
)
) ) Fair enough. But it strikes me that if a historian were to set out
to
) ) write a biography of Steiner, he or she would indeed find it
) ) relatively difficult to summarize Steiner's views since he gave so
) ) many thousands of lectures on so many different themes.
)
)
) I agree that attempting to summarize Steiner's overall views (about
) criticism or many other topics) across the course of his life is
) largely a vain enterprise, though it seems to me the reason does not
) lie primarily in the quantity of lectures but in the internally
) inconsistent and contradictory character of the content of both the
) lectures and the print publications, particularly when comparing his
) pre-anthroposophical and anthroposophical periods.
When dealing with complex thinking (as opposed to the black-and-white
thinking), things often appear inconsistent or contradictory at first
glance. I certainly can't state categorically that Steiner never
contradicted himself, but I'm interested to hear what you think are
his contradictions.
Messages in this topic (15)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: Re Steiner on criticism
Posted by: "Peter Staudenmaier" pstaud hotmail.com pstauden
Date: Wed Dec 5, 2007 1:15 pm ((PST))
Hi Filo,
) Indeed, Steiner more often spoke out against criticism than in favor
) of it, and upon further consideration, I think my distinction between
) Knowledge of Higher Worlds and his other work may have been
) overstated. But Steiner's denunciations of criticism were specific,
) that is, they rejected certain predominant styles of criticism, but
) they did not reject criticism per se.
Only the kinds of criticism that non-anthroposophists consider central to critique as such? That raises the same problem we encountered with the notion of "scholarship." If folks like Trevor Ravenscroft want to label their work scholarship, that's cool, but the rest of us are likely to point out that the term doesn't stretch that far. The theosophical tradition is full of instances of asserting scientific and scholarly and critical status for all sorts of occult claims. That sort of terminological re-categorization has no purchase on those who stand outside of the particular esoteric tradition in question.
) Indeed, even in the context of
) the sort of inner training described in Knowledge of Higher Worlds,
) Steiner clarified that criticism is not abandoned. For instance, he
) said in 1922:
)
) "But when undergoing this higher training of the soul that has been
) described, when we are developing this higher knowledge, imagination,
) inspiration and intuition in the soul, all the time there is standing
) beside us, fully present and fully there, the ordinary human being
) with his feet on the ground, his firm and sound judgment unhampered,
) entirely capable of exercising criticism, and with the full presence
) of mind of the ordinary healthy human being at the present stage."
That's a fine example. In this passage, Steiner is trying once again to distinguish his own path of initiation from mere fantasy, or hallucination as it is termed here. He says that occult students can know that they're not just having visions because their usual powers of perception will safeguard against this. The passage is part of his standard claim that anthroposophy is an extension of the methods of natural science. That claim, however, is inaccurate. There is some excellent work available on occult approaches to knowledge, with lots of attention to Steiner's anthroposophy. The one I'd recommend to start with is Olav Hammer's book Claiming Knowledge: Strategies of Epistemology from Theosophy to the New Age, though I also think Wouter Hanegraaff's book New Age Religion and Western Culture: Esotericism in the Mirror of Secular Thought is very valuable in this regard as well. In addition, a very good German overview was recently translated into English: Kocku von Stuckrad, Western Esotericism: A Brief History of Secret Knowledge.
In any case, there are lots of other examples where Steiner revokes the relatively broad understanding of criticism illustrated above and instead offers an undifferentiated notion of criticism as a hindrance to higher knowledge. Aside from the passages I've already cited, consider his extended disquisition on the matter in his lectures on the Gospel of John, or the second chapter in Knowledge of Higher Worlds on how to practice listening without criticism, and so forth.
))
)) That depends on whether you reject history forthrightly in the book.
) And speaking of forgetting the past... I didn't cite Knowledge of
) Higher Worlds as an instance of Steiner's rejection of historical
) scholarship. Take another look at our exchange.
))
)
) I never said you did. Take another look at our exchange
Okay, what were you getting at, in that case? In our previous round you wrote:
"I don't think it requires such a rigorous degree of analysis to make the simple observation that if someone writes an instruction handbook on how to develop the ability to see into the spiritual world, it is intellectually dishonest (or mistaken) for us to assume that the instructions therein are intended as general guidelines for how to engage in the practice of scholarship. Steiner wasn't saying, "Listen, people of the world, criticism is bad" (which, incidentally, would be oxymoronic). Rather, he was saying, "If you want to awaken your faculties of spiritual perception, you will need to become less judgmental." He wasn't telling people what to do, or what is good and what is bad, or how they should relate to historical scholarship, or anything like that. He was speaking in the highly specific context of the practical steps one must take in order to develop a particular kind of perception. If I write a book called, "How to live in the present moment," and in the book I say that in order to live in the present moment, one can undertake such-and-such exercise to bring about the process of forgetting the past, would you therefore say that I am someone who rejects history forthrightly? That would be an utter non-sequiter."
You invoke historical scholarship several times in that passage, apparently arguing against the notion that Steiner's rejection of criticism is tantamount to a rejection of historical scholarship. As I had not put that notion forward, I don't see what you might have been trying to say here. Was your passage beside the point? Or was it making some other point about my remarks on Steiner's attitudes toward criticism? In other words, if you did not in fact take my remarks about Steiner's attitudes toward criticism as instances of his rejection of historical scholarship, then much of your passage above seems irrelevant. Alternatively, I think you may have conflated Steiner's stance on criticism with Steiner's stance on scholarship, and then attributed that conflation to me. Whatever the case, I think the two topics are worth distinguishing, though I agree that they influenced one another in several ways within Steiner's thinking.
)) I agree that attempting to summarize Steiner's overall views (about
)) criticism or many other topics) across the course of his life is
)) largely a vain enterprise, though it seems to me the reason does not
)) lie primarily in the quantity of lectures but in the internally
)) inconsistent and contradictory character of the content of both the
)) lectures and the print publications, particularly when comparing his
)) pre-anthroposophical and anthroposophical periods.
)
) When dealing with complex thinking (as opposed to the black-and-white
) thinking), things often appear inconsistent or contradictory at first
) glance. I certainly can't state categorically that Steiner never
) contradicted himself, but I'm interested to hear what you think are
) his contradictions.
Steiner contradicted himself on all sorts of topics in the course of his life. That's normal for prolific authors, and in Steiner's case is magnified by the stark transformations in his outlook and intellectual makeup at various points in his public career. To choose just one pertinent example, the Rudolf Steiner of the 1890s was caustically dismissive of theosophy, and by the following decade was among the leading theosophical thinkers in Europe. His racial and ethnic doctrines also contain frequent contradictions, both in detail and in their general contours. His shifting views on Jews and Jewishness are one striking instance of this. Even on very specific questions, such as whether European settlers were responsible for the decimation of native North American populations, Steiner offered flatly contradictory answers at various points. I do not think that this sort of inconsistency is something to be held especially against Steiner; to my mind the grounds for concern stem from the content of some of his statements, whether about race and ethnicity or about theosophy or about criticism or about science or about scholarship and so on. Greetings,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
You keep typing, we keep giving. Download Messenger and join the iâm Initiative now.
http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGLM
Messages in this topic (15)
________________________________________________________________________
2c. Re: Re Steiner on criticism
Posted by: "filosofer52" openminded1 gmail.com filosofer52
Date: Wed Dec 5, 2007 3:52 pm ((PST))
--- In waldorf-critics yahoogroups.com, Peter Staudenmaier
(pstaud ...) wrote:
)
) )
) ) Indeed, Steiner more often spoke out against criticism than in favor
) ) of it, and upon further consideration, I think my distinction
between
) ) Knowledge of Higher Worlds and his other work may have been
) ) overstated. But Steiner's denunciations of criticism were specific,
) ) that is, they rejected certain predominant styles of criticism, but
) ) they did not reject criticism per se.
)
) Only the kinds of criticism that non-anthroposophists consider
) central to critique as such? That raises the same problem we
) encountered with the notion of "scholarship." If folks like Trevor
) Ravenscroft want to label their work scholarship, that's cool, but
) the rest of us are likely to point out that the term doesn't stretch
that far.
) The theosophical tradition is full of instances of asserting
) scientific and scholarly and critical status for all sorts of occult
) claims. That sort of terminological re-categorization has no purchase
) on those who stand outside of the particular esoteric tradition in
) question.
)
I think we're basically in agreement, then, about this particular
point. All I want to say is that Steiner is making a claim of, to use
your phrase, "critical status," and therefore cannot be fairly
described as "anti-criticism." Whether academics accept Steiner's views
on criticism is another matter.
)
) ) Indeed, even in the context of
) ) the sort of inner training described in Knowledge of Higher Worlds,
) ) Steiner clarified that criticism is not abandoned. For instance, he
) ) said in 1922:
) )
) ) "But when undergoing this higher training of the soul that has been
) ) described, when we are developing this higher knowledge,
imagination,
) ) inspiration and intuition in the soul, all the time there is
standing
) ) beside us, fully present and fully there, the ordinary human being
) ) with his feet on the ground, his firm and sound judgment unhampered,
) ) entirely capable of exercising criticism, and with the full presence
) ) of mind of the ordinary healthy human being at the present stage."
)
)
) That's a fine example. In this passage, Steiner is trying once again
) to distinguish his own path of initiation from mere fantasy, or
) hallucination as it is termed here. He says that occult students can
) know that they're not just having visions because their usual powers
) of perception will safeguard against this. The passage is part of his
) standard claim that anthroposophy is an extension of the methods of
) natural science. That claim, however, is inaccurate. There is some
) excellent work available on occult approaches to knowledge, with lots
) of attention to Steiner's anthroposophy. The one I'd recommend to
) start with is Olav Hammer's book Claiming Knowledge: Strategies of
) Epistemology from Theosophy to the New Age, though I also think Wouter
) Hanegraaff's book New Age Religion and Western Culture: Esotericism in
) the Mirror of Secular Thought is very valuable in this regard as well.
) In addition, a very good German overview was recently translated into
) English: Kocku von Stuckrad, Western Esotericism: A Brief History of
) Secret Knowledge.
)
Yes, so I think we're in agreement that Steiner is making a claim of
scientific rigor, and hence is not exactly anti-science (at least
according to him). What we disagree on, it would seem, is whether
Steiner's claims are accurate.
Thank you for the references! I'll be very interested to have a look.
) In any case, there are lots of other examples where Steiner revokes
) the relatively broad understanding of criticism illustrated above and
) instead offers an undifferentiated notion of criticism as a hindrance
) to higher knowledge. Aside from the passages I've already cited,
) consider his extended disquisition on the matter in his lectures on
) the Gospel of John, or the second chapter in Knowledge of Higher
) Worlds on how to practice listening without criticism, and so forth.
)
I'll try to have a look at these passages soon. But I certainly accept
that Steiner often referred to "criticism" (I suppose it would be
"Kritik" in German?) as a hindrance to higher knowledge. Part of the
confusion, I suppose, arises from the many different connotations that
the word "criticism" can carry. So even in instances where Steiner spoke
against criticism without differentiating it, context often makes clear
that he was referencing particular valences of the term.
)
) ))
) )) That depends on whether you reject history forthrightly in the
book.
) ) And speaking of forgetting the past... I didn't cite Knowledge of
) ) Higher Worlds as an instance of Steiner's rejection of historical
) ) scholarship. Take another look at our exchange.
) ))
) )
) ) I never said you did. Take another look at our exchange
)
)
) Okay, what were you getting at, in that case? In our previous round
you wrote:
)
) "I don't think it requires such a rigorous degree of analysis to
make the simple observation that if someone writes an instruction
handbook on how to develop the ability to see into the spiritual
world, it is intellectually dishonest (or mistaken) for us to assume
that the instructions therein are intended as general guidelines for
how to engage in the practice of scholarship. Steiner wasn't saying,
"Listen, people of the world, criticism is bad" (which, incidentally,
would be oxymoronic). Rather, he was saying, "If you want to awaken
your faculties of spiritual perception, you will need to become less
judgmental." He wasn't telling people what to do, or what is good and
what is bad, or how they should relate to historical scholarship, or
anything like that. He was speaking in the highly specific context of
the practical steps one must take in order to develop a particular
kind of perception. If I write a book called, "How to live in the
present moment," and in the book I say that in order to live in the
present moment, one can undertake such-and-such exercise to bring
about the process of forgetting the past, would you therefore say that
I am someone who rejects history forthrightly? That would be an utter
non-sequiter."
)
) You invoke historical scholarship several times in that passage,
I don't think this is particularly consequential, but I only invoked
"historical scholarship" once, by my count.
) apparently arguing against the notion that Steiner's rejection of
) criticism is tantamount to a rejection of historical scholarship.
No. I was arguing against the notion that Steiner's rejection of
criticism in a particular context is tantamount to a categorical
rejection of criticism . Sorry if I wasn't sufficiently clear.
) As I had not put that notion forward, I don't see what you might
) have been trying to say here. Was your passage beside the point? Or
) was it making some other point about my remarks on Steiner's attitudes
) toward criticism? In other words, if you did not in fact take my
) remarks about Steiner's attitudes toward criticism as instances of his
) rejection of historical scholarship, then much of your passage above
) seems irrelevant.
I hope that in light of the comment I made above my passage will seem
slightly more relevant. But I'm happy to let it go.
) Alternatively, I think you may have conflated Steiner's stance on
) criticism with Steiner's stance on scholarship, and then attributed
) that conflation to me. Whatever the case, I think the two topics are
) worth distinguishing, though I agree that they influenced one another
) in several ways within Steiner's thinking.
)
I don't think either of us has conflated these stances. As far as the
latter sentence goes, we're in agreement.
)
) )) I agree that attempting to summarize Steiner's overall views (about
) )) criticism or many other topics) across the course of his life is
) )) largely a vain enterprise, though it seems to me the reason does
not
) )) lie primarily in the quantity of lectures but in the internally
) )) inconsistent and contradictory character of the content of both the
) )) lectures and the print publications, particularly when comparing
his
) )) pre-anthroposophical and anthroposophical periods.
) )
) ) When dealing with complex thinking (as opposed to the
black-and-white
) ) thinking), things often appear inconsistent or contradictory at
first
) ) glance. I certainly can't state categorically that Steiner never
) ) contradicted himself, but I'm interested to hear what you think are
) ) his contradictions.
)
)
) Steiner contradicted himself on all sorts of topics in the course of
) his life. That's normal for prolific authors, and in Steiner's case is
) magnified by the stark transformations in his outlook and intellectual
) makeup at various points in his public career. To choose just one
) pertinent example, the Rudolf Steiner of the 1890s was caustically
) dismissive of theosophy, and by the following decade was among the
) leading theosophical thinkers in Europe. His racial and ethnic
) doctrines also contain frequent contradictions, both in detail and in
) their general contours. His shifting views on Jews and Jewishness are
) one striking instance of this. Even on very specific questions, such
) as whether European settlers were responsible for the decimation of
) native North American populations, Steiner offered flatly
) contradictory answers at various points. I do not think that this sort
) of inconsistency is something to be held especially against Steiner;
) to my mind the grounds for concern stem from the content of some of
) his statements, whether about race and ethnicity or about theosophy or
) about criticism or about science or about scholarship and so on.
)
Okay. I have encountered many claims of Steiner's contradictoriness that
actually result from misunderstandings (often on the part of
anthroposophists themselves) of what he's saying. But if you don't
find what you perceive to be his contradictions particularly
problematic, then I suppose it is a relatively moot point. As for what
you do find concerning, I think concern is quite a natural response to
much of Steiner's work. He certainly did not deal in innocuous
platitudes.
Messages in this topic (15)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3.1. Re: Field trip: Photos! /Creation of the World!
Posted by: "Zooey" skottehund yahoo.com zooey_stockholm
Date: Wed Dec 5, 2007 2:43 pm ((PST))
What it (waldorf) outwardly look like is probably the one thing that people and the media can actually grasp, because the other 'stuff' is just too weird. What it looks like is about all people know of the pedagogy as well, I fear. Colours, wool, wooden things, flutes, eurythmy, food... then that's it. What's behind it is far more diffuse.
And as you say, criticizing belief or faith is not 'nice', and it wouldn't be 'open minded' which of course everyone wants to be, even when open mindedness leads to shere stupitity and being fooled.
-zooey
Walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca) wrote:
I find it interesting to see how the media often deals (or not) with certain subjects. There is always that "objective" angle interfering with the real story. If a group of people decided to report that they can add 5 years to their lives by worshipping a herd of unicorns that graze in a secret field somewhere, the media would probably start the story by interviewing an academic globetrotter regarding the possible locations of these hidden fields. No matter how goofy the claim, there must be a certain level of "objective" reporting. The Anthro/Waldorf movement is often left unquestioned/unchallenged for this reason, plus the fact that critique of anything faith based is just not nice. And any decent journalist will find that the time needed to look under the silks and behind the bees wax candles is more than even the most patient of editors will usually allow.
So, the public relies on anecdotes and disingenuous Anthro/Waldorf PR. Yep - one often comes away with a water downed version of "beautiful but somewhat weird."
-Walden
---------------------------------
Support the World Aids Awareness campaign this month with Yahoo! for Good
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Messages in this topic (33)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4.1. Re: Field trip to Swedish waldorf school: Photos!
Posted by: "Zooey" skottehund yahoo.com zooey_stockholm
Date: Wed Dec 5, 2007 3:10 pm ((PST))
They are sort of in another era.
We had these teachers who were brought in from anthroposophy land in Germany and Switzerland. I remember the crafts (wood stuff) teacher (speaking in german mixed with some swedish) being angry because he thought I didn't sweep up stuff from the floor correctly. "Why is this? Haven't you learnt how to use a broom at home!?" he raged, but I simply retorted "We don't use brooms, we have a vacuum cleaner". Believe it or not, I don't think he had an answer to that at all. He didn't have a vacuum to offer me, so he never became aware that I was equally incompetent with that. I think there actually are anthros who don't use simple electric household gadgets. Not that they don't know they exist, but they continue to interpret the world from their viewpoint. Children must learn to sweep with a broom, because it's essential when you stay away from Ahriman in the vacuum cleaner.
-z
Debra Snell (snell gv.net) wrote:
On Dec 3, 2007, at 1:32 PM, Zooey wrote:
) Oh, no, the paint smell. That was disgusting. I thought maybe there
) are eggs in the paint, but then it wouldn't be water colour paint
) anymore?
)
) There are some internet shops that sell all the waldorf stuff. It's
) a walk through horror land for me. Nothing has changed at all in
) those in between years.
)
And it can't change because Steiner is dead...
Reminds me of that old joke - How many Anthroposophists does it take
to change a light bulb?... We don't know. Steiner didn't give an
indication... Kind of says it all.
---------------------------------
Sent from Yahoo! - the World's favourite mail.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Messages in this topic (33)
________________________________________________________________________
4.2. Re: Field trip to Swedish waldorf school: Photos!
Posted by: "filosofer52" openminded1 gmail.com filosofer52
Date: Wed Dec 5, 2007 6:27 pm ((PST))
--- In waldorf-critics yahoogroups.com, Debra Snell (snell ...) wrote:
)
)
) On Dec 3, 2007, at 1:32 PM, Zooey wrote:
)
) ) Oh, no, the paint smell. That was disgusting. I thought maybe there
) ) are eggs in the paint, but then it wouldn't be water colour paint
) ) anymore?
) )
) ) There are some internet shops that sell all the waldorf stuff. It's
) ) a walk through horror land for me. Nothing has changed at all in
) ) those in between years.
) )
)
) And it can't change because Steiner is dead...
)
) Reminds me of that old joke - How many Anthroposophists does it take
) to change a light bulb?... We don't know. Steiner didn't give an
) indication... Kind of says it all.
)
Steiner wrote in 1905:
"Only someone who insists on having fixed dogmas can believe that the
present form of the message of the science of spirit is a lasting or
even the only possible one."
http://wn.rsarchive.org/Articles/SocQue_index.html
"Nur jemand, der durchaus fertige starre Dogmen haben will, kann
glauben, da§ die gegenwrtige Form der geisteswissenschaftlichen
Verkndigung eine bleibende, oder etwa gar die einzig mgliche sei."
http://www.anthroposophie.net/steiner/lucifer/bib_steiner_soziale_frage.htm
Your make a good point, Debra, insofar as some anthroposophists and
Waldorf teachers have dogmatic tendencies, and in this sense I
appreciate the joke. But I include the quote from Steiner as a
reminder of the fact that Steiner himself did not present spiritual
science or Waldorf Education as systems that were somehow limited to
what he said about them.
Messages in this topic (33)
________________________________________________________________________
4.3. Re: Field trip to Swedish waldorf school: Photos!
Posted by: "Debra Snell" snell gv.net debrasnell
Date: Wed Dec 5, 2007 6:44 pm ((PST))
On Dec 5, 2007, at 6:27 PM, filosofer52 wrote:
) http://www.anthroposophie.net/steiner/lucifer/
) bib_steiner_soziale_frage.htm
)
) Your make a good point, Debra, insofar as some anthroposophists and
) Waldorf teachers have dogmatic tendencies, and in this sense I
) appreciate the joke. But I include the quote from Steiner as a
) reminder of the fact that Steiner himself did not present spiritual
) science or Waldorf Education as systems that were somehow limited to
) what he said about them.
)
)
So what can be done about this misperception? If the most visible
activity of Anthroposophy (Waldorf) is screwing up, I'd say you have
a huge public relations problem that needs jumped on fast. Oooh yeah,
(banging head against wall), for a quick second, I was forgetting the
three fold social order. It's only been a problem since 1919...
Sorry but I've lost patience with reform Anthroposophists who agree
with us but can't institute change. If I had a penny for every
Anthroposophist who disagrees with dogma I'd be rich.
A very old cheerleader for change *within* the movement,
Debra
Messages in this topic (33)
________________________________________________________________________
4.4. Re: Field trip to Swedish waldorf school: Photos!
Posted by: "winters_diana" diana.winters verizon.net winters_diana
Date: Wed Dec 5, 2007 7:14 pm ((PST))
Debra told the light bulb/Steiner joke, and our resident filosofer
said:
)Your make a good point, Debra, insofar as some anthroposophists and
) Waldorf teachers have dogmatic tendencies, and in this sense I
) appreciate the joke. But I include the quote from Steiner as a
) reminder of the fact that Steiner himself did not present spiritual
) science or Waldorf Education as systems that were somehow limited to
) what he said about them.
In my experience in Waldorf, someone tells a sort of
anthroposophically "off color" joke - someone naughtily suggests that
it's possible Steiner was wrong about something, ooohhh oooooh, and
what always happens next, amid the nervous titters, is just what
happened here - some predictable bore would inform the group
tediously that it was actually all right to tell jokes, because
Steiner said jokes were a good thing. Klunk.
Messages in this topic (33)
________________________________________________________________________
4.5. Re: Field trip to Swedish waldorf school: Photos!
Posted by: "winters_diana" diana.winters verizon.net winters_diana
Date: Wed Dec 5, 2007 7:15 pm ((PST))
Debra;
)If I had a penny for every Anthroposophist who disagrees with dogma
)I'd be rich.
It's dogma to decry dogma in anthroposophy . . .
Messages in this topic (33)
________________________________________________________________________
4.6. Re: Field trip to Swedish waldorf school: Photos!
Posted by: "filosofer52" openminded1 gmail.com filosofer52
Date: Wed Dec 5, 2007 7:20 pm ((PST))
--- In waldorf-critics yahoogroups.com, Debra Snell (snell ...) wrote:
)
)
) On Dec 5, 2007, at 6:27 PM, filosofer52 wrote:
) ) http://www.anthroposophie.net/steiner/lucifer/
) ) bib_steiner_soziale_frage.htm
) )
) ) Your make a good point, Debra, insofar as some anthroposophists and
) ) Waldorf teachers have dogmatic tendencies, and in this sense I
) ) appreciate the joke. But I include the quote from Steiner as a
) ) reminder of the fact that Steiner himself did not present spiritual
) ) science or Waldorf Education as systems that were somehow limited to
) ) what he said about them.
) )
) )
)
)
) So what can be done about this misperception?
Good question. Perhaps PLANS could make clarifying this misperception
part its platform! More broadly, I suppose, shifts in
teacher-training methodology might be appropriate, but this is way out
of my purview.
If the most visible
) activity of Anthroposophy (Waldorf) is screwing up, I'd say you have
) a huge public relations problem that needs jumped on fast.
)From everything I have gathered about Waldorf Education as a
worldwide phenomenon (not that I'm an expert), I would not describe it
as "screwing up." Far from it. But certainly, I agree that there are
some problems that need addressing. They are not my problems, but I am
happy to try to help if there's something I can do.
Oooh yeah,
) (banging head against wall), for a quick second, I was forgetting the
) three fold social order. It's only been a problem since 1919...
)
What exactly is the problem you're referring to?
) Sorry but I've lost patience with reform Anthroposophists who agree
) with us but can't institute change.
I am not sure exactly what a reform Anthroposophist is, but I don't
think it's what I am. And I certainly don't agree with much of what
PLANS says, as I indicated in my initial reply to Dan's post about the
court case. If your patience with me is somehow dependent on me
instituting change in the Waldorf Education movement, we may be at an
impasse, but I'll do my best.
If I had a penny for every
) Anthroposophist who disagrees with dogma I'd be rich.
)
Isn't it good to disagree with dogma? But if you mean that the
disavowals of dogma are sometimes flakey, then I agree.
) A very old cheerleader for change *within* the movement,
Cheers
Messages in this topic (33)
________________________________________________________________________
4.7. Re: Field trip to Swedish waldorf school: Photos!
Posted by: "Debra Snell" snell gv.net debrasnell
Date: Wed Dec 5, 2007 7:36 pm ((PST))
On Dec 5, 2007, at 7:20 PM, filosofer52 wrote:
) --- In waldorf-critics yahoogroups.com, Debra Snell (snell ...) wrote:
) )
) )
) ) On Dec 5, 2007, at 6:27 PM, filosofer52 wrote:
) ) ) http://www.anthroposophie.net/steiner/lucifer/
) ) ) bib_steiner_soziale_frage.htm
) ) )
) ) ) Your make a good point, Debra, insofar as some anthroposophists
) and
) ) ) Waldorf teachers have dogmatic tendencies, and in this sense I
) ) ) appreciate the joke. But I include the quote from Steiner as a
) ) ) reminder of the fact that Steiner himself did not present
) spiritual
) ) ) science or Waldorf Education as systems that were somehow
) limited to
) ) ) what he said about them.
) ) )
) ) )
) )
) )
) ) So what can be done about this misperception?
)
) Good question. Perhaps PLANS could make clarifying this misperception
) part its platform! More broadly, I suppose, shifts in
) teacher-training methodology might be appropriate, but this is way out
) of my purview.
I've spoken with teacher trainers who agree with us. Unfortunately,
the ones who agree get fired or leave. The best idea I have been
presented with is to cull the teachers by giving them psychological
testing before hiring. Testing from outside the movement, of course.
)
) If the most visible
) ) activity of Anthroposophy (Waldorf) is screwing up, I'd say you have
) ) a huge public relations problem that needs jumped on fast.
)
) )From everything I have gathered about Waldorf Education as a
) worldwide phenomenon (not that I'm an expert), I would not describe it
) as "screwing up." Far from it. But certainly, I agree that there are
) some problems that need addressing. They are not my problems, but I am
) happy to try to help if there's something I can do.
Debra:
Well, it's my phone that gets rung off the hook this time of year.
This is the busy season for PLANS.
)
) Oooh yeah,
) ) (banging head against wall), for a quick second, I was forgetting
) the
) ) three fold social order. It's only been a problem since 1919...
) )
)
) What exactly is the problem you're referring to?
The problem? Waldorf schools aren't honest or forthright about their
goals or their mission. Their dishonest in advertising. They seem to
be targeting the wrong market.
)
) ) Sorry but I've lost patience with reform Anthroposophists who agree
) ) with us but can't institute change.
)
) I am not sure exactly what a reform Anthroposophist is, but I don't
) think it's what I am. And I certainly don't agree with much of what
) PLANS says, as