return to WCA Archive Index
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1212 --------------
001 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: prayer(was..brainwashed...)
002 - njpmail mindspring.com (Y - my introduction (long)
003 - Bob Jones (b2251 yahoo.co - Re: my introduction (long)
004 - ckzfrey (ckzfrey ix.netco - Re: my introduction (long)/Reply(short)
005 - ckzfrey (ckzfrey ix.netco - Re: my introduction
006 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - Re: my introduction
007 - Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordw - First Amendment and WE (Was: Re: What is ...)
008 - Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordw - Re: First Amendment and WE (Was: Re: What is ...)
009 - Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordw - Re: my introduction (long)
010 - John & Wendy Morehead (mo - Re: my introduction
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1212.1 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: prayer(was..brainwashed...)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 18:01:09 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199904100225.TAA21009 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904110139.SAA14651 lists1.best.com)
Ezra Beeman says:
)I do not recall ever posting anything hateful to this list. You must be
)projecting.
)
)Seriously though, your synopsis of my post boarders on the insane.
)
)I do not think there is any disagreement within the scientific community
)regarding the fate of
)someone taking AZT. It will kill them. Do you disagree with this
)simplest of propositions? (If you
)disagree I will be more than happy to buy your first harmless
)prescription.
Please cite the relevant scientific evidence that proves your assertion.
(g)) Whether or not AZT
)kills people before HIV is some matter of debate.
Well, it sure doesn't kill them AFTER they die of AIDS (not HIV). You can't
even get that much straight.
)
)Do not be surprised when I do not bother replying to your posts. You and
)I have a difference of
)opinion, leave it at that and you will be better off for it.
)e
Yeah, I fogot, you're a graduate of a Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical
school, so you're so much better a person in all respects than unworthy old
me that I will just shrivel in the light of your brilliance. As I've said
before, the one thing that is absolutely sure to be inculcatedin SWA
students is colossal arrogance.
We have more than a difference of opinion, Beeman. We have a completely
different outlook on life.
And I'm not about to stop posting my views of your lunacy. If you don't
want to reply to them, or prefer to sling shit at me, just remember that
some of it will stick to you in the process. And people will see you for
what you are.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
)
)Michael Kopp wrote:
)
)) Michael KOPP says:
))
)) Why don't you ask Ezra Beeman the question about AZT? He posted a hateful
)) rant against the science that developed AZT, preferring the views of
))Peter
)) Duesberg, who says AZT and other drugs are the CAUSE of AIDS, not the
))virus
)) HIV. To which I made a long and detailed reply with numerous literature
)) citations.
))
)) To date Ezra has failed to reply to my challenge to him.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1212.2 ---------------
From: njpmail mindspring.com (Yael Resnick)
Subject: my introduction (long)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 03:21:51 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hello all,
I have been reading this list with interest for a few weeks. I finally have
a free moment (well, it's costing me sleep) to introduce myself and join
the discussion (fray?), so here goes (my apologies for the great length of
this post; in the future I will be brief!):
My name is Yael Resnick. I'm the mother of two small children, and the
publisher and editor of a small, independent magazine called *Natural
Jewish Parenting*. I would characterize the magazine as an exploration of
the intersection of traditional Judaism with "natural" living. (For
example, there is support in the Talmud and Torah for extended
breastfeeding, comforting babies during the night instead of leaving them
to cry, etc. Jewish law also requires that one guard one's health and cause
no harm to the health or safety of another person -- so it makes sense
that, according to Torah, one should eat healthy, natural foods, etc. This
may seem obvious, but then why are there kosher products that are basically
packaged chemistry experiments? (rhetorical))
I had no knowledge of Waldorf, beyond a few vague references to it in the
Natural Baby Catalog, until about a year ago when the topic came up on
another list I'm on; the discussion was in relation to WE's appropriateness
for Jewish children.
I have no interest whatsoever in criticizing anyone's religious (or
atheistic) beliefs. I have no bone to pick with Anthroposophy per se,
although I (morally) support the work of those who believe Waldorf has no
place in publicly-funded schools. I have strong religious beliefs of my
own, but I operate sincerely on a live-and-let-live basis (with the usual
disclaimers about nobody getting hurt).
The new issue of Natural Jewish Parenting (NJP) features a special section
questioning the appropriateness of Waldorf Schools for the education of
Jewish children. (Some of you may have heard about this when it was in the
research/writing stage months ago, but the new issue is so late that you
may have given up on ever seeing it or forgotten about it completely.)
Since I believe that Jewish children should be educated in a Jewish
setting, it follows that I believe WE is wrong *for Jewish children*. I
doubt this is a particularly controversial viewpoint (although some Jewish
parents would disagree with me -- and their views are included in the
special section I mentioned), but I want to state this clearly since it is
ONLY in this context that I have any personal interest in WE issues.
(In reading this list, I have learned to anticipate probable objections to
even the most neutral of statements, so I will add the disclaimer that I
understand that not everyone reading this would agree with me that Jewish
children should be educated in a specifically Jewish setting, or that
anyone should rightfully hold this view about anyone's children other than
their own -- but as Jewish knowledge, practice, identity, and population
continue their rapid decline, this is for me and for many others a matter
of community obligation. Please do not engage me in a debate about this.
Anyone is certainly entitled to disagree, but this is not what I am here to
discuss. Thanks...)
A little more personal background: I was brought up in a fairly traditional
("Conservative") Jewish home. I attended a private Jewish day school
through eighth grade (great academics, lots of skill acquisition -- fluent
Hebrew and all that -- but little sense of personal spirituality, and way
too much learning "about" Judaism without putting ideas into practice (as I
think John Morehead recently quoted, but without the quotation marks,
"ideas have consequences" -- an Alfred North Whitehead expression I learned
from my 12th grade physics teacher in high school and never forgot). This
inconsistency was unfortunately (and unwittingly) reinforced at home, where
we had a kosher kitchen but went out for Big Macs and spare ribs.
I went to public high school, then private university, where I received a
B.S. degree in Human Factors Engineering (a hybrid of engineering design
and psychology -- a cousin of ergonomics), magna cum laude. I also spent
half a year in Israel in a(nother) completely secular university
environment. During college I worked on my school's daily newspaper, and as
a technical writer/editor for a computer company. After graduation, I
worked for three years producing technical publications for a nonprofit
organization specializing in universal design (specifically, architecture
accessible to people with disabilities). I was a fairly typical (if
slightly more goal-oriented), fairly happy, fairly decent-and-moral member
of Generation-X.
Shortly before getting married at age 25 (almost six years ago), I returned
to a completely Torah-observant lifestyle, together with my then-boyfriend
and now-husband (I say "returned" because it is the translation of the
Hebrew word "teshuvah" which denotes the process of returning to one's
religious roots, coming closer to G-d after having been far away, etc.). I
can speak from personal experience about Lubavitch/Chabad (CH-B-D, an
acronym for the Hebrew words for wisdom, understanding, knowledge), since
that is the community I chose to become part of. In fact, in the interest
of accuracy, I think I will speak a bit about it, since Bob Jones brought
it up:
)In the Orthodox Jewish Community, the Lubovitchers,
)who are waiting for the re-incarnation of Rabbi Schneeson, are very
)close to the reverence Anthroposophists show for Steiner and his
)writings.
Chabad is one of many Chassidic groups. Chassidism dates back 300 years
(exactly), to Rabbi Israel Baal Shem Tov, who started the movement as a
reaction to the too-rote practice of Judaism prevalent at that time.
Chassidism brings joy, music, intellectualism, a strong sense of personal
spirituality, and a down-to-earth mysticism (oxymoron intended) to the
Jewish experience. Chabad Chassidism has as its core the philosophy that
each individual is responsible for perfecting himself or herself, and also
for doing his or her part to perfect the world. (That's an enormous
oversimplification, but I'm assuming you don't need or want more info than
this, since this whole post is already a digression from your discussion.)
Chabad, like all Chassidic groups, has a rebbe (literally, teacher). Chabad
is NOT a cult; it is purely Judaism. A rebbe is also known as a "Grand
Rabbi," and is considered to be one's spiritual role model -- because he is
someone greatly admired (yes, even revered) for his personal level of
spiritual (Torah) understanding and practice. HOWEVER, one does not pray to
a Rebbe (although one may ask for his blessing or advice on personal
matters), nor give any of one's money or possessions to a Rebbe (he
wouldn't accept it anyway), nor is one obligated or coerced to obey him or
accept his teachings without question (a major theme in Chassidism is the
concept of free will in moral matters), nor does a Rebbe ask anything from
his "followers" other than to strive to be true to Jewish law, to Torah, to
G-d -- NOT to the Rebbe. A Rebbe is supposed to be humble, a servant of his
community (not the other way around) and of G-d. This is precisely what
makes him an appropriate role model. A Rebbe inspires one to strive to
achieve one's own potential (materially and spiritually).
Many people get a bit hung up on Lubavitch (synonymous with Chabad;
Lubavitch is the town in Russia where Chabad originated), probably because
it is the most well-known Chassidic group. That's OK; it's well-known
because, unlike some other Chassidic communities, Lubavitch is *not*
insular (and I'm not knocking insularity either; it has its advantages and
disadvantages). It is known for outreach -- to educate Jews about their OWN
heritage. Lubavitch does not prosyletize.
Lubavitch has also, of late (no pun intended) become a bit infamous for the
differences of opinion among Lubavitchers as to the meaning of the Rebbe's
passing, five years ago. (When I say "Rebbe," I am referring to Rabbi
Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the seventh of a line of rebbes dating back 200
years.) Jewish tradition holds that Moshiach ("messiah") has not yet come
(apologies to those who believe otherwise, no offense meant), and that in
every generation, there is one perfectly righteous person who is a
potential Moshiach. When the time is right for Moshiach to be revealed,
that "candidate" will become the actual Moshiach, ushering in an era of
lasting peace for people of *all* faiths. Many Lubavitchers believe that
the Rebbe is our generation's potential Moshiach. There is a precedent in
the Talmud for the opinion that Moshiach may be selected even from those no
longer living.
(For those who hold radically different views of the world -- thank you in
advance for not debating these subjects here... For anyone who has opinions
about Chabad/Lubavitch formed through reading the mainstream press, rather
than through personal in-depth experience or at least through reading the
biographical or autobiographical writings of the Rebbes of Lubavitch, you
may be misinformed... e-mail me privately if you'd like another
viewpoint.)
That's all I will say on the subject (unless asked to elaborate, preferably
off-list). Please don't debate my personal beliefs; I won't debate yours.
Full circle back to my interest in WE, then I'll sign off:
I published the section on the question of Waldorf and Jewish children in
order to educate Jewish parents involved in WE of some of aspects of
WE/Anthroposophy that they may be unaware of. If you read the magazine (it
should be in most Barnes & Nobles and Jewish bookstores by now, or very
soon), I would be interested in your response. (If you're not in the U.S.,
or if you are and can't find it in your bookstore, you can order a single
copy if you like; please e-mail me privately. A long-overdue web site is in
the works but is not up yet; sorry for the inconvenience.)
That's all. If you don't hear from me for a while, I'm here but lurking --
probably wanting to respond but too busy to sit down to do it. (I'm with my
kids full-time during the day, and I do my work at night.) I will try to
keep up as much as I can.
I do appreciate a lively exchange of views; I'm not interested in getting
personally involved in any negativity (I'll just experience the negativity
vicariously, thank you! :) In that spirit, I'll end here for now. Thanks
for making it to the end of my novel.
Be well,
Yael
*****
Yael Resnick, Publisher/Editor, Natural Jewish Parenting
mailto:njpmail mindspring.com
173 Speedwell Ave., Suite 127, Morristown, NJ 07960
phone (973) 538-3737 fax (973) 539-5454
The only magazine dedicated to a holistic Jewish perspective on
childraising and health!
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1212.3 ---------------
From: Bob Jones (b2251 yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: my introduction (long)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 06:59:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
--- Yael Resnick (njpmail mindspring.com) wrote:
) Hello all,
)
)(snip)
)
) )
) Shortly before getting married at age 25 (almost six
) years ago), I returned
) to a completely Torah-observant lifestyle, together
) with my then-boyfriend
) and now-husband (I say "returned" because it is the
) translation of the
) Hebrew word "teshuvah" which denotes the process of
) returning to one's
) religious roots,
) of accuracy, I think I will speak a bit about it,
) since Bob Jones brought
) it up:
)
) )In the Orthodox Jewish Community, the Lubovitchers,
) )who are waiting for the re-incarnation of Rabbi
) Schneeson, are very
) )close to the reverence Anthroposophists show for
) Steiner and his
) )writings.
)
) Chabad is one of many Chassidic groups. Chassidism
) dates back 300 years
) (exactly), to Rabbi Israel Baal Shem Tov, who
) started the movement as a
) reaction to the too-rote practice of Judaism
) prevalent at that time.
) Chassidism brings joy, music, intellectualism, a
) strong sense of personal
) spirituality, and a down-to-earth mysticism
) (oxymoron intended) to the
) Jewish experience. Chabad Chassidism has as its core
) the philosophy that
) each individual is responsible for perfecting
) himself or herself, and also
) for doing his or her part to perfect the world.
) (That's an enormous
) oversimplification, but I'm assuming you don't need
) or want more info than
) this, since this whole post is already a digression
) from your discussion.)
)
) Chabad, like all Chassidic groups, has a rebbe
) (literally, teacher). Chabad
) is NOT a cult;
(snip)
Hello, Yael:
My intention in mentioning the Lubovitchers in connection to "cults" &
Steiner was _NOT_ to imply giving away one's money or following someone
to destruction. However, the reverence for this particular Rebbe has
seemed to many, of all faiths, to be excessive. It is my understanding
that, in Judaism, no one may give a *blessing* any more than anyone
else. Rabbi Schneerson's voluminous writings are, I have read, taken to
be on par with Talmud by many of the Lubovitcher Chassidim. He differs
radically from mainstream Judaism in his views of "The Days of the
Moshiach" (please make allowances for my spellings, here)and
re-incarnation, at least in mainstream Conservative Judaism, is not a
tenent. The mystical element of this branch of Chassidim, in the view
of many, is divergent from mainstream Orthodoxy (if there is such) and
definitely from the Conservatives.
Please excuse any ignorance I may have shown. It was only my intention
to draw a parallel between the reverence for one man & his writings
that went beyond the usual practices within any given faith.
That said: you are right: there is no place in anthroposophy for a
practicing believer of any World Religion. While the Waldorfians will
tell you of the Anthroposophical Kibuttz in Israel and the numbers of
Jews in Waldorf, they are not telling anyone that the goal of all the
*practical* paths of Anthroposophy are alchemical. The goal is to
develop inner esoteric & occult sensibilities. It is basically a
divergent path to all the montheisms, including those which believe in
a Trinity. The New Age spiritualism an,d eco-awareness is just bait for
those of your generation who yearn for a relationship with God &
community. Kashruth has moral ethical, & historical elements, as well
as elements of obediance and of the "setting apart" of a people. I
believe the vague Vegetarians and Organic devotees found in the New Age
is simply a way for _them_ to set themselves apart. Without an
historical basis for this, moral/ethical/political reasons are
substituted.
In 20 years of living among anthroposophically-inclined hippies,
Christians, and Anthroposophists I and the rest of my community have
noticed that there are no practicing Christians or Jews within the
Waldorf School. Those who leave Waldorf often do so because they have
found their faith again & realize it cannot be practiced within
Anthroposophy. These have been Jews, Protestants, Roman & Orthodox
Catholics.
If it is difficult for a mainstream believing Christian to find
resonance within Anthroposophy, it is impossible for a believing Jew,
IMO. While Judaism professes the singularity of God, denies the
Trinity, and is still waiting for the prophesised Messiah,
Anthroposophy professes an multitude of spitirual beings in heirarchies
and has some confusing tenets that appear to co-mingle a Messianic,
Risen Christ with Lucifer or Luciferic elements. The image of Lucifer
is that of the "Light Bringer", not a fallen angel.
Please be welcome to our conversation. You bring a needed viewpoint due
to your age, education, faith and community. You are to be commended
for returning to your roots. I believe this is happening more & more
within your generation and will be the salvation of this spiritually
deprived society. Only when the hunger for God is assuaged within the
younger generation, will the spiritual countrfeit of Anthroposophy be
apparent.
To have you _&_ John Moorehead on our list, gives the conversation
depth. The secular humanists also bring a dimension of morality and
clear thought. Only the Anthroposophists, who have undoubtably written
to you off-list to plug their agenda, have prostelyzing goals here.
Will your article be on-line?
If not, could you post it to the list? If broken into segments, it
won't overwhelm anyone's mail.
Otherwise, I would like a copy via e-mail, broken into segments if
necessary.
BJ
)
=
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1212.4 ---------------
From: ckzfrey (ckzfrey ix.netcom.com)
Subject: Re: my introduction (long)/Reply(short)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 99 22:27:14 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Yael Resnick writes:
) I was brought up in a fairly traditional
)("Conservative") Jewish home. I attended a private Jewish day school
)through eighth grade (great academics, lots of skill acquisition -- fluent
)Hebrew and all that -- but little sense of personal spirituality, and way
)too much learning "about" Judaism without putting ideas into practice (as I
)think John Morehead recently quoted, but without the quotation marks,
)"ideas have consequences" -- an Alfred North Whitehead expression I learned
)from my 12th grade physics teacher in high school and never forgot). This
)inconsistency was unfortunately (and unwittingly) reinforced at home, where
)we had a kosher kitchen but went out for Big Macs and spare ribs.
Yael,
It is in these "fairly traditional" Jewish homes that a Waldorf
education is often so effective.
Many have found(Hebrew-school teachers included) that the reverence and
spirituality that a child gains through a Waldorf education gives a deep
meaning to the study of Judaeism, and makes "putting ideas into practice"
a much more natural progression.
I also understand, of course, that more orthodox forms of Judaeism
require education to take place in a more specialized setting. The
Waldorf school that my son attends is a short walk from one of the
largest Chassidic communities on earth, and it is clear to me why none of
the members of that community attend Waldorf school.
Shalom,
Charlie Frey
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1212.5 ---------------
From: ckzfrey (ckzfrey ix.netcom.com)
Subject: Re: my introduction
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 99 23:07:31 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Bob Jones writes:
)there is no place in anthroposophy for a
)practicing believer of any World Religion.
This is clearly absurd.
Anthroposophy has enabled me, after many years of not being able, to call
myself a Christian.
Statments like Mr. Jones's are inflammatory and born of ignorance.
)...the goal of all the
)*practical* paths of Anthroposophy are alchemical. The goal is to
)develop inner esoteric & occult sensibilities. It is basically a
)divergent path to all the montheisms, including those which believe in
)a Trinity.
Although I am not sure I understand your use of the word "alchemical", I
will say that the proposal that the idea that the development of "inner
esoteric & occult sensibilities" is somehow contrary to religion, is
ridiculous.
)The New Age spiritualism an,d eco-awareness is just bait for
)those of your generation who yearn for a relationship with God &
)community.
"New Age" is a term that I have never heard used in the context of
Anthroposophy, and don't get me started on anything being used as "bait".
The only "bait" Anthroposophy offers is the possibility of improving
one's self, thereby contributing to the improvement of all.
Again---inflammatory and foolish.
Mr. Jones, to his credit, appears to be among the most intelligent and
well-informed of all the critics on this list; but, like most of the more
outspoken critics, cannot avoid shooting himself in the foot with his own
mean-spiritedness.
Peace,
Charlie Frey
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1212.6 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: Re: my introduction
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 17:47:11 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199904111505.IAA09099 lists1.best.com)
Bob Jones wrote:
))there is no place in anthroposophy for a
))practicing believer of any World Religion.
Charlie Frey replied:
)
)This is clearly absurd.
I agree. I have already mentioned that there are Buddhist monks among the
members of the Anthroposophical Society. But again, the compatibility or
absence of such is a question to be answered by the believer or
practitioner of the religion in question, and by that individual alone.
Period. It's like those who say that a Christian cannot believe in
evolution - something I've heard innumerable times. Nobody has the right to
set boundaries for the spiritual lives of others, or to decide what
organizations or movements or philosophies other people may combine with
their religion. Absolutely nobody.
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism, Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality, death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1212.7 ---------------
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: First Amendment and WE (Was: Re: What is ...)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 20:11:19 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (199904072225.PAA04277 lists1.best.com)
(199904070102.SAA12430 lists1.best.com)
(199904061441.HAA03629 lists1.best.com)
(199904061627.JAA26570 lists1.best.com)
(199904070102.SAA12430 lists1.best.com)
(199904071211.FAA07472 lists1.best.com)
(199904072225.PAA04277 lists1.best.com) (199904082228.PAA15014 lists1.best.com)
To Stephen¥s question:
) )Please give an inclusive/exclusive definition of "religion", i.e. one
) )which will include all things which are religion and will exclude all
) )those which aren't.
John & Wendy Morehead answered in two parts, the first on Thursday, 8
April, the second on Friday, 9 April.
For other Europeans, that like me maybe aren¥t very well aquainted with
the specific problems relating to the First Amendment of the
Constitution of the US and the support, non support or prohibition of
religious elements and teaching in public schools, a not bad overview of
the problem seems to be one at
http://thomasash.hypermart.net/bnet/items/00022.html.
On Thursday John Morehead answered in terms of how it was understood in
one case, in 1977, specifically concerning the teaching of
Transcendental meditation in a public school(s?) in New Jersey:
) As was pointed out in the Malnak v. Yogi case,
(http://www.trancenet.org/law/nj/nj4.html, the end:)
) "the subjective
) characterizations by individuals of teachings as religious or not religious
) in their systems of categorization cannot be determinative of whether or
) not the teachings are religious within the meaning of the first amendment"
) (Malnak v. Yogi, 440 F. Supp. 1284 [1977]).
) So regardless of whether the
) case can be made from a religious studies perspective that Anthroposophy
) meets a religious definition, subjective definitions of such are not
) necessarily determinative in a court of law. The court went on to state
) that it
(http://www.trancenet.org/law/nj/nj9.html, Summary judgement, middle of
page:)
) "is interested in the term religion as it is used in the
) Constitution and has no interest in attempting to decide an academic
) dispute among theologians as to the best approach to defining religion for
) their professional purposes...None of these [religiously defining] elements
) need be present, however, for a court to determine that a practice or
) belief is religious within the meaning of the first amendment."
The note to the last sentence unexpectedly however refers, not to
Transcendental Meditation, but to _atheism_ as something that "may be a
religion under the establishment clause in that the government cannot
aid the propagation of a belief in the nonexistence of a supreme being.
See Abington School District v. Schempp. supra, at 225; Zorach v.
Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 314(1952).
Judging from the case, it seems that teaching in public schools that
"science is an argument for the nonexistence of a supreme being", a
position probably held by a number of the WC on this list is a violation
of the First Amendment of the Constitution.
Also, if it does, where does that put the majority of the schools in US?
Not an easy situation, it seems.
) "While expert opinion is invaluable in certain cases, a court, in dealing
) with a constitutional term, must be governed more by prior judicial
) findings than by the opinions of experts."
)
) It would seem that expert testimony in defining religion and Anthroposophy
) will be reviewed by the court, prior judicial findings may be the deciding
) factor in this case.
How complicated the problem of defining "religion" is in terms of of how
it is understood by the first amendment is described by an article at
http://harvardhope.simplenet.com/law/1stAmdtLRArticle.htm on THE SUPREME
COURT'S PROBLEMATIC ACT OF DEFINING CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RELIGION
¥A PRECIS OF HER PAST DEFINITIONS.
According to the paper, "The intention of the First Amendment religion
clauses was not to prevent governmental aid to religion but to assure
governmental neutrality toward different sects." (1 Annals of Congress
434, 731 (J. Gales ed. 1789).).
If this becomes the central understanding of the First Amendment, I see
few other better ways of doing justice to the intention than the way it
is handled in waldorf schools, trying to create the basis for relating
to the whole range of religious experiences in a general ordered way out
of the developing inner relation to the world of the growing child, from
the maybe more pantheistic stage in early childhood to the secular
humanist stage developing out of the more rationally dominated thinking
in adolescence.
To _my_ understanding, few other pedagogies do better justice to the
possibility of a real freedom in relation to the total range of
religious experience, that seems to be the intention of the First
Amendment, than WE.
Sincerely,
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell biology and
EU as a mechanical esoteric temple and threefolding of society
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1212.8 ---------------
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: First Amendment and WE (Was: Re: What is ...)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 20:30:59 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199904072225.PAA04277 lists1.best.com)
(199904070102.SAA12430 lists1.best.com)
(199904061441.HAA03629 lists1.best.com)
(199904061627.JAA26570 lists1.best.com)
(199904070102.SAA12430 lists1.best.com)
(199904071211.FAA07472 lists1.best.com)
(199904072225.PAA04277 lists1.best.com) (199904082228.PAA15014 lists1.best.com) (199904111815.LAA16515 lists1.best.com)
P.S
According to http://thomasash.hypermart.net/bnet/items/00022.html, the
position taken in my posting as the - to me - most reasonable one seems
to correspond to the position of a non-preferentialist.
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell biology and
EU as a mechanical esoteric temple and threefolding of society
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1212.9 ---------------
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: my introduction (long)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 21:16:47 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (199904111359.GAA22004 lists1.best.com)
Bob Jones wrote:
) To have you _&_ John Moorehead on our list, gives the conversation
) depth. The secular humanists also bring a dimension of morality and
) clear thought. Only the Anthroposophists, who have undoubtably written
) to you off-list to plug their agenda, have prostelyzing goals here.
Dear Bob,
Do you really think any "Anthroposophist" participating on this list
participates with the primary goal of _"proselytizing"_ anyone, and
especially the WC¥s on the list. I think you completely misunderstand
and misdescribe the situation.
Regards,
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell biology and
EU as a mechanical esoteric temple and threefolding of society
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1212.10 ---------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead (morehead mail2.quiknet.com)
Subject: Re: my introduction
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 11:11:31
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199904111505.IAA09099 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904111547.IAA20490 lists1.best.com)
At 05:47 PM 4/11/99 +0200, you wrote:
)Nobody has the right to
)set boundaries for the spiritual lives of others, or to decide what
)organizations or movements or philosophies other people may combine with
)their religion. Absolutely nobody.
And nothing can set a boundary for such decisions? What about critical
thinking which we all use?
For example: Hypothetically, let's say that I now announce that I am now
both an atheist (believing in the existence of no supernatural or
supernormal spiritual worlds or reality), while at the same time affirming
that I am an adherent of anthroposophy and spiritual science. Is this claim
valid? Well, if nobody or nothing can set a boundary for my beliefs, and if
I can combine any elements of the plethora of worldviews, surely this must
be valid for me. Right?
But surely this is self-contradictory, and therefore false. To claim that
their both is, and is not (at the same time and in the same relationship),
a supernatural or supernormal spiritual reality, is to engage in
self-contradiction. It is a nonsensical belief, just as the "concept" of
square circles, or married bachelors. So while we may not like individuals
taking issue with our personal beliefs, perhaps the laws of logical and
critical thinking can help fine tune our thinking about such things, and
thus set some boundaries for what can and cannot be harmonized.
John Morehead
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
http://www.truthquest.org
(tqi quiknet.com)
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
(916) 652-7804
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1212 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1213 --------------
001 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - Re: my introduction (long)
002 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - Re: my introduction
003 - John & Wendy Morehead (mo - Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthr
004 - Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis - Re: First Amendment and WE (Was: Re: What is ...)
005 - Robert Flannery (litvas i - Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anth
006 - Bob Jones (b2251 yahoo.co - Re: my introduction
007 - Bob Jones (b2251 yahoo.co - Re: my introduction (long)
008 - Bob Jones (b2251 yahoo.co - Re: my introduction (long)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1213.1 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: Re: my introduction (long)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 21:33:25 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: (199904111359.GAA22004 lists1.best.com)
Bob Jones wrote (to Yael Resnick):
)To have you _&_ John Moorehead on our list, gives the conversation
)depth. The secular humanists also bring a dimension of morality and
)clear thought. Only the Anthroposophists, who have undoubtably written
)to you off-list to plug their agenda, have prostelyzing goals here.
Sune has already responded to this pearl of a remark, but I would also like
to contibute my 2¢.
I just made it clear in a recent exchange with John W. Morehead that I have
never been a proselytizer, because such behavior would mean an infringement
of the personal freedom of another person in spiritual matters.
Are you calling me a liar and a hypocrite, Bob?
Your remark above also infers, ever so subtly, that I have no morality
because I am an anthroposophist, in contradistinction to secular humanists.
I call that bigotry by the book.
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism, Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality, death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1213.2 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: Re: my introduction
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 21:59:01 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199904111547.IAA20490 lists1.best.com)
(199904111505.IAA09099 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904111917.MAA15965 lists1.best.com)
I wrote:
))Nobody has the right to set boundaries for the spiritual lives of others,
))or ))to decide what organizations or movements or philosophies other
))people may ))combine withtheir religion. Absolutely nobody.
John Morehead wrote:
)
)And nothing can set a boundary for such decisions? What about critical
)thinking which we all use?
Nobody has the right to define the limits of other people's religious
philosophies. Nobody.
)
)For example: Hypothetically, let's say that I now announce that I am now
)both an atheist (believing in the existence of no supernatural or
)supernormal spiritual worlds or reality), while at the same time affirming
)that I am an adherent of anthroposophy and spiritual science. Is this claim
)valid? Well, if nobody or nothing can set a boundary for my beliefs, and if
)I can combine any elements of the plethora of worldviews, surely this must
)be valid for me. Right?
Correct.
)
)But surely this is self-contradictory, and therefore false.
You have no right to to call someone else's religious philosophy false for
the sole reason that it contradicts your personal logic. It does not make
sense to you - fine. But you must accept that it can make sense to other
people.
)To claim that their both is, and is not (at the same time and in the same
))relationship), a supernatural or supernormal spiritual reality, is to
)engage in
)self-contradiction.
John Lennon, whom I would call a true anarchosophist (in the second
definition of the term), held a view very similar to this description. And
his philosophy was beautiful.
)It is a nonsensical belief, just as the "concept" of square circles, or
)married )bachelors.
Your metaphors reveal that you don't understand paradoxes.
To paraphraze the apostle Paul: It may be foolishness to the natural man,
but wisdom to God. Again, the higher truth may be contained in the apparent
self-contradictory paradox.
)So while we may not like individuals taking issue with our personal
)beliefs, )perhaps the laws of logical and critical thinking can help fine
)tune our )thinking about such things, and thus set some boundaries for
)what can and )cannot be harmonized.
If your personal opinion about what is logical and compatible and what is
not coincided one hundred per cent with objective, inviolable laws of
critical thinking and logic, you might have a point. But that does not seem
to be the case. You may set such boundaries for yourself, but not for me. I
am the judge of the latter - not you, simply because I do not regard your
understanding of logic to be better than mine. I respect you for accepting
the consequences of your own reasoning what *your* personal philosophy and
religion is concerned, but I cannot accept that you judge the thinking of
*others* when it comes to the deepest and most intimate riddles of
existence. That would be a violation of spiritual freedom, which you have
no right to infringe upon.
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism, Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality, death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1213.3 ---------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead (morehead mail2.quiknet.com)
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 12:17:35
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199904101605.JAA16177 lists1.best.com)
At 06:04 PM 4/10/99 +0200, you wrote:
)If one tries to adopt the concept of faith in the Biblical sense and then
)sets it up as a standard to be emulated today, it is easy to fall victim to
)a common misconception arising from ignorance of evolution. What has to be
)kept in mind is that the epistemological foundation of anthroppsophy
So once again, we commit the fallacy of worldview confusion. We impose an
esoteric, pantheistic grid upon a series of documents (biblical) which came
from a Judeo-Christian monotheistic worldview. It is the syncretist and the
esotericism which arrives at the misconception through this worldview
confusion.
)The reason for this is very simple: Anthroposophy was developed for those
)who cannot accept orthodox Christianity as a foundation for religious truth
)because it is irrational, illogical, and at odds with Darwinism and other
)branches of natural science.
How can orthodox Christianity be irrationa, and illogical if the laws of
logic, such as non-contradiction, are invalid? You're speaking out of both
sides of your mouth. Eschewing logic when it suits anthroposophy, using
logic when you want to denigrate Christian orthodoxy. You can't have your
logical cake and eat it too.
)If orthodox Christianity were a scientific theory, you would have a point.
)It isn't.
I never claimed it was a scientific theory. It obviously isn't, anymore
than anthroposophy is. However, both worldviews make claims which can be
judged with reference to various disciplines and evidences. Thus, their
truth claims should be test for truth or falsity.
)Anthroposophy is an integration, or rather a re-integration, of science,
)religion, art, and philosophy. The tests you mention may be applicable to
)the natural-scientific branch of Anthroposophy. Orthodox Christianity has
)no such branch. All it has is theology, old faith, and old books.
See my point above. Many of the truth claims of orthodox Christianity can
be tested (e.g., the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth, claims of
an empty tomb, a finite universe, etc.). The same is true of anthroposophy
when it makes truth claims. Anthroposophy may claim to be a reintegration
of science, religion, art and philosophy, but it surely isn't testable in
terms of empirical scientific methods. Is this what you are claiming? I
think you may be equivocating in your definition of science.
)That is also the premise for most anthroposophists. But the attempt made by
)orthodox Christians to go scientific has resulted in absurdities like
)"creation science." Again, ignorance of Darwinism and evolution is a key
)issue here.
Well please don't assume that all orthodox Christians hold to young-earth
creation science. I don't. But my personal views are irrelevant here.
Orthodox Christians are fee to evaluate the various theories of origins and
choose the one which best meets the evidence in natural revelation (nature)
and special revelation (the biblical texts). This means orthodox Christians
run the gamut from theistic evolutionists to young-earth creationists. The
mantra of evolution cited as a proof of the falsity of orthodox
Christianity is a red herring. And it does nothing to substantiate the
cosmology of Steiner and anthroposophy.
)That wedge was put by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant. His argument
)was that the objects of religious faith belonged to a category that would
)remain forever hidden to cognition based upon knowledge. Rudolf Steiner
)disagreed and argued that the dualism of Kant should be replaced by a
)monism based upon empirical experience.
If monism is the worldivew undergirding anthroposophy, and I believe
Steiner taught so, then how can you disagree with me? To disagree with me
means there must be duality, otherwise, if all is one then orthodox and
esoteric Christianity, despite any perceived differences, really dissolve
under closer analysis since all is ultimately one.
I believe it can be demonstraetd that monism is philosophically untenable.
Even monists live as dualists, often without recognizing this is so.
)Dietrich Eckart did the latter. He is also the father of WE criticism and
)the primeval enemy of anthroposophy.
But you didn't answer my question. Why *not* move in the subjective
direction of national socialism vs. esoteric Christianity? If you cut
yourself off from all testability of truth claims, and the applicability of
logic to the same, you have not means of knowing whether your beliefs are
objectively true or self-deception.
))There must be some objective grounds for holding religious truth claims.
)
)They are offered by anthroposophy.
And those are objectively what?
)I was referring to the marked tendency in all literature that I have seen
)from the camp of Protestant Christian theology when they attack New Age,
)heresies, etc.
If you'd be so kind as to point out how thise criticisims, philosophically
and theologically, are in error, that would be appreciated so we could make
sure the critics are accurate. No one wants to misrepresent. For example,
my colleage, philosophy professor Francis Beckwith, co-wrote a book with
Stephen Parrish, called _See the Gods Fall_, where they philosophically
critique various worldviews, including the New Age. If you could point out
how their critique fails philosophically, I'd be happy to pass along your
corrections for the next edition of the book. Otherwise, it sounds like
sour grapes in that you mischaracterize a sound critique as an "attack."
When it comes to Rudolf Steiner, they frequently manage to
)de-cristianize Anthroposophy through distortions.
Steiner "de-Christianized" himself through the adoption of a monistic,
pantheistic, esoteric worldview which put him at variance with the orthodox
monotheistic worldview of the biblical writers. You can hardly blame
orthodox Christian critics of Steiner for that.
))So if you subjectively believe something, that makes it valid?
)
)It was valid for her, and I could see how. I am not a Catholic, so I cannot
)judge this any further than that.
But you missed the point of my question. Does merely believing something
subjectively make it true, regardless of contradiction or incomprehensibility?
))What about the racist who says he believes in racial purity, but that he
))is )not a racist.
)
)He reminds me of the orthodox Christian who says he believes in religious
)tolerance while at the same time attacking other religions and philosophies.
An ad hominem attack, Tarjei. Please answer my question and don't engage in
personal attacks. If you don't want to respond, fine. We'll cease the
exchange. But please don't question my motives. I have said in previous
posts that I support the freedom of religion. That is not incompatible with
pointing out errors in your posts when you claim harmony between orthodox
and esoteric Christianity. You can believe whatever you want but that
doesn't make it true, and it does not immunize your claims for analysis. I
don't attack other religions and philosophies. I try to understand them,
enter into dialogue with their adherents, and then analyze them as well. If
criticism is attack then you ar intolerant because you take issue with my
orthodox Christianity. It cuts both ways.
)You are attempting to compare the old lady in Houston who was a Catholic
)and an Anthroposophist with a racist who believes in racial purity?
)Naughty. (She was a Republican and a political conservative, and I didn't
)get to know her well enough to find out exactly how she stood on racial
)questions, but she was a dear friend. She was the last friend I went to see
)in America before I left.)
Naughty? Come on, Tarjei. I was making no comparison. I was using an
example of another situation using your logic to demonstrate that it
doesn't hold water. If, as you said, believing Catholicism was compatible
with anthroposophy was true for that woman, then does a racist who believes
in racial equality mean that it is true for him/her. Or is this a
contradiction, which would mean that logical thinking is valid, and that
one shouldn't hold contradictory views?
)Your insinuation deserves no further comment except another note about
)Dietrich Eckart
It wasn't an insinuation, it was a question based upon your method of
thinking. If you don't think such questions deserve a response, perhaps
this means you are more interested in anthroposophical evangelism and
intolerance against skepticism and orthodox Christianity, than about honest
dialogue over truth and falsehoood as it relates to Waldorf in public
education.
)I suggest that you demonstrate this to anthroposophists who are also
)Catholics.
I'd be happy to talk to them. One example should suffice: It is impossible
to be a Roman Catholic and believe in a Personal Transcendent God, while at
the same time believing in monism and a form of modern Gnosticism. They are
contradictory and both cannot be true at the same time.
))You're losing me here. I'm simply trying to apply the rules of rational
))thought that we all use each day, often without realizing it.
)
)This is precisely what anthroposophy is doing.
What? Using the rules of rational thought (I thought they were invalid)?
You, on
)the other hand, are saying that she has no right to such a spiritual life
)(Catholic-Anthroposophy) because it contradicts *your* logic. That is
)arrogant lack of respect in my book.
Logic is no more *my* logic that it was Aristotle's when he discovered the
laws of logic. We all use the same logic. Some of us are more willing to
apply it to our worldviews and spirituality than others I guess. This does
not boil down to arrogance or lack of respect.
)Every individual must seek out his or her own reasons for adopting any
)religious world view of his or her own choosing. When it comes to spiritual
)matters and religion, absolute freedom must reign. Any attempt on my behalf
)to persuade another person to share my convictions in this area would be a
)violation of personal freedom. This dialogue is no such attempt; it is
)merely a defense against attacks - attacks where misrepresentations are
)involved.
I would argue that we use a variety of means to influence others to accept
things we believe in (food products, restaurants, politics, etc.) and we
still recognize and support personal freedom. It is just as true for
spiritual questions. They are not immune from rational thought and should
not be left to the whims of subjectivism.
)On the contrary: In the intellectual realm, anthroposophy is closer to New
)Testament Christianity than any other variety of Christianity.
You keep making this claim, but you have not demonstrated this. I've asked
about monism and the Gnostic reinterpretation of Christ by Steiner and you
haven't responded as to how these things are the original Christian teaching.
A point in
)question is that Protestant orthodox Christianity in America is bogged down
)in Old Testament ethics that are in the sharpest variance with the Sermon
)on the Mount in the New Testament. What I'm getting at is the cult of the
)Religious Right, where every expression of compassion, forgiveness,
)tolerance, etc. is scorned as "bleeding heart liberalism." In addition to
)this, the Christian bookstore chains in America are packed with arguments
)for competitive capitalism as being the best vehicle for the Gospel of
)Jesus Christ. A sharp contrast indeed to the communism practiced by the
)early church.
I'm afraid you can't validly raise the specter of the evil "Religious
Right" as a characterization of the original New Testament teaching. They
are a modern expression of Christian thought in the area of politics and
cultural influence. I submit that the doctrinal teachings and worldview of
the original, historic Christian church are at variance with Steiner's
esoteric reinterpretation, and you have done nothing to demonstrate
otherwise. You are free to hold your views and deny you want anything to do
with Christian orthodoxy, but you aren't free to misrepresent it at will
contrary to all historical and theological evidences.
)Which reminds me of the fact that Rudolf Steiner hailed "Thomism" as he
)called it, and incorporated it in Anthroposophy.
Really? He incorporated Thomistic logical, and perhaps philosophical
reasoning in his books? If so, he imposed the foreign grid of monism upon
Thomas Aquinas. And why emulate Aquinas' logical reasoning as applied to
theology? I thought we had to transcend rational thought in favor of a
subjective experience?
)The fact remains that the conception of Jesus Christ as explained by
)orthodox christianity contradicts biological and medical science.
*If* the God of Christian theism does not exist, yes. If He does, there is
no problem whatsoever.
)The idea of a lonely, "omnipotent" super-dictator who contradicts the
)natural laws of his own making falls as flat on its face as "creation
)science" does. I rest my case.
One can't rest a case, when one hasn't presented a sound one to begin with.
Why is an omnipotent Supreme Being a "lonely...super-dictator"? This is a
subjective mischaracterization put forward without *any* philosophical or
theological reasons to sustain it. And you have demonstrated no parallel
with creation science. If your case is closed then the God of Christian
orthodoxy is acquitted.
)When the explanation of "miracles" defy natural scientific laws, they are
)false.
Natural scientific laws are only immutable if the God of Christian theism
does not exist. You assume this to be the case, but it is possible to
provide sound reasons to the contrary, thus providing a satisfactory
worldview background making miracles possible. And if you want to push
natural law, I would submit that it is hostile to the "scientific"
"supersensible" worlds of anthroposophy as well, and I have seen no
argumentation to substantiate that to the satisfaction of naturalism.
))There have been some good expositions of the evidence for the existence of
)))God, and for the possibility of miracles, by Christian philosophers, such
))as )William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler and J.P. Moreland. This is not
))problem for
))orthodox Christianity. Perhaps for anthroposophy...
)
)It sounds more like a suitable topic for yourself and the hardcore skeptics
)on this list. You would have a ball with it.
Sorry you are not interested in exploring new ideas which may strenghten
your current worldview, or challenge it to the contrary.
)I have not said that. I have said that Steiner's esoteric Christianity has
)many traits in common with orthodox Christianity. To the extent that any
)individual combines and incorporates these elements, it may be more or less
)compatible to that individual. the Houston-lady is a perfect example.
So were are back to mere subjectivism and experience without reference to
tests for veridicality? Is that it?
)The Bible consists of 66 books or so, and almost as many authors. In the
)New Testament, we have Mark, Matthews, Luke, John, Paul, and some more. But
)you seem to suggest that the New Testament was written by *one* author.
)Who? Some lonely omnipotent dictarot using the miracle of automatic
)writing? Or some editor-in-chief in the Roman Church?
Where did I say there was only one human author? Nowhere. And then we go
back to your charicature of the God of Christian theism.
)The Dalain Lama has no more authority over an anthroposophist than does the
)Pope in Rome or some Jerry Falwell in America.
You completely missed my point. Ignorant American Buddhists try to
synthesize Buddhism with Christianity. But knowledgeable Buddhists, such as
the Dalai Lama, while acknowledging similar ethical codes and that each
tradition can learn much from the other, at least the Dalai Lama stops
short of trying to combine the two because he recognizes their
incompatibility on foundational matters.
)The problem is that when it comes to spiritual matters, there are many
)paradoxes. In the Bible, these paradoxes are also known as contradictions.
A paradox or a mystery is something which goes beyond the limits of human
reason, but not contrary to it. I submit there are no genuine violations of
the law of noncontradiction in orthodox Christianity. But you merely skirt
criticism here. Are the laws of logic applicable to spiritual truth claims
or not? If so, they must be applied to orthodox and esoteric Christianity.
If not, then you can't criticize orthodox Christianity for alleged
contradictions. The sword of logic is two edged, Tarjei.
)For this reason, the Bible may easily be torn to shreds by "the law of
)non-contradiction". The ability to see through a paradox and discern the
)truth within it prevents you from falling into the trap of dismissing it
)because of its apparent contradiction.
If there is a genuine contradiction, then it is falsified. Why look for
alleged "deeper or hidden truth" when you find contradiction. Nonsense.
)The falsehoods are based upon misuderstanding. This is why in Norwegian
)encyclopaedia and reference works, anthroposophy and related terms have
)always been defined by anthroposophists.
So Western scholars of religion cannot adequately understand or classify
anthroposophy? Is that it? Hmmm. Then I guess only an orthodox Christian
can truly understand orthodox Christianity and these believers alone must
define it. Cool. Your criticisms are all invalidated by your
misunderstanding? Do you accept this line of reasoning?
)On the contrary, he used objective spiritual-scientific research.
How is a subjective investigation of supersensible higher worlds
"scientific" in the accepted meaning of the term?
)Your identification of the author is diffuse enough as it is, because you
)are obviously not referring to the writer of the Biblical book in question,
)but to some nebulous omnipotent dictator or some equally obscure
)editor-in-chief.
Please don't dodge the question. How can Steiner arrive at a proper
interpretation of any biblical writer by denying scholarly methods of
literary interpretation in favor of subjective esotericism?
)
))If you used an esoteric interpretation of the Reader's Digest, TV Guide,
))TIME, )or your tax forms, you'd be in trouble quickly. Why do it with the
))biblical texts?
)
)Because the Biblical texts are antique, occult documents. The TV guide isn't.
So the literary interpretive techqnique one uses is determined by the age
of the documents in question, at least in part? How old do they have to be
before one uses an esoteric technique, and how do you know the biblical
texts are occult documents, whose true meaning is hidden beneath the
surface of the actual words unless one assumes this to be the case? Sounds
like circular reasoning.
))I maintain that Western esotericism, properly classified within the New Age
))movement, is philosophically inferior to Christian theism.
)
)I call that religious-philosophical fascism.
I call this philosophical analysis, and the willingness to submit the
Christian theistic worldview to the tests of philosophical reasoning in
contrast with a Western esoteric worldview. Tests for truth and falsehood
with regards to worldviews is not fascism.
))Let me provide a counter-example. Gnostic influence in alternative
))medicine. )Prime example: Deepak Chopra. The cure for aging, disease and
))death? Simply )change your consciousness, thereby bringing yourself into
))harmony with the )infinite Creative Intelligence, and viola. No more
))sickness, because it was an )illusion created by thinking. I submit that
))Dr. Chopra will still age, and )die, regardless of his meditation, because
))reality is not as he perceives it.
)
)The most deluded quackery of this kind comes from evangelical circles and
)their faith healing. this is based upn the simple command given by Christ
)to a sick person, "Take your bed and walk." The way this is being practiced
)today, with magical circus trickery, mass-suggestion and the like, is a
)prime gift for the Skeptics Society. Anthroposophical doctors have never
)engaged in this kind of nonsense, but orthodox Christians are notorious for
)it.
Another ad hominem against Christianity, which provides no evidence for the
alleged scientific status of anthroposophy. I don't agree with the abuses
of alleged evangelical faith healers either, but that doesn't mean the
whole world view is false. And regardless of Christian faith healing, it
does not establish the alleged scientific status of anthroposophical
medicine, or New Age alternative medicine either. You will find out very
quickly that New Age monism is deadly to the Western dualistic worldview
that modern medicine is based upon.
[large snip]
)There is no natural-scientific or historical conclusive evidence that Jesus
)Christ ever lived, or that the events recorded in the Gospels ever took
)place. that is why "thge Chriust-idea" is an accurate term.
How about some historic evidence, from non-Christian sources, for the
historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth? Josephus, a Jewish historian,
has at least one reference to him that is undisiputed, and possibly another
that may have experienced, Christian interpolation. Additionally, he is
mentioned in the writings of the Roman historian Tacitus, and the Jewish
Talmud. And one cannot discount the testimony of the early Pauline
epistles, nor the Gospels, written, quite likely according to the latest
scholarly concensus, prior to the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, within a
generation of the events they described. That's good historical evidence.
The earliest critics did not deny his historical existence, they denied the
identity with which the early Christians associated him, as Messiah. The
"Christ-idea" concept ignores the historical evidence and the
Judeo-Christian framework that it originated from, in favor of a monistic
and esoteric framework. You can create a fictionalized Christ-idea if you
want, but please don't claim that is the historical concept.
I don't know that we're getting anywere, Tarjei, and we're probably boring
this list to death.
John Morehead
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
http://www.truthquest.org
(tqi quiknet.com)
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
(916) 652-7804
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1213.4 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: First Amendment and WE (Was: Re: What is ...)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 19:43:27 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: (199904072225.PAA04277 lists1.best.com)
(199904070102.SAA12430 lists1.best.com)
(199904061441.HAA03629 lists1.best.com)
(199904061627.JAA26570 lists1.best.com)
(199904070102.SAA12430 lists1.best.com)
(199904071211.FAA07472 lists1.best.com)
(199904072225.PAA04277 lists1.best.com)
(199904082228.PAA15014 lists1.best.com)
(199904111815.LAA16515 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904111815.LAA16515 lists1.best.com)
Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se) wrote:
)John & Wendy Morehead answered in two parts, the first on Thursday, 8
)April, the second on Friday, 9 April.
For some reason I didn't receive the second one (typical, since it's the
aspect I'm most interested in -- the legal stuff is mostly the concern
of US residents and, as I have shown quite adequately in the past, is
beyond my understanding) -- could you (Sune) or John send it to me by
private email, please.
Thanks.
Noctis Gaudia Carpe,
Stephen
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829) | (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk) +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1213.5 ---------------
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 18:48:44 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199904101605.JAA16177 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904112103.OAA11017 lists1.best.com)
)So once again, we commit the fallacy of worldview confusion. We impose an
)esoteric, pantheistic grid upon a series of documents (biblical) which came
)from a Judeo-Christian monotheistic worldview. It is the syncretist and the
)esotericism which arrives at the misconception through this worldview
)confusion.
Where is Joel Wendt when you need him?
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1213.6 ---------------
From: Bob Jones (b2251 yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: my introduction
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 16:42:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
--- ckzfrey (ckzfrey ix.netcom.com) wrote:
) Bob Jones writes:
) )there is no place in anthroposophy for a
) )practicing believer of any World Religion.
)
) This is clearly absurd.
) Anthroposophy has enabled me, after many years of
) not being able, to call
) myself a Christian.
And which denomination of Christian do you profess?
) Statments like Mr. Jones's are inflammatory
I will acknowledge that I seem to have hit a nerve.
and born
) of ignorance.
You may not agree with my conclusions, which are born of observation &
participation.
) )...the goal of all the
) )*practical* paths of Anthroposophy are alchemical.
) The goal is to
) )develop inner esoteric & occult sensibilities. It
) is basically a
) )divergent path to all the montheisms, including
) those which believe in
) )a Trinity.
)
) Although I am not sure I understand your use of the
) word "alchemical",
"Alchemical" refers to the metaphor of ancient alchemy
where the visible & open search for a "philosopher's stone" that would
transmute lead to gold was a reference to the "hidden" (ie:
occult)search for inner development in esoteric matters. "Esoteric
matters", I believe, was really the practice of white magic based upon
Babylonian, Chaldean, and Egyptian cosmologies, with some Christian
overtones.
) will say that the proposal that the idea that the
) development of "inner
) esoteric & occult sensibilities" is somehow contrary
) to religion, is
) ridiculous.
Religion. My dictionary defines it as:(from Latin religio) piety;
conscientiousness; scrupulousness. From religare: to bind back/to bind
together. Refers to acknowledgement of _a_ Divine or superhuman Power
or Powers,to be obeyed and worshiped as the Creator(s) & Ruler(s) of
the Universe; 2) expression of this belief in conduct & ritual; 3) any
specific system of belief, worship,conduct, etc, often involving a code
of ethics & a philosophy.
Inner esoteric & occult sensibilities are aimed at elevating humans to
the level of God or gods and, thru diligent "inner work", becoming the
God within.
)
) )The New Age spiritualism an,d eco-awareness is just
) bait for
) )those of your generation who yearn for a
) relationship with God &
) )community.
)
) "New Age" is a term that I have never heard used in
) the context of
) Anthroposophy,
Then you haven't studied the problem. "New Age" is seen by religious
scholars as being hugely influenced by Anthroposophy & Steiner. The New
Age folks whom I see involved in Anthroposophy say that they are
attracted by the lack of a Supreme Being, a lack of Divine Authority,
and the credo:"The whole of the law is do as thou wilt." Perhaps
Steiner never said those exact words; I don't know. But those who call
themselves New Age find Steiner a verification of what they believe &
practice: a pastiche of Buddhism, pantheism, Christianity, Wicca,
Shamnanism, and Neo-Paganism.
and don't get me started on anything
) being used as "bait".
) The only "bait" Anthroposophy offers is the
) possibility of improving
) one's self, thereby contributing to the improvement
) of all.
Yes. Inner esoteric development. Gnosis: the ability to rise to the
level of God (or gods) and to become the God within.
) Again---inflammatory
Perhaps.
and foolish.
How so?
) Mr. Jones, to his credit, appears to be among the
) most intelligent and
) well-informed of all the critics on this list;
Albeit:ignorant,inflammatory and foolish.
but,
) like most of the more
) outspoken critics, cannot avoid shooting himself in
) the foot with his own
) mean-spiritedness.
I did not mean to offend anyone. I do not see any mean-spiritdness in
stating the truth as I have managed to apprehend it from study,
observation, and conversation with Anthroposophists who do not hide
what they believe or what their goals are. I will grant that such
Anthroposophists are few, at least in my experience.
)
) Peace,
)
And to you.
BJ
)
)
)
)
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1213.7 ---------------
From: Bob Jones (b2251 yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: my introduction (long)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 16:49:12 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
--- Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no) wrote:
) Bob Jones wrote (to Yael Resnick):
)
) )To have you _&_ John Moorehead on our list, gives
) the conversation
) )depth. The secular humanists also bring a dimension
) of morality and
) )clear thought. Only the Anthroposophists, who have
) undoubtably written
) )to you off-list to plug their agenda, have
) prostelyzing goals here.
(snip)
) Are you calling me a liar and a hypocrite, Bob?
No.
)
) Your remark above also infers, ever so subtly, that
) I have no morality
) because I am an anthroposophist, in
) contradistinction to secular humanists.
No. The speaker *implies*; the hearer *infers*. I implied nothing. I am
not a subtle man. You have inferred what you wished. You are much
subtler than I.
)
) I call that bigotry by the book.
I am neither narrow-minded nor intolerant. I do, however, have a
mustache. (see the dictionary)
BJ
)
)
)
)
) Greetings from Uncle Taz
)
) http://www.uncletaz.com/
)
) Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism,
) Christianity, poetry,
) plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana,
) criminality, death, skulls,
) skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section
) in Norwegian.
)
)
)
)
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1213.8 ---------------
From: Bob Jones (b2251 yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: my introduction (long)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 16:57:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
--- Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se) wrote:
) Bob Jones wrote:
)
) ) To have you _&_ John Moorehead on our list, gives
) the conversation
) ) depth. The secular humanists also bring a
) dimension of morality and
) ) clear thought. Only the Anthroposophists, who have
) undoubtably written
) ) to you off-list to plug their agenda, have
) prostelyzing goals here.
)
) Dear Bob,
)
) Do you really think any "Anthroposophist"
) participating on this list
) participates with the primary goal of
) _"proselytizing"_ anyone, and
) especially the WC¥s on the list.
Often, in the time I have been subscribed, as well as in the archives,
when a parent posted doubts or outright problems with Waldorf &
Anthroposophy, they were e-mailed off list & told that the problems
were minor and that Waldorf would not be detrimental to their child.
On list, many of you have spoken glowingly of the benefits derived from
Waldorf and from Anthroposophy, or , at the least, from studying
Steiner.
Joel Wendt, who professes having done "the inner work", has constantly
exhorted the critics to "do the work", which, in my interpretation
translates to *doing* Anthroposophy.
I believe that the agenda of the *defenders* on this list is to engage
the sympathy of the undecided lurkers, on one hand, and to make the
list a negative and contentious experience, on the other hand, that
will quickly deter many people who wish to explore the possibility or
not of Waldorf education.
I think you
) completely misunderstand
) and misdescribe the situation.
That is entirely possible. However, if taken from a Christian
perspective, it seems to me to amount to witnessing & evangelizing.
That is, when you are not heaping abuse upon our ignorant, demented,
bullying,foolish, and inflammatory selves.
BJ
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1213 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1214 --------------
001 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anth
002 - Robert Flannery (litvas i - Re: my introduction (long)
003 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: First Amendment and WE (Was: Re: What is ...)
004 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anth
005 - Robert Flannery (litvas i - Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Ant
006 - ckzfrey (ckzfrey ix.netco - Re: my introduction
007 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
An
008 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - Re: my introduction (long)
009 - Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis - Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is Anthroposophi
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1214.1 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 03:15:51 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199904101605.JAA16177 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904112103.OAA11017 lists1.best.com)
I wrote:
))If one tries to adopt the concept of faith in the Biblical sense and then
))sets it up as a standard to be emulated today, it is easy to fall victim to
))a common misconception arising from ignorance of evolution. What has to be
))kept in mind is that the epistemological foundation of anthroppsophy
John Morehead wrote:
)
)So once again, we commit the fallacy of worldview confusion. We impose an
)esoteric, pantheistic grid upon a series of documents (biblical) which came
)from a Judeo-Christian monotheistic worldview. It is the syncretist and the
)esotericism which arrives at the misconception through this worldview
)confusion.
The imposition of an abstract monotheistic theology upon barely understood
ancient scriptures by scholars who get lost in word-definitions because
they cannot evoke a living relationship to them, results in a fallacy where
such self-appointed authorities are blind to their own confusion, which
they suppress in order to project the illusion of insight.
When the evolution of conceptualizing arising from language is conveniently
ignored and ancient languages are approached with the consciousness of
today in the belief that the texts were written by and for individuals with
the same consciousness, the result is self-delusion due to soul-spiritual
anachronisms.
)How can orthodox Christianity be irrationa, and illogical if the laws of
)logic, such as non-contradiction, are invalid? You're speaking out of both
)sides of your mouth. Eschewing logic when it suits anthroposophy, using
)logic when you want to denigrate Christian orthodoxy. You can't have your
)logical cake and eat it too.
In the first place, comprehension of divine-spiritual truth requires a
higher logic, an extra-rational logic. Secondly, orthodox Christianity
claims that their lonesome, monotheistic dictator intervenes in history
with miracles that contradict the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, and
mathematics. It is required that one makes a leap of faith to accept such
things and ignores intellectual honesty. For someone whose acceptance of
reality is dependent upon the scientific intellect, this is irrational and
illogical. This irrationality and illogic is not identical with what you
call a violation of of non-contradiction because it is not a paradox. Or if
it is a paradox to you, which makes it possible for you to hold the
contradictory views of natural laws on the one hand, and the unheard-of
violations of such laws on the other, it is not acceptable to the more
science oriented thinker, for whom Anthroposophy was developed.
(snip)
)Many of the truth claims of orthodox Christianity can be tested (e.g., the
))historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth,
Nope. There is no conclusive scientific evidence that he ever lived.
)claims of an empty tomb,
No scientific evidence of any resurrection either. You're referring to the
accounts by the evangelists, who were "eyewitnesses," seers, who perceived
these events clairvoyantly. (Luke, for example, was never physically
present.)
Natural science does not support Christianity in any form.
)a finite universe, etc.).
Oh, try that on on talk.origins.
)The same is true of anthroposophy when it makes truth claims.
)Anthroposophy may )claim to be a reintegration of science, religion, art
)and philosophy,
Correction: Anthroposophy does NOT CLAIM to be THE reintegration of
science, religion, art and philosophy, as if it had a monopoly on such
integration. I merely stated that Anthroposophy does integrate these fields.
)but it surely isn't testable in terms of empirical scientific methods.
You don't test the composition of a culture by scientific methods any more
than you test a song, a non-scientific thought experiment, a poem, or a
religious feeling. The testing of the scientific aspect of anthroposophy,
i.e. goethean science, bidynamic agriculture etc. is a different matter,
and that is one of the key topics being discussed on this and other lists.
Again, it suprises me that you are a relionist, because your reasoning
process resempbles more that of a materialistic science freak who wahts to
make even the validity of a work of art subject to scientific testing.
(snip)
)Well please don't assume that all orthodox Christians hold to young-earth
)creation science. I don't. But my personal views are irrelevant here.
)Orthodox Christians are fee to evaluate the various theories of origins and
)choose the one which best meets the evidence in natural revelation (nature)
)and special revelation (the biblical texts). This means orthodox Christians
)run the gamut from theistic evolutionists to young-earth creationists. The
)mantra of evolution cited as a proof of the falsity of orthodox
)Christianity is )a red herring. And it does nothing to substantiate the
)cosmology of Steiner and )anthroposophy.
The criticism of anthroposophical Christology as erroneous and false falls
flat on its face when confronted with the consideration of
psychic-spiritual evolution and its effect upon present-day orthodox
interpretation of old literature. Beyond this, the consideration in
question is not intended to substantiate anything, but to encourage more
comprehensive research and less condescending arrogance.
)If monism is the worldivew undergirding anthroposophy, and I believe
)Steiner taught so, then how can you disagree with me? To disagree with me
)means there must be duality, otherwise, if all is one then orthodox and
)esoteric Christianity, despite any perceived differences, really dissolve
)under closer analysis since all is ultimately one.
It's no miracle that you can believe in miracles that go contrary to
physical causality.
)
)I believe it can be demonstraetd that monism is philosophically untenable.
)Even monists live as dualists, often without recognizing this is so.
Granted. Dualism is very pervasive in our culture, and hardly anyone is
unaffected by it. But monism makes perfect sense, and it is worth striving
for.
))If you do this, why take the leap of faith in the direction of
))anthroposophy, or orthodox Christianity, and not Hitler's national
))socialism for example?
)
)Dietrich Eckart did the latter. He is also the father of WE criticism and
)the primeval enemy of anthroposophy.
)But you didn't answer my question.
Yes I did - in the affirmative with Dietrich Eckart as an example.
)Why *not* move in the subjective direction of national socialism vs.
)esoteric )Christianity? If you cut yourself off from all testability of
)truth claims, and )the applicability of logic to the same, you have not
)means of knowing whether )your beliefs are objectively true or
)self-deception.
This discrimination is a continuous process. It is of crucial importance to
recognize how much of our perceive reality is in fact illusion,
self-deception. this is a struggle that drives every true artist - to get
deeper and deeper in touch with reality, with one's real self.
)))There must be some objective grounds for holding religious truth claims.
))
))They are offered by anthroposophy.
)
)And those are objectively what?
It's all in the basic books, from scratch. Start with "Truth and Science"
(or "Truth and Knowledge"). As a specialist in new religions an an expert
on anthroposophy from an evangelical perspective, you ought to read them.
)If you'd be so kind as to point out how thise criticisims, philosophically
)and theologically, are in error, that would be appreciated so we could make
)sure the critics are accurate. No one wants to misrepresent. For example,
)my colleage, philosophy professor Francis Beckwith, co-wrote a book with
)Stephen Parrish, called _See the Gods Fall_, where they philosophically
)critique various worldviews, including the New Age. If you could point out
)how their critique fails philosophically, I'd be happy to pass along your
)corrections for the next edition of the book. Otherwise, it sounds like
)sour grapes in that you mischaracterize a sound critique as an "attack."
First, I have not read the book you mention, so I cannot comment on it.
Secondly, the very title of the book makes it clear that my corrections
would not be included in the next edition. Anyway, an error I have already
mentioned from another book was that Buddhism was supposed to be the
invention of Satan to confuse the Christians - that because Satan knew
Christ was coming, he came up with Buddha as his own disciple. That's just
one example.
)
)When it comes to Rudolf Steiner, they frequently manage to
))de-cristianize Anthroposophy through distortions.
)
)Steiner "de-Christianized" himself through the adoption of a monistic,
)pantheistic, esoteric worldview which put him at variance with the orthodox
)monotheistic worldview of the biblical writers.
What you mean is that because esotericism is unpalatable to you, and
because Steiner's view collides with your Bible-interpretation and your
Christianity, you have the right to judge Rudolf Steiner's presonal
relation to Christ, and mine. You have no such right by no authority
whatsoever. The "authority" you represent is a paper tiger of no
consequence ewhatsoever.
)But you missed the point of my question. Does merely believing something
)subjectively make it true, regardless of contradiction or incomprehensibility?
I have not declared, suggested, nor implied anything of the kind.
)
)))What about the racist who says he believes in racial purity, but that he
)))is )not a racist.
))
))He reminds me of the orthodox Christian who says he believes in religious
))tolerance while at the same time attacking other religions and philosophies.
)
)An ad hominem attack, Tarjei. Please answer my question and don't engage in
)personal attacks.
I wasn't attacking you at all; I was comparing your hypocritical racist
with a hypocritical Christian. If you are not a hypocritical Christian, it
was not a personal attack. If you are, I apologize.
)If you don't want to respond, fine. We'll cease the exchange. But please
)don't )question my motives. I have said in previous posts that I support
)the freedom )of religion. That is not incompatible with pointing out
)errors in your posts )when you claim harmony between orthodox and esoteric
)Christianity.
This is the SECOND time you distort my point here. I said that orthodox and
esoteric Christianity have many traits in common. I said nothing about them
being in harmony, and I certainly didn't CLAIM their harmony. I said that
any individual is free to harmonize any religious streams of his or her
choosing.
)You can believe whatever you want but that doesn't make it true,
Ditto.
)and it does not immunize your claims for analysis.
People may analyze everything I write to this list until their faces turn
blue for all I care. and they may call every word from my keyboard a
"claim" for that matter.
)I don't attack other religions and philosophies.
You call them falsehoods and errors.
)I try to understand them, enter into dialogue with their adherents, and
)then )analyze them as well. If criticism is attack then you ar intolerant
)because you )take issue with my orthodox Christianity. It cuts both ways.
That is only a partial truth. I am not taking issue with orthodox
Christianity, because it has too much in common with Anthroposophy for that
- obviously a lot more than you are aware of. What I am taking issue with
is the arrogant labelling of Anthroposophy as a false and erroneaous
Christianity - even a de-Christianized Christianity. When I point to flaws
in orthodox logic, it is to demonstrate that attacks against Anthroposophy
from an orthodox chair is tantamount to hurling bricks from a glass-house.
)
))You are attempting to compare the old lady in Houston who was a Catholic
))and an Anthroposophist with a racist who believes in racial purity?
))Naughty. (She was a Republican and a political conservative, and I didn't
))get to know her well enough to find out exactly how she stood on racial
))questions, but she was a dear friend. She was the last friend I went to see
))in America before I left.)
)
)Naughty? Come on, Tarjei. I was making no comparison. I was using an
)example of another situation using your logic to demonstrate that it
)doesn't hold water. If, as you said, believing Catholicism was compatible
)with anthroposophy was true for that woman, then does a racist who believes
)in racial equality mean that it is true for him/her. Or is this a
)contradiction, which would mean that logical thinking is valid, and that
)one shouldn't hold contradictory views?
When you conclude from the philosophy of the Houston-lady that a racist can
believe in racial equality, your logic is, in my opinion, seriously flawed
at this point.
)
))Your insinuation deserves no further comment except another note about
))Dietrich Eckart
)
)It wasn't an insinuation, it was a question based upon your method of
)thinking. If you don't think such questions deserve a response, perhaps
)this means you are more interested in anthroposophical evangelism and
)intolerance against skepticism and orthodox Christianity, than about honest
)dialogue over truth and falsehoood as it relates to Waldorf in public
)education.
))I suggest that you demonstrate this to anthroposophists who are also
))Catholics.
)
)I'd be happy to talk to them. One example should suffice: It is impossible
)to be a Roman Catholic and believe in a Personal Transcendent God, while at
)the same time believing in monism and a form of modern Gnosticism. They are
)contradictory and both cannot be true at the same time.
It's because you're getting lost in an intellectual labyrinth with no exit.
Anthro-Catholics don't. If Christ is real, and if He meets those who seek
Him, He doesn't care about such nonsense. If the Catholic church and
Anthroposophy are both paths to Christ, only the Devil would pose an
intellectual objection of this kind.
)
)))You're losing me here. I'm simply trying to apply the rules of rational
)))thought that we all use each day, often without realizing it.
))
))This is precisely what anthroposophy is doing.
)
)What? Using the rules of rational thought (I thought they were invalid)?
I have made no such statement. I said that intellectual proof and
scientific evidence has no validity outside natural science and mathematics.
)Logic is no more *my* logic that it was Aristotle's when he discovered the
)laws of logic. We all use the same logic.
This very exchange testifies to the opposite.
)I would argue that we use a variety of means to influence others to accept
)things we believe in (food products, restaurants, politics, etc.) and we
)still recognize and support personal freedom. It is just as true for
)spiritual questions. They are not immune from rational thought and should
)not be left to the whims of subjectivism.
I am still left with the distinct impression that spiritual views that do
not conform with your own rational understanding are dismissed as "whims of
subjectivism." And when you now say that spiritual questions should not be
left to such whims, you are in a sense setting yourself up as an authority
over other peoiple what such questions are concerned.
)You keep making this claim, but you have not demonstrated this. I've asked
)about monism and the Gnostic reinterpretation of Christ by Steiner and you
)haven't responded as to how these things are the original Christian teaching.
There isn't enough room in these posts for me to quote entire
lecture-cycles by Steiner on the four Gospels. Monism is dealt with in POF,
Gnosticism in "Christ and the Spiritual World and the Search for the Holy
Grail" (GA 149). As an inquisitive bookworm, you shouldn't ask me to spell
it all out for you under the guise of "demonstrating claims." Save that for
talk.origins or another ng that is strictly limited to science.
)I'm afraid you can't validly raise the specter of the evil "Religious
)Right" as a characterization of the original New Testament teaching. They
)are a modern expression of Christian thought in the area of politics and
)cultural influence. I submit that the doctrinal teachings and worldview of
)the original, historic Christian church are at variance with Steiner's
)esoteric reinterpretation, and you have done nothing to demonstrate
)otherwise.
I have made myself perfectly clear all the way, and your repeated demands
for demonstrations appear to be expressive of your needing a hand to pull
you out of those intellectual labyrinths of your own making - your own
cerebral spider-webs.
)You are free to hold your views and deny you want anything to do
)with Christian orthodoxy, but you aren't free to misrepresent it at will
)contrary to all historical and theological evidences.
I have not misrepresented Christian orthodoxy, because I haven't even
presented it. What I have done is to poke holes in your misrepresentation
of Anthroposophy at the expense of your version of orthodoxy.
))Which reminds me of the fact that Rudolf Steiner hailed "Thomism" as he
))called it, and incorporated it in Anthroposophy.
)
)Really? He incorporated Thomistic logical, and perhaps philosophical
)reasoning in his books? If so, he imposed the foreign grid of monism upon
)Thomas Aquinas. And why emulate Aquinas' logical reasoning as applied to
)theology? I thought we had to transcend rational thought in favor of a
)subjective experience?
You have misunderstood my point altogether. What I have tried to explain is
that a higher level of reasoning, which Steiner called "sense-free
thinking," should be supplemented to the logical intellectualizing that is
fettered to the physical brain cells. I did not say that the former should
replace the latter.
As for Thomism, read the three RS lectures "The Redemption of Thinking, a
Study in the Philosophy of Thomas Aquinas" (GA 605). Again, don't ask me to
spell everything out for you.
)One can't rest a case, when one hasn't presented a sound one to begin with.
)Why is an omnipotent Supreme Being a "lonely...super-dictator"? This is a
)subjective mischaracterization put forward without *any* philosophical or
)theological reasons to sustain it. And you have demonstrated no parallel
)with creation science. If your case is closed then the God of Christian
)orthodoxy is acquitted.
No god is on trial here. Only theologians. The "lonely super-dictator" is
my expression to illustrate that I find the concept absurd and untenable. I
am not interested in demonstrating, and I have no ambition to persuade you
or anybody else to share my insight.
)
))When the explanation of "miracles" defy natural scientific laws, they are
))false.
)
)Natural scientific laws are only immutable if the God of Christian theism
)does not exist. You assume this to be the case, but it is possible to
)provide sound reasons to the contrary, thus providing a satisfactory
)worldview background making miracles possible. And if you want to push
)natural law, I would submit that it is hostile to the "scientific"
)"supersensible" worlds of anthroposophy as well, and I have seen no
)argumentation to substantiate that to the satisfaction of naturalism.
Natural law is not hostile to anthroposophically oriented spiritual
science, but it IS hostile to the idea of a deity breaking this law like
some circus magician, which is found in Christian fundamentalist orthodoxy.
(snip)
))I have not said that. I have said that Steiner's esoteric Christianity has
))many traits in common with orthodox Christianity. To the extent that any
))individual combines and incorporates these elements, it may be more or less
))compatible to that individual. the Houston-lady is a perfect example.
)
)So were are back to mere subjectivism and experience without reference to
)tests for veridicality? Is that it?
Ypu're incredible. First you distort my statement, and then when I correct
your distortion, you start chanting your totally irrelevgant
science-test-song.
)
))The Bible consists of 66 books or so, and almost as many authors. In the
))New Testament, we have Mark, Matthews, Luke, John, Paul, and some more. But
))you seem to suggest that the New Testament was written by *one* author.
))Who? Some lonely omnipotent dictarot using the miracle of automatic
))writing? Or some editor-in-chief in the Roman Church?
)
)Where did I say there was only one human author? Nowhere.
Your memory fails. You wrote: "This esoteric grid was used to filter the
New Testament texts resulting in an esoteric Christianity contrary to the
New Testament author's world view and intended textual meanings."
(snip)
)Ignorant American Buddhists try to synthesize Buddhism with Christianity.
There may be ignorant Buddhists all over the world. But if harmonizing
Buddhism with Christianity is evidence of ignorance in your view, you are
calling all Anthroposophists, including Yours Truly, ignorant.
Anthropopsophy is Christian Buddhism, or Buddhist Christianity. So much for
your religious tolerance and your respect for other philosophies.
)But knowledgeable Buddhists, such as the Dalai Lama, while acknowledging
))similar )ethical codes and that each tradition can learn much from the
)other, )at least the Dalai Lama stops short of trying to combine the two
)because he )recognizes their incompatibility on foundational matters.
Now you are implying quite clearly that anthroposophists are not
knowledgeable because they do not share YOUR view that Buddhism and
Christianity are compatible. Your prejudice and bigotry is exposed.
))The problem is that when it comes to spiritual matters, there are many
))paradoxes. In the Bible, these paradoxes are also known as contradictions.
)
)A paradox or a mystery is something which goes beyond the limits of human
)reason, but not contrary to it. I submit there are no genuine violations of
)the law of noncontradiction in orthodox Christianity. But you merely skirt
)criticism here. Are the laws of logic applicable to spiritual truth claims
)or not? If so, they must be applied to orthodox and esoteric Christianity.
)If not, then you can't criticize orthodox Christianity for alleged
)contradictions. The sword of logic is two edged, Tarjei.
The contradictions in orthodox Christianity are clear what natural laws
versus the metaphysical circus magician is concerned. In esoteric
christianity there are no logical contradictions, except those of your own
making.
))For this reason, the Bible may easily be torn to shreds by "the law of
))non-contradiction". The ability to see through a paradox and discern the
))truth within it prevents you from falling into the trap of dismissing it
))because of its apparent contradiction.
)
)If there is a genuine contradiction, then it is falsified. Why look for
)alleged "deeper or hidden truth" when you find contradiction. Nonsense.
If you don't look for "the deeper hidden truth," you are stuck with two
choices: You either reject the Bible altogether as imaginative fiction, or
you take it at surface face-value, as inerrant and literally true in the
simpleton-sense. Pick your own nonsense.
)
))The falsehoods are based upon misuderstanding. This is why in Norwegian
))encyclopaedia and reference works, anthroposophy and related terms have
))always been defined by anthroposophists.
)
)So Western scholars of religion cannot adequately understand or classify
)anthroposophy? Is that it? Hmmm. Then I guess only an orthodox Christian
)can truly understand orthodox Christianity and these believers alone must
)define it. Cool. Your criticisms are all invalidated by your
)misunderstanding? Do you accept this line of reasoning?
You're missing one crucial point here: I have been an orthodox Christian of
the Protestant variety. I even taught Bible classes according to orthodox
theology. If you had been an ex-anthroposophist and lectured about the
spiritual evolution of humanity from a spiritual-scientific viewpoint
before you became an orthodox christian, you might have a point.
)
))On the contrary, he used objective spiritual-scientific research.
)
)How is a subjective investigation of supersensible higher worlds
)"scientific" in the accepted meaning of the term?
The investigation is objective, not subjective. Read "Outline of Occult
Science." Don't ask me to spoon any of it out to you, because I've already
done that for Dan Dugan.
)Please don't dodge the question. How can Steiner arrive at a proper
)interpretation of any biblical writer by denying scholarly methods of
)literary interpretation in favor of subjective esotericism?
He checks out the author's sources before examining the text to see if it
matches his own independent findings. You can't beat that.
)))If you used an esoteric interpretation of the Reader's Digest, TV Guide,
)))TIME, )or your tax forms, you'd be in trouble quickly. Why do it with the
)))biblical texts?
))
))Because the Biblical texts are antique, occult documents. The TV guide isn't.
)
)So the literary interpretive techqnique one uses is determined by the age
)of the documents in question, at least in part? How old do they have to be
)before one uses an esoteric technique, and how do you know the biblical
)texts are occult documents, whose true meaning is hidden beneath the
)surface of the actual words unless one assumes this to be the case? Sounds
)like circular reasoning.
If you don't know how to classify literature,if you don't know the
difference between the TV guide and the Bible, I'm afraid I can't help you.
If my reasoning sounds circular to you, it's because you're stuck in that
labyrinth of yours.
)
)))I maintain that Western esotericism, properly classified within the New Age
)))movement, is philosophically inferior to Christian theism.
))
))I call that religious-philosophical fascism.
)
)I call this philosophical analysis, and the willingness to submit the
)Christian theistic worldview to the tests of philosophical reasoning in
)contrast with a Western esoteric worldview. Tests for truth and falsehood
)with regards to worldviews is not fascism.
When you call your own subjective judgement objective tests in the
capricious name of philosophy and use it as a platform to throw dirt on
esoteric Christianity, it's arrogant religious fascism.
)
)))Let me provide a counter-example. Gnostic influence in alternative
)))medicine. )Prime example: Deepak Chopra. The cure for aging, disease and
)))death? Simply )change your consciousness, thereby bringing yourself into
)))harmony with the )infinite Creative Intelligence, and viola. No more
)))sickness, because it was an )illusion created by thinking. I submit that
)))Dr. Chopra will still age, and )die, regardless of his meditation, because
)))reality is not as he perceives it.
))
))The most deluded quackery of this kind comes from evangelical circles and
))their faith healing. this is based upn the simple command given by Christ
))to a sick person, "Take your bed and walk." The way this is being practiced
))today, with magical circus trickery, mass-suggestion and the like, is a
))prime gift for the Skeptics Society. Anthroposophical doctors have never
))engaged in this kind of nonsense, but orthodox Christians are notorious for
))it.
)
)Another ad hominem against Christianity, which provides no evidence for the
)alleged scientific status of anthroposophy.
Every single time I catch you red-handed in throwing bricks from your
glass-house, you cry "ad hominem." And this time you say I'm doing an ad
hominem against Christianity - against Christ? Come on.
On top of this, you add something about lack of evidence for
anthroposophical science, which has nothing whatsoever to do with modern
evangelical healing-circuses.
)I don't agree with the abuses of alleged evangelical faith healers either,
)but )that doesn't mean the whole world view is false. And regardless of
)Christian )faith healing, it does not establish the alleged scientific
)status of )anthroposophical medicine, or New Age alternative medicine
)either.
Your sentence lacks clarity of reference. EXACTLY WHAT does not establish
the alleged scientific status of anthroposophical medicine, or New Age
alternative medicine?
)You will find out very quickly that New Age monism is deadly to the
)Western )dualistic worldview that modern medicine is based upon.
You are making a scientific claim here, namely that philosophical monism
will undermine medical practice, medical research, and the art of healing.
This is indeed a claim that you are required to test, to demonstrate, and
to prove if it is to be taken seriously.
)How about some historic evidence, from non-Christian sources, for the
)historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth? Josephus, a Jewish historian,
)has at least one reference to him that is undisiputed, and possibly another
)that may have experienced, Christian interpolation. Additionally, he is
)mentioned in the writings of the Roman historian Tacitus, and the Jewish
)Talmud. And one cannot discount the testimony of the early Pauline
)epistles, nor the Gospels, written, quite likely according to the latest
)scholarly concensus, prior to the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, within a
)generation of the events they described. That's good historical evidence.
To you perhaps. But there are many atheists who with good reason claim that
this evidence is elusive and inconclusive, and that the entire story may be
a fable, a myth, a legend.
)The earliest critics did not deny his historical existence, they denied the
)identity with which the early Christians associated him, as Messiah. The
)"Christ-idea" concept ignores the historical evidence and the
)Judeo-Christian framework that it originated from, in favor of a monistic
)and esoteric framework. You can create a fictionalized Christ-idea if you
)want, but please don't claim that is the historical concept.
You have totally misunderstood and misconstrued what I meant by the
christ-Idea. I did not call it the Christ-Idea *because* the Mystery of
Golgotha eludes physical evidence, but because the history of Christianity
is the history of an Idea arising from the event in question.
)
)I don't know that we're getting anywere, Tarjei, and we're probably boring
)this list to death.
Right. Anyway, I'm bored with it. On the other hand, so far, at least since
I've joined the list, all the critics have been more or less secular
humanists, and there haven't been any fundies to play with.
Cheers
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism, Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality, death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1214.2 ---------------
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Re: my introduction (long)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 21:40:47 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199904112359.QAA14805 lists1.best.com)
Bob Jones, answering a question from Sune Nordwall:
)Often, in the time I have been subscribed, as well as in the archives,
)when a parent posted doubts or outright problems with Waldorf &
)Anthroposophy, they were e-mailed off list & told that the problems
)were minor and that Waldorf would not be detrimental to their child.
I've been here a long time, and I don't recall such descriptions in any
posts.
Anyway, if I've missed something and it's happening, it's not happening
often enough to say we proselytize. I'd be surprised--it goes against the
grain of everything I know about anthroposophy.
If this was a trend in either waldorf or anthroposophy, I wouldn't be
associated with either.
(snip)
)I believe that the agenda of the *defenders* on this list is to engage
)the sympathy of the undecided lurkers, on one hand, and to make the
)list a negative and contentious experience, on the other hand, that
)will quickly deter many people who wish to explore the possibility or
)not of Waldorf education.
I like to think that most of the things I post here help people see a more
complete and accurate picture of waldorf education. No one has to do a
thing to make this list contentious--as John Moreland pointed out the other
day, we're talking about core values here.
When you use the term "agenda", are you implying or suggesting that waldorf
supporters on this list are working in an organized fashion, according to
some plan?
In any case, what would a waldorf supporter have to gain by driving
undecided people away from the schools?
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1214.3 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: First Amendment and WE (Was: Re: What is ...)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 11:25:24 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sune Nordwall on science as religion:
[snip]
Regarding a court judgement:
)The note to the last sentence unexpectedly however refers, not to
)Transcendental Meditation, but to _atheism_ as something that "may be a
)religion under the establishment clause in that the government cannot
)aid the propagation of a belief in the nonexistence of a supreme being.
)See Abington School District v. Schempp. supra, at 225; Zorach v.
)Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 314(1952).
)
)Judging from the case, it seems that teaching in public schools that
)"science is an argument for the nonexistence of a supreme being", a
)position probably held by a number of the WC on this list is a violation
)of the First Amendment of the Constitution.
)
)Also, if it does, where does that put the majority of the schools in US?
)Not an easy situation, it seems.
Michael KOPP says:
Sune, you have already admitted to ignorance of the U.S. Constitution,
legal and cultural framework. Perhaps you are also ignorant of what goes on
in U.S. public schools, particularly in regard to the teaching of "science".
To my knowledge (it was certainly never true for my own education there
from 1955 to 1975) the teaching of science does not include "the
propagation of a belief in the nonexistence of a supreme being".
You are taking the court's words about atheism -- a true rejection of the
supernatural -- and applying it to science, which *says nothing about the
existence or otherwise of the supernatural*.
I have seen nothing in anything I have ever read about science that
supports your contention. Science is neutral on supernature, because
science is based on emperical evidence, and there is no evidence of
anything supernatural.
Perhaps you are confusing -- intentionally or not -- science's neutral
statement that there is no evidence of anything supernatural with atheism's
absolute statement (based on belief, not evidence) that there is no
supernatural realm.
The proper teaching of science (and I might agree that science is often
poorly taught, or taught more with a bias towards theism than towards
atheism, in the U.S.) is that is evidence based, and therefore has nothing
to do with belief or non-belief in things supernatural.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1214.4 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 13:45:29 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199904101605.JAA16177 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904112103.OAA11017 lists1.best.com)
John Morehead has been having a long ... conversation ... with Tarjei
Straume about the differences (if I understand the arguments, which is
debatable, given my lack of theological education) between two world-views,
Christianity and Anthroposophy.
I don't need to quote any of the discussion ... let's cut to the chase:
)I don't know that we're getting anywere, Tarjei, and we're probably boring
)this list to death.
)
)John Morehead
Michael KOPP says:
On the contrary, I fing the discussion extremely illuminating of two
things: the facts of the matter as seen by the two sides; and a
confirmation of something I (along with most other Steiner/ Waldforf/
Anthroposophical (SWA) critics) have been saying for three-and-one-half
years.
And that is the impossibility of holding a rational discussion between an
adherent of SWA and a critic of SWA.
For the Anthroposophist, it is impossible that one who disagrees with any
of Steiner's teachings can have enough understanding of Anthroposophy to
hold such a discussion. This is contrary to all scholarship principles of
which I have been aware throughout my life.
Critics (even mild questioners, like parents of children in an SWA school
who find something their children are being taught to be strange,
incomprehensible, or at variance with their own understanding of the world)
are told that the issues are quite complicated and that only by long study
would one understand them.
They are further told that if they study Anthroposphy according to
Steiner's prescriptions, they will come to understand. Invariably, people
who do this become as convinced of Anthroposophy's tenets as those who have
told them the path to understanding. In other words, to study according to
the master's teachings is to become what the master had in mind in the
first place, despite his guru-trick pronouncement that each should come to
his or her own conclusions.
As I understand SWA, there has not been one critic from within who has
published any kind of major difference of opinion with Steiner. (We have
seen some people on this list who call themselves apostates of some sort,
but they mostly say it is the _practice_ of SWA today which bothers them,
not Steiner's original world view and cosmology.) Anthroposophy has not
progressed, despite the myriad books purporting to explain it or build on
it or employ it.
This seems to me to be at variance with Mr Morehead's and other Protestant
Christian religions, at least, and with most others, like Catholicism,
Judaism, Islam and Buddhism, which have extremely lively intellectual
arguments and schisms. (Some too lively, at the moment, leading to
authoritarian, patriarchal fascism.)
To my knowledge -- despite the claim of the SWA apologists on this list --
there is no such process, no such schisming, in SWA.
Now isn't this curious?
And isn't it fun to see the emperor's new clothes paraded so elegantly in
the eloquent and erudite chatting of two such obvious authorities as Mr
Morehead and Mr Straume?
Please don't get me wrong: I am not religious, and I see no more "proof" of
the existence of a "God" in Mr Morehead's arguments and history and
documents, (or those of any other religion) than I do for the existence of
a spiritual higher plane as proposed by Mr Straume's. And I think religion
-- an invention of humans for their own comfort and politics in the early
days of sentience in the face of great unknowns -- has much to answer for
in the history of human conflict. Disagreements of theology have not always
been polite parlour talk or disembodied, physically remote, cybernetic
gabble.
But I think I Mr Morehead's discussions with Mr Straume make it
transparently obvious that for the purposes of the those who are
challenging SWA in public education SWA is, in fact, a religion under the
definitions of the U.S. Constitution and its legal interpretation for 250
years.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1214.5 ---------------
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 22:32:57 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199904112103.OAA11017 lists1.best.com)
(199904101605.JAA16177 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904120153.SAA00786 lists1.best.com)
Michael Kopp says:
)But I think I Mr Morehead's discussions with Mr Straume make it
)transparently obvious that for the purposes of the those who are
)challenging SWA in public education SWA is, in fact, a religion under the
)definitions of the U.S. Constitution and its legal interpretation for 250
)years.
Now why is it so obvious? I don't believe they've touched on the practice
of waldorf education once in the course of their discussion.
Also, your use of the SWA acronym is really unwieldy here: are you
claiming their dialogue proves Steiner a religion, or Waldorf, or
Anthroposophy, or all three?
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1214.6 ---------------
From: ckzfrey (ckzfrey ix.netcom.com)
Subject: Re: my introduction
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 99 10:56:55 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Bob Jones writes:
)
)And which denomination of Christian do you profess?
)
I'm sorry. You've got me. I didn't realize that one is obliged to profess
a denomination in order to be a Christian. That is precisely the kind of
narrow-minded attitude that turned me away from mainstream Christianity.
)
)Religion. My dictionary defines it as:(from Latin religio) piety;
)conscientiousness; scrupulousness. From religare: to bind back/to bind
)together. Refers to acknowledgement of _a_ Divine or superhuman Power
)or Powers,to be obeyed and worshiped as the Creator(s) & Ruler(s) of
)the Universe; 2) expression of this belief in conduct & ritual; 3) any
)specific system of belief, worship,conduct, etc, often involving a code
)of ethics & a philosophy.
)
)Inner esoteric & occult sensibilities are aimed at elevating humans to
)the level of God or gods and, thru diligent "inner work", becoming the
)God within.
I don't understand. Is this meant to illustrate something about
Anthroposophy vs. Christianity?
I am all in favor of your etymological definition of religion.
"Ligios"= connection, as in "ligament"--- so re-ligion= re-connection to
the spirit.
It seems that there was a severance of Man from Spirit, and religion aims
to re-connect the two.I feel that Anthroposophy and the inner work to
which you refer have assisted me in this process, although I have NEVER
harbored any aspirations toward elevating myself to the level of God.
That is absurd.
)... you haven't studied the problem. "New Age" is seen by religious
)scholars as being hugely influenced by Anthroposophy & Steiner. The New
)Age folks whom I see involved in Anthroposophy say that they are
)attracted by the lack of a Supreme Being, a lack of Divine Authority,
)and the credo:"The whole of the law is do as thou wilt." Perhaps
)Steiner never said those exact words; I don't know. But those who call
)themselves New Age find Steiner a verification of what they believe &
)practice: a pastiche of Buddhism, pantheism, Christianity, Wicca,
)Shamnanism, and Neo-Paganism.
)
If I may be so presumtious as to speak for Anthroposophy:...ahem.....
What the heck does Anthroposophy have to do with people outside of it who
claim to be influenced by it?
John Hinckley claimed to be influenced by Jody Foster.
The Rastafarians base their entire religion on worship of Haile Selassie,
who knew nothing about his supposed flock; and invoking the name of
Rudolph Steiner in order to somehow validate one's beliefs does not an
Anthroposophist make.
So, please spare us the assumption that Anthroposophy is somehow "New
Age".
)I do not see any mean-spiritdness in
)stating the truth as I have managed to apprehend it from study,
)observation, and conversation with Anthroposophists who do not hide
)what they believe or what their goals are. I will grant that such
)Anthroposophists are few, at least in my experience.
))
I, on the other hand, see a majority of Anthroposophists as being
completely honest about their beliefs and goals, although I acknowledge
the possibility that you have encountered a different environment.
As for myself, I consider myself positively militant about honesty and
integrity in everything that I do. If you ever notice me being false to
my claim, I invite you to bring it to my attention.
Peace,
Charlie Frey
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1214.7 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 15:09:58 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199904120153.SAA00786 lists1.best.com)
(199904112103.OAA11017 lists1.best.com)
(199904101605.JAA16177 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904120225.TAA17416 lists1.best.com)
Robert Flannery says:
)Michael Kopp says:
)
))But I think I Mr Morehead's discussions with Mr Straume make it
))transparently obvious that for the purposes of the those who are
))challenging SWA in public education SWA is, in fact, a religion under the
))definitions of the U.S. Constitution and its legal interpretation for 250
))years.
)
)
)Now why is it so obvious? I don't believe they've touched on the practice
)of waldorf education once in the course of their discussion.
KOPP:
Which are you challenging: that their discussions make it obvious SWA is a
religion; or their discussions make it obvious SWA is practiced in "Waldorf
education"?
The former is obvious on its own. The latter doesn't have to be discussed
by them; it's already been thoroughly thrashed out on this list.
It's obvious because copious evidence on this list, and statements by "SWA"
adherents, have already established that Steiner's pedagogical religiosity,
and Anthroposophy holus-bolus, are practiced by SWA teachers and school
upon their students. I will no longer be drawn into debate on this issue.
)Also, your use of the SWA acronym is really unwieldy here: are you
)claiming their dialogue proves Steiner a religion, or Waldorf, or
)Anthroposophy, or all three?
KOPP:
It is impossible to separate the three, and any attempt to artificially do
so by defenders of one or the other of them are doomed. They are all three
integral to the educational enterprises under discussion here and under
litigation elsewhere.
Some Anthroposophists -- and some Anthroposophical apostates, like Tarjei
the "anarchosophist" -- may claim that Anthroposophy can be divorced from
SWA educational practice in their own lives. That is, that they have
nothing to do with the schools, and simply use (or whatever word you or
they choose to employ to describe their relationship with it) Anthroposophy.
But Steiner made no such distinction, and in fact said that they were
inseperable.
I'm sorry you have difficulty understanding my meaning just because of the
employment of the abbreviation for the triumverate subjects of this list.
But I think it's been in use here long enough for most people to know what
I mean.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1214.8 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: Re: my introduction (long)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 05:25:31 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199904112351.QAA08708 lists1.best.com)
Bob Jones wrote:
)The speaker *implies*; the hearer *infers*.
Thank you for that simple clarification of my "Achilles' Heel" in English
usage.
Cheers,
Tarjei
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism, Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality, death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1214.9 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 22:51:53 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: (199904101605.JAA16177 lists1.best.com)
(199904112103.OAA11017 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904112103.OAA11017 lists1.best.com)
John & Wendy Morehead (morehead mail2.quiknet.com) wrote:
Tarjei:
))I suggest that you demonstrate this to anthroposophists who are also
))Catholics.
)
)I'd be happy to talk to them. One example should suffice: It is impossible
)to be a Roman Catholic and believe in a Personal Transcendent God, while at
)the same time believing in monism and a form of modern Gnosticism. They are
)contradictory and both cannot be true at the same time.
A former colleague is a devout Roman Catholic and a member of the
Anthroposophical Society. I very much doubt that she is the only person
who is comfortable in this position. Perhaps those who believe that such
a situation is impossible misunderstand Roman Catholicism, anthroposophy
(most likely), or both. Perhaps the solution to this conundrum lies in
the fact that being an anthroposophist does not require a belief in
anything (although I grant that I cannot imagine an anthropop who does
not believe in the existence of a spiritual reality -- but it is not
*required* -- this, IMHO, is one of the distinctions between
anthroposophy and religion).
Noctis Gaudia Carpe,
Stephen
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829) | (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk) +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1214 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1215 --------------
001 - njpmail mindspring.com (Y - Re: my introduction
002 - Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis - Re: Defining Religion; Including Anthroposophy
003 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: my introduction (long)
004 - Robert Flannery (litvas i - Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
A
005 - ckzfrey (ckzfrey ix.netco - See ya
006 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is Anthr
007 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: prayer(was..brainwashed...)
008 - redon (redon geocities.co - Charter and Choice was re: Dan's book, discussion, scientific
009 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1215.1 ---------------
From: njpmail mindspring.com (Yael Resnick)
Subject: Re: my introduction
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 03:01:55 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Bob,
Thanks for the welcome. I'll move onto more on-topic things, but I feel I
should respond to your comments:
)My intention in mentioning the Lubovitchers in connection to "cults" &
)Steiner was _NOT_ to imply giving away one's money or following someone
)to destruction. However, the reverence for this particular Rebbe has
)seemed to many, of all faiths, to be excessive.
I don't really think one should put oneself in the position of judging
whether someone else's reverence is excessive. And I disagree with the
generalization that "many, of all faiths" judge the reverence for the Rebbe
to be excessive. On the contrary, those *of all faiths* who had personal
contact with him tended instead to feel that same awe and admiration --
reverence -- for the Rebbe's genuinely lofty level of Torah and secular
learning (besides knowing the whole body of Jewish thought inside and out,
he spoke at least seven languages fluently, had an excellent grasp of the
sciences, medicine, law, etc.), his deep and insightful understanding of
human nature and relationships (people from ALL religions and walks of
life, from everywhere in the world, including world leaders, came to him or
wrote to him for guidance in personal, spiritual, political and business
matters), his devout commitment to G-d, to his wife (they had no children,
yet their marriage was faithful, peaceful and loving by all accounts, and
he had the deepest respect for her opinions), to his mother (he visited her
daily throughout her lifetime) and to the welfare of the Jewish people and
of all humankind (as one of countless examples: until past his 90th
birthday, the Rebbe spent hours upon hours every Sunday greeting and
blessing literally thousands of people who stood in line to be face to face
with him -- again, people of all types, not just Lubavitchers -- and giving
a dollar to each one so that his blessing would be connected to a mitzva, a
good deed [it was expected that each person who received a dollar would
give it, or more than that amount, to charity], since it is the Jewish
belief that spiritual matters are best grounded in physically tangible
things), and I could go on but I am starting to go on and on, and I have a
feeling my words are going to come back to me!
The point is that it's not just Lubavitchers subjectively or irrationally
revering their Rebbe to some arbitrary point of "excess." Judaism doesn't
agree with the concept of infallibility as applied to religious leaders,
but if there were ever someone who could be called a tzaddik -- a truly
righteous person -- the Rebbe is certainly one. I, for one, revere him for
the example he sets of what a human being is capable of. And I teach my
children to look to him as a role model of what they are capable of
striving for: becoming a giving, charitable, moral, devoted, idealistic,
committed, capable, confident, vibrantly and joyously spiritual person with
a strong sense of their own personal power and an equally strong sense of
humility and responsibility to something much greater than themselves. Who
do some people revere? Sports heroes, movie stars, academics, artists or
musicians... While some of these may be worthy of respect, reverence is an
entirely valid feeling and is absolutely appropriate when the object of the
reverence is deserving of it. (Some people have similar feelings, I am
sure, for the Pope, or the Queen of England??? And I wouldn't dare tell
them they shouldn't.)
)It is my understanding
)that, in Judaism, no one may give a *blessing* any more than anyone
)else.
It's true that anyone may bless anyone else any time they like. But certain
people, or people in certain circumstances, are considered to have more
powerful blessings and prayers; these include tzaddikim (perfectly
righteous people), brides and grooms, women while they are lighting the
Shabbat (Sabbath) candles on Friday night, women who are in labor, women in
general (who are, according to Jewish thought, innately more connected to
G-d; men have to work harder at their connection), anyone on their
birthday, and certain others.
)Rabbi Schneerson's voluminous writings are, I have read, taken to
)be on par with Talmud by many of the Lubovitcher Chassidim.
Well, close. The writings of ALL respected commentators, both Chassidic and
non-Chassidic, since the time of the Talmud until today, are considered to
be part of Torah and are as valid and essential as the Talmud itself. (This
is not a Chassidic belief, but a plain-old Jewish one.) Certainly, a
Rebbe's Chassidim must learn his particular commentaries, but they also
must learn the Talmud until they know it like the backs of their hands, and
they also learn everything else! (This is in contradistinction to a group
like the Kabbalah Centre, for example, which is a pseudo-Jewish cult based
on the very shallow writings of Dr. Philip Berg, whose books are virtually
the only source of "Jewish" learning for his Torah-ignorant followers --
who include Madonna and other gullible celebrities who have no clue.)
)He differs
)radically from mainstream Judaism in his views of "The Days of the
)Moshiach" (please make allowances for my spellings, here)and
)re-incarnation, at least in mainstream Conservative Judaism, is not a
)tenent. The mystical element of this branch of Chassidim, in the view
)of many, is divergent from mainstream Orthodoxy (if there is such) and
)definitely from the Conservatives.
Where have you read this? This is incorrect. If you are basing your
knowledge of what is "mainstream" on the writings of Conservative Jews (and
remember, my parents are Conservative and I was brought up Conservative and
I harbor a few regrets but no ill-will...), you are getting a very biased
education (like the one I got when I was a kid). The Conservative movement
is less than 100 years old, and it is already starting to disintegrate from
within. There is infighting about how to solve the problem of rising
intermarriage, assimilation, and apathy among Conservative Jews, and what
do you think the controversial proposed solution is? Going back to the
halacha -- Jewish law. The Reform movement (even farther to the left than
Conservative) is about 150 years old, give or take, and most Reform Jews'
kids don't even stay Jewish; certainly most of their grandchildren are not
Jewish. That's why even *they* are inching ever so slowly to the right,
toward tradition. The only lasting "form" of Judaism is the original one,
which was standardized in the Talmud so that it would endure throughout
generations of dispersion. Until my grandparents' generation, this standard
was unquestioned, and even non-Orthodox Jews today consider "halachic" (or
true-to-Jewish-law) Judaism to be the standard -- albeit the standard they
are choosing to compromise or modify. There is also, as you mentioned later
in your post, a huge back-to-our-roots movement, as people start to realize
the treaure many of their grandparents lost when they left Europe.
Chassidism didn't ADD anything new to Judaism. It merely reinvigorated the
element of joy that had fallen by the wayside, and re-popularized ancient
mystical concepts by making them applicable to people's personal,
down-to-earth spiritual and moral struggles. Even the concept of a Rebbe
was not new; Jews have always looked up to a personal spiritual leader,
ever since Moses.
Sorry, I digressed -- As far as the "mystical element of this branch of
Chassidism," you are misinformed. First of all, all Chassidic groups
include a mystical element, based on the Kabbalah, which includes the
concepts of reincarnation and life after death. (Not everyone advocates
devoting time to the study of Kabbalah, however.) It's not a "tenet" of
Conservative Judaism because the Conservative movement edited out all that
spiritual stuff when they "modernized." With all due respect to my own
parents and anyone else who affiliates with Conservative Judaism, they even
edited out most of Shabbat and keeping kosher, among other key elements of
Jewish practice, so how can they be the standard for Judaism? Likewise,
please do not learn about Moshiach from Conservative sources. Traditional
sources -- the Talmud and the Torah and the commentaries on these --
discuss Moshiach extensively, and Lubavitch does not diverge one bit from
these traditional sources. You may be familiar with Maimonides; in his
famous Mishneh Torah, he codifed the laws of how to recognize Moshiach, and
he is considered (not just by Chassidim) to be the most rational and
intellectual of Talmud commentators, not a mystic! (You can go right to the
source; Maimonides' writings are readily available in English translation.)
)Please excuse any ignorance I may have shown. It was only my intention
)to draw a parallel between the reverence for one man & his writings
)that went beyond the usual practices within any given faith.
You are forgiven for your ignorance, and I took no offense at all (nor
intended to give any in my reply). But please understand that what you are
calling "usual practices" is completely wrong, unless what you mean by
"usual" is that most Jews today do little if anything remotely related to
traditional Jewish practice. Remember, though, this is a very recent
phenomenon (about two generations) and it is starting to change. The
*standard* hasn't changed in thousands of years. ("Rabbinic" Judaism wasn't
invented during the period the Talmud was written down; it was only put
into writing, at that time -- and any differences between schools of
thought that had arisen because of the Jews' dispersal to several countries
and loss of their spiritual center in Jerusalem were resolved through a
series of debates among the great rabbis. Prior to that, the laws of Jewish
practice were a purely oral tradition that had been faithfully handed down
in all its details through the generations since Moses.)
To finish my response to Bob:
)While the Waldorfians will tell you of the Anthroposophical Kibuttz in Israel
I know of this through the research done for the NJP articles. It's a very
controversial topic; there was recently a conference about using Waldorf
methods in Jewish education, but I'm not knowledgeable enough about it to
discuss it here.
)Please be welcome to our conversation. You bring a needed viewpoint due
)to your age, education, faith and community. You are to be commended
)for returning to your roots.
I appreciate the kind words, and look forward to continued dialogue with
you and with all others on this list.
)Will your article be on-line?
)If not, could you post it to the list? If broken into segments, it
)won't overwhelm anyone's mail.
)Otherwise, I would like a copy via e-mail, broken into segments if
)necessary.
It's a section made up of several articles and it would be very long and
would take a while to get into an e-mailable form. Let me think about it.
(Or, why not support a struggling little mag and ask your local Barnes &
Noble if they have the new issue? I also mail out single copies personally,
five bucks each -- for 64 text-heavy pages, 12 of them about Waldorf.)
Charlie Frey wrote:
) It is in these "fairly traditional" Jewish homes that a Waldorf
)education is often so effective.
This scares me, and is the reason I have published the section on Waldorf
in NJP, in order to inform Jewish parents of the elements of Waldorf that
are incompatible with Judaism and the education of Jewish children.
) Many have found(Hebrew-school teachers included) that the reverence and
)spirituality that a child gains through a Waldorf education gives a deep
)meaning to the study of Judaeism, and makes "putting ideas into practice"
)a much more natural progression.
Well, I have one Jewish friend who does credit her ten years at a Waldorf
school with at least helping her be open to spirituality -- but she had to
"unlearn" much of what she had learned there in order to become an
observant Jew later on. She wouldn't choose such a convoluted path for her
children! (Her story is in the NJP Waldorf section.)
) I also understand, of course, that more orthodox forms of Judaeism
)require education to take place in a more specialized setting.
All "forms" of Judaism have their own schools and institutions. But the
Orthodox and Chassidic ones tend to be taken a lot more seriously.
I've stayed up too late again, and I've taken up too much space on this
list, much of it for an off-topic discussion. I apologize. Unless someone
else brings up Lubavitch again, I'll only discuss Waldorf-related issues
here from now on. My last word on this subject is that if anyone wants to
better understand the Rebbe and what he taught -- whether you are Jewish or
not -- you can read a book by Simon Jacobson called "Toward a Meaningful
Life." I don't have the publisher info on hand, but it should be in all
regular bookstores, and it's geared for readers of all backgrounds.
Last but not least: I haven't found the anthroposophists on this list to be
the least bit proselytizing. I have received no private e-mails other than
from Tarjei -- and I found his rather nice. (Tarjei, thanks, I will check
out the site you mentioned. Feel free to write again and I will try to be
of help if you like.)
B'shalom (in peace),
Yael
*****
Yael Resnick, Publisher/Editor, Natural Jewish Parenting
mailto:njpmail mindspring.com
173 Speedwell Ave., Suite 127, Morristown, NJ 07960
phone (973) 538-3737 fax (973) 539-5454
The only magazine dedicated to a holistic Jewish perspective on
childraising and health!
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1215.2 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Defining Religion; Including Anthroposophy
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 09:31:21 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: (199904100235.TAA01036 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904100235.TAA01036 lists1.best.com)
Aha -- got it at last!
John & Wendy Morehead (morehead mail2.quiknet.com) wrote:
)In an earlier message, I was asked to provide a definition of religion,
)which would then be used to objectively determine whether Anthroposophy was
)properly defined as a religion. In my first response I provided legal
)considerations as an answer to this question, based upon previous court
)decisions. In this second installment, I offer scholarly definitions of
)religion.
Thank you, John -- I don't recall seeing these before. You call these
"accepted" definitions. I am prepared to concur with that acceptance
until it can be shown that there are things which are embraced by the
definitions which reasonable people would agree are not religions.
For example, I am sure atheist Marxist-Leninists would argue that
Marxism-Leninism meets the criteria of the following definition, in that
it is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of
people struggles with what *it* sees as the ultimate problems of human
life. For early Man, food-gathering could conceivably have met these
criteria for the same reason:
) "Religion, then, can be defined
)as a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people
)struggles with these ultimate problems of human life" (Yinger, _The
)Scientific Study of Religion_).
The main problem I have with fitting anthroposophy into these
definitions is the inclusion of "belief" and "rite/ritual" in the
definitions. I would be interested to hear what you believe the beliefs
and rituals *prescribed by anthroposophy* to be. As I have said
elsewhere, I accept that implicit in anthroposophy is the general belief
that there is an "unseen" spiritual reality, but is that belief alone
sufficient to class something as a religion? (Not rhetorical.) I have
been a member of the Anthroposophical Society for 15 years and have
*never* been told that my membership was dependent on, for example, my
practising any rites or rituals. In fact, since I joined no-one has made
any effort to instil any belief or ritual into my life. (Lost cause,
perhaps? (g))
I am not suggesting that there are no anthroposophists who have
developed rituals which they believe to be based in anthroposophy and
which they practice; my point is that these are not actually part of
anthroposophy as such in that one can be an anthroposophist without
engaging in those practices.
)Another definition is provided by Dr. Keith
)A. Roberts in _Religion in Sociological Perspective_, a textbook used in
)many college and university religion courses (Wadsworth Publishing, 1995).
)Here, Roberts defines religion as "a social phenomenon--involving a group
)of people with a shared faith or a shared meaning system." He then lists
)certain criteria within that system, such as beliefs, rites, an ethos, a
)worldview and a system of symbols, so that the "criteria for identifying
)religion religion are sufficiently broad so that we do not miss the
)religious significance of nontraditional groups," which is where
)Anthroposophy would fall.
I don't quite see that anthroposophy falls there. I suggest that it
demonstrably fails on the "rites" and "system of symbols" criteria. If
only some of those criteria are necessary then there are many non-
religious things which meet the criteria of beliefs (e.g. atheists
believe that there is no God), rites (e.g. the All Black's haka), an
ethos (e.g. legal systems), a worldview (e.g. political dogma), or a
system of symbols (e.g. mathematics).
I am not offering this as "proof" that anthroposophy is not a religion,
but am trying to point out the difficulties in formulating definitions
which are sufficiently broad that they encapsulate all those things
which are religion without also trapping some things which aren't.
)It would seem, then, that Anthroposophy does meet accepted scholarly
)definitions of religion,
I am certainly prepared to concede that it meets *some* of the criteria
of the definitions. The problem is that so does soccer! (Which some
people would argue *does* have the status of religion on the terraces
(g)).
)although Anthroposophists might prefer the term
)spirituality or religious philosophy.
Call it a spiritual philosophy and I'll happily agree with you. I don't
think it's splitting hairs to suggest that there may be a distinction
between a spiritual philosophy and a religion.
) Because Anthroposophy meets this
)definition for religion, it is included in various scholarly reference
)works,
[...]
I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about religion to know what the
scholarly status of Ninian Smart's _The World Religions_ (Cambridge
University Press, 1989) is, but it's the only book about religions on my
bookshelf and both "anthroposophy" and "Steiner" are notably absent,
even from the (admittedly small) section on _New Forms of Religion_.
)I would further aruge that Steiner himself recognized the religious nature
)of Anthroposophy *and* Waldorf education.
Absolutely! But, again, IMHO there is a distinction between something
having a religious nature and being a religion. I would argue that what
Steiner meant in those translations you quoted was that underlying our
teaching must be the acceptance *by the teacher* that there is an
"unseen" or "spiritual" or "supersensible" (choose whichever suits you)
reality. The religion lessons he mentioned were (as you probably know),
the non-denominational "free religion lessons" given to children who did
not attend the denominational religion lessons given by priests,
pastors, etc. of those denominations.
Even with my minimal knowledge of the US constitution, it seems clear to
me that such religion lessons (free or denominational) would be entirely
out of place in the US public education system.
As for other lessons, let us take a quote like:
)"It [religion] must permeate the teaching of every subject...No education
)can be conducted without a religious foundation."
)(The Education of the Child, 69)
If we interpret Steiner to mean that the teacher should, when preparing
and delivering a lesson, keep in mind that there is an "unseen spiritual
world" and that each child has a spiritual nature, then I am in complete
agreement (although I fall very short of this ideal!). If we interpret
it to mean that we must teach a specific religious view in every lesson,
then I completely disagree with him.
Somewhat tangential to this is the following question: If keeping in
mind the spiritual nature (above) whilst preparing and delivering public
school lessons is found to be contrary to the US constitution, how, in
practice, can it's exclusion be ensured if there is no outer evidence of
its inclusion? Or, put another way, how is it possible to legislate
against that which cannot be detected?
I guess those are problems best left to the legislators -- I am,
however, interested in the moral/philosophical aspects of this: If(*)
there is no tangible evidence of anthroposophy in the lessons given in a
Waldorf school, can it be said that Waldorf schools teach or further
anthroposophy? This is not a rhetorical question.
(*) We are all, I imagine, aware that there are cases where
anthroposophy has been taught in the classroom. Some of us believe that
this is *not* the remit of Waldorf education and actively try to make
sure this doesn't happen. My question is "IF ...", which implies that I
believe it to be possible (e.g. I don't believe that I teach
anthroposophy and would be glad to hear if anyone believes they have
evidence that I do.)
Thank you, John, for posting those definitions. This side of things is
something that interests me and I hope you will be able to engage me in
debate about the questions I have asked above. Whilst I still do not
believe that anthroposophy is a religion, I hope I am able to engage in
reasoned debate about it. However, I shall understand if you feel that,
in the context of this mailing list, it is a bit of a dead-end issue. I
should also tell you in advance that in a few days my workload is about
to escalate (summer term begins) and I will attempt to withdraw to semi-
lurker status on the list.
Best Wishes,
Stephen
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829) | (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk) +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1215.3 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: my introduction (long)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 06:03:29 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
) -----Original Message-----
) From: Bob Jones [mailto:b2251 yahoo.com]
)
) I believe that the agenda of the *defenders* on this list is to engage
) the sympathy of the undecided lurkers, on one hand, and to make the
) list a negative and contentious experience, on the other hand, that
) will quickly deter many people who wish to explore the possibility or
) not of Waldorf education.
At the risk of being labeled once again a Defender of the Faith by
Mr. Kopp, I suspect that a poll of "undecided lurkers," were such a thing
possible, would likely reveal an impression that it is some of the Waldorf
Critics who create the most negative and contentious experience.
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1215.4 ---------------
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 06:11:12 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199904120225.TAA17416 lists1.best.com)
(199904120153.SAA00786 lists1.best.com)
(199904112103.OAA11017 lists1.best.com)
(199904101605.JAA16177 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904120311.UAA12543 lists1.best.com)
Michael Kopp promises:
)It's obvious because copious evidence on this list, and statements by "SWA"
)adherents, have already established that Steiner's pedagogical religiosity,
)and Anthroposophy holus-bolus, are practiced by SWA teachers and school
)upon their students. I will no longer be drawn into debate on this issue.
)
*You haven't been willing to debate it yet*.
Michael, you have always been willing to talk about anthroposophy and
new-age pap being taught in the classroom, since that was your experience
in Wellington. You have never been willing to acknowledge or even
recognize the possibility that this is the exception to the rule.
"Debate" for you has consisted of a nearly continuous stream of claim that
"Steiner's pedagogical religiosity and Anthroposophical holus-bolus are
practiced by SWA teachers and school upon their students". Every time
I've asked you to back this type of comment up, you either start talking
about pyramids and sound power or dactylic hexameter. When I remind you
that the instances of miseducation are not what's at issue, you claim I'm
trying to divert you and refer me to the archives.
There's nothing there on the broader issue, there's been no debate, and it
continues to be a hollow claim. Whether you're willing to talk about it or
not, I'll call you on it every time I see it, so long as I have the energy
and time.
))Also, your use of the SWA acronym is really unwieldy here: are you
))claiming their dialogue proves Steiner a religion, or Waldorf, or
))Anthroposophy, or all three?
)
)KOPP:
)
)It is impossible to separate the three, and any attempt to artificially do
)so by defenders of one or the other of them are doomed.
I agree that the three are intertwined in an understanding of waldorf
pedagogy and the inner work of a waldorf teacher. But we are not always
talking about waldorf on this list when we discuss Steiner or anthroposophy.
)They are all three
)integral to the educational enterprises under discussion here and under
)litigation elsewhere.
Yes.
)
)Some Anthroposophists -- and some Anthroposophical apostates, like Tarjei
)the "anarchosophist" -- may claim that Anthroposophy can be divorced from
)SWA educational practice in their own lives. That is, that they have
)nothing to do with the schools, and simply use (or whatever word you or
)they choose to employ to describe their relationship with it) Anthroposophy.
)
)But Steiner made no such distinction, and in fact said that they were
)inseperable.
When a waldorf teacher practices the art of education, her knowledge of
anthroposophy and reading of Steiner is often inseparable from her
understanding of the child and her interpretation of the classroom
situation.
That's the major reason that I disagree with Dr. Mollett when he claims
that anthroposophy can be removed from the practice of waldorf in public
education--and I too would like a look at his precis on this question.
But treating the three monolithically does nothing for analysis. For
instance, John and Tarjei are discussing anthroposophy, Christianity, and
comparative religion. Tarjei, by his own admission, knows little about
waldorf education. He's discussing Steiner and anthroposophy. How can you
characterize the tenets of his discussion as "SWA"?
Just because the study of anthroposophy is central to being a waldorf
teacher, you cannot assume that whenever someone speaks about Steiner or
anthroposophy that waldorf is included.
)
)I'm sorry you have difficulty understanding my meaning just because of the
)employment of the abbreviation for the triumverate subjects of this list.
)But I think it's been in use here long enough for most people to know what
)I mean.
I don't misunderstand you--the meaning of "SWA" has always been clear.
The reduction of anthroposophy and waldorf education and the study of
Steiner's work to a unity simplifies the problem of defining boundaries,
but doesn't do anything to help clarify a discussion. Similarly,
oversimplifying to hang a label or an argument on something isn't always as
clear as you would like it to be.
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1215.5 ---------------
From: ckzfrey (ckzfrey ix.netcom.com)
Subject: See ya
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 99 21:33:33 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
List-
For the next week, if I am conspicuous on this list, it will be by my
absence.
I'm sure you will all miss me desperately and pine for my return. (g)
XXXOOO
Charlie
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1215.6 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is Anthropo
sophical Influence?)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 09:37:00 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
) -----Original Message-----
) From: Michael Kopp [mailto:mkopp xtra.co.nz]
)
) They are further told that if they study Anthroposphy according to
) Steiner's prescriptions, they will come to understand.
) Invariably, people
) who do this become as convinced of Anthroposophy's tenets as
) those who have
) told them the path to understanding. In other words, to study
) according to
) the master's teachings is to become what the master had in mind in the
) first place, despite his guru-trick pronouncement that each
) should come to
) his or her own conclusions.
)
This is not a criticism of your criticism, Michael. I just want to
make sure I understand what you're saying here.
Is it you or the anthroposophists who are making the conclusion that
"invariably" those who study it become convinced?
In the third sentence, which is obviously your own conclusion, you
state (I think) that because those who study anthroposophy invariably become
entranced by it, they have not come to their own conclusions. I'm not sure
that the conclusion follows the premise.
Help me out here.
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1215.7 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: prayer(was..brainwashed...)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 09:41:11 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
) -----Original Message-----
) From: Daniel Sabsay [mailto:danielsabsay pacbell.net]
) Sent: Friday, April 09, 1999 11:30 PM
) To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
) Subject: Re: prayer(was..brainwashed...)
)
)
) Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com) wrote )
)
) [talking about Michael Kopp]
) )You're a bully, plain and simple. Your posts are divisive
) and abusive,
) )both in spirit and in fact. You specialize in singling out
) the weak, and
) )harangue them until they drop out of sight or fall to silence.
) )
) )You claim the highest ideals and standards, but your words
) say otherwise.
)
) I disagree completely with this comment.
)
) -- Daniel Sabsay
)
I'm not sure I'd classify Michael as bully. I've grown accustomed
to his style, but he certainly is a master at tossing insults at someone who
does not agree with him.
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1215.8 ---------------
From: redon (redon geocities.com)
Subject: Charter and Choice was re: Dan's book, discussion, scientific method,
etc. ..
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 09:41:29 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199904100245.TAA10284 lists1.best.com)
) From: Bob Jones (b2251 yahoo.com)
) Subject: Re: Dan's book, discussion, scientific method, etc. ...
) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 17:13:06 -0700 (PDT)
) ) I would imagine that every charter (or at least
) ) every state which allows
) ) charters) would set different qualifications for
) ) teachers.
) The State only sets the certification qualifications for the public
) schools.
Dear Bob,
This is not actually a true statement. In the state of Wisconsin
qualification and certification are also set by the state regarding the
charter schools.
) They are fairly uniform, as teachers I know can move easily
) across state lines & become certified via examination & then employed.
This agreement works well between the states of Wisconsin and Minnesota,
but as a general rule between other states it would be a false
assumption. I would be happy to elaborate if you would like.
) When you say
) ) "start-up training" are you talking about general
) ) waldorf certification, or
) ) something that a charter would require?
) The Waldorf training that is the minimum needed to qualify the
) teachers/schools as a Waldorf School.
Personally, I was always encouraged to seek state certification through
my Waldorf Teacher Training Experience and it was made clear to me that
there was never a minimum requirement, that teacher education is a life
long on going process, IMHO as it should be.
However, after receiving the minimum requirements through a State
Certification Program it is no longer required of me to ever attend
another class unless I wish to seek a salary increase.
) Waldorf is mainly for the affluent. The less-than-affluent want public
) Waldorf. Since, in WE, the wealthier pay towards scholarship
) assistance, the affluent also want public monies.
Could you define what makes a child affluent and less-than-affluent?
Perhaps, I am not following your assumptions here.
Choice money is a lesser amount of public state money set aside for a
child who resides in a low income households who wishes to attend a
school outside the jurisdiction of the locally mandated public school
district. These schools must be approved by the state and meet state
educational criteria.
Charter schools are mandated and supported by the state, city and/or
local school districts.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1215.9 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 17:13:42 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
John Morehead wrote:
))))New Testament scholars generally concede that this belief in a literal,
))))physical resurrection was responsible for the origin of the Christian
))))faith.
I wrote:
)))Rudolf Steiner says precisely the same thing. Did you know that?
John Morehead wrote:
))Could you provide the references? I'd like to see them. It would be nice if
))he interpreted one major Christian doctrine correctly.
I wrote:
)Off the top of my head (there are plenty more): "The Fifth Gospel"-lectures
)held in Oslo, later in Cologne, in October and December, 1913 (GA 148) The
)first of these lectures (Oslo, 1st October, 1913) answers your question
)(that Steiner also said that belief in a literal, physical resurrection was
)responsible for the origin of the Christian faith).
I think it is appropriate to fortify this reference with a quote from the
first lecture of "The Fifth Gospel". When the RS quotes I give are longer
than those provided by the critics, it is partly because of the
misconceptions that can so easily ensue when a short excerpt is taken out
of context - a fact clearly demonstrated by the PLANS website. Besides,
this entire quote touches most profoundly the exchange between John
Morehead and myself, hopefully clearing up some misconceptions about
Steiner's view about Christianity in history - at least for some of the
lurkers. It also highlights the relationship between Christianity and
natural science from an anthroposophical perspective, which may have
relevancy to the American public school controversy, and to the natural
link between Darwinism and the reincarnation-idea (which makes the latter
very Western indeed).
I am including Saint Rudy's initial remarks about elementary education in
the future (and I am deeply grateful to the WE critics for canonizing my
hero), because if our beloved guru was right about the future on this
point, your current problems with WE in American public schools with regard
to the Constitution is only the tip of the iceberg. Saint Rudy is here
threatening the teaching of history in American public schools with much
worse things to come:
"Let me say, to begin with, that the time is certainly not very far distant
when even in the lowest grade schools and in the most elementary education,
the branch of knowledge commonly called history will be presented quite
differently. It is certain - and these lectures should be a kind of
confirmation of it - that in times to come the concept or idea of Christ
will play a quite other and much more important part in the study of
history, even the most elementary, than it has done hitherto. I know that
such a statement seems highly paradoxical, but let us remember that there
were times by no means very far distant, when countless human hearts turned
to Christ with feelings of immeasurably greater fervour than is to be found
to-day, even among the most learned Christians in the West. In earlier
times these feelings of devotion were incomparably more intense. Anyone who
studies modern writings and reflects on the main interests of people to-day
will have the impression that enthusiasm and warmth of feeling for the
Christ Idea are on the wane, especially in those who claim an up-to-date
education. In spite of this, I have just said that as this age of ours
advances, the Christ Idea will play a much more important part than
hitherto in the study of human history. Does this not seem to be a
complete contradiction?
"And now we will approach the subject from another side. I have already
been able to speak on several occasions in this very town [Oslo] about the
significance and the content of the Christ Idea; and in books and
lecture-courses which are available here, many deep teachings of Spiritual
Science concerning the secrets of the Christ Being and the Christ Idea are
to be found. Anyone who assimilates what has been saqid in lectures,
lecture-courses, and indeed in all our literature, will realise that any
real understanding of the Christ Being needs extensive preparation, that
the very deepest concepts and thoughts must be summoned to his aid if he
desires to reach some comprehension of Christ and of the Christ Impulse
working through the centuries. If nothing else indicated the contrary, it
might even perhaps be thought that a knowledge of the whole of Spiritual
Science or Anthroposophy is necessary before there can be any true
conception of Christ. But if we turn aside from this and look at the
development of the spiritual life of the last centuries, we are met from
century to century by the existence of much profound and detailed knowledge
aimed at a comprehension of Christ and His revelation. For centuries and
centuries men have applied their noblest, most profound thoughts in
endeavors to reach an understanding of Christ. Here too, it might seem as
if only the most highly intellectual achievements of men would suffice for
such understanding. But is this, in fact, so? Quite simple reflection will
show that it is not.
"Let us, as it were, lay on one scale of a spiritual balance everything
contributed hitherto by erudition, science and even by anthroposophical
conceptions towards an understanding of Christ. On the other scale let us
lay all the deep feelings, all the impulses within men which through the
centuries have caused their souls to turn to the Being called Christ. It
will be found that the scale on which we have laid all the science, all the
learning, even all the Anthroposophy that can be applied to explain the
figure of Christ, will rapidly rise, and the scale on which we have laid
all the deep feelings and impulses which have turned men towards the Christ
will sink. It is no exaggeration to say that a force of untold strength and
greatness has gone forth from Christ and that learned scholarship
concerning Him has contributed least of all to this impulse. Truly it would
have boded ill for Christianity if, in order to cleave to Christ, men had
had to resort to all the learned dissertations of the Middle Ages, of the
Schoolmen, of the Church Fathers, or even to what Anthroposophy contributes
to-day towards an understanding of Christ. This whole body of knowledge
would be of very little help. I hardly think that anyone who studies the
march of Christianity through the centuries with an unprejudiced mind can
raise any serious argument against this line of thought; but the subject
can be approached from still another side.
"Let us turn our thought to the times before Christianity had come into
existence. I need only mention something of which those sitting here are
certainly aware. I need only remind you of the ancient Greek dramas,
especially in their earlier forms. When portraying a god in combat or a
human being in whose soul a god was working, these dramas make the
sovereignty and activity of the gods concretely and perceptibly real. Think
of Homer and how his great Epic is all inwoven with the workings of the
Spiritual; think of the great figures of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle. These
names bring before our mind's eye a spiritual life that in a certain domain
is supreme. If we leave all else aside and look only at the single figure
of Aristotle, who lived centuries before the founding of Christianity, we
find there an achievement which, in a certain respect, has remained
unexcelled to this very day. The scientific precision of Aristotle's
thinking is something so phenomenal, even by present-day standards, that he
can be said to have raised human thinking to a height never yet surpassed.
"And now for a moment we will take a strange hypothesis, but one that will
help us to understand these lectures. We will imagine that there were no
Gospels to tell us anything about the figure of Christ, that the earliest
records which have come to us in the form of the New Testament were simply
not in existence. Leaving on one side all that has been said about the
foundation of Christianity, let us study its progress as historical fact,
observing what has happened among men through the centuries of the
Christian era. In other words, without the Gospels, without the Acts of the
Apostles, without the Epistles of St. Paul, we will consider what has
actually come to pass. This, of course, is pure hypothesis, but what is it
that has really happened?
"Turning our attention first of all to the South of Europe in a certain
period of history, we find a very highly developed spiritual life and
culture - represented, as we have seen, in Aristotle - which developed
along particular channels through the subsequent centuries. At the time
when Christianity began to make its way through the world, large numbers of
men who had assimilated the spiritual culture of Greece were living in the
South of Europe. If we follow the evolution of Christianity to the time of
Celsus - that strange individual who was such a violent opponent of
Christianity - and even on into the second and third centuries after
Christ, we find in Greece and Italy numbers of highly cultured men who had
absorbed the lofty Ideas of Plato, men whose subltelty of thought seems
like a continuation of Aristotle's. Here were minds of refinement and
power, versed in Greek learning; here were Romans who added to the delicate
spirituality of Greek thought the element of aggressive personality
characteristic of Roman civilisation. Such was the world into which the
Christian impulse made its way. Truly, in respect of intellectuality and
knowledge of the world, the representatives of this Christian impulse seem
to be uncivilised and uneducated in comparison with all the learned Romans
and Greeks. Men lacking in culture make their way into a world of mature
intellectuality. And now we witness a remarkable spectacle. through these
simple, primitive people who were its first bearers, Christianity spreads
comparatively quickly through the South of Europe. And if with an
understanding of the nature of Christianity acquired, let us say, from
Anthroposophy, we think of these simple, primitive natures who spread
Christianity abroad in those times, we shall realise that they knew nothing
of these things. We need not think here of any conception of Christ in His
great cosmic setting, but of much simpler conceptions of Christ. Those
first bearers of the Christian impulse who found their way into the world
of highly developed Greek learning had nothing to bring into this arena of
Greco-Roman life save their own inwardness, their personal connection with
the Christ whom they so deeply loved; for this connection was as dear to
them as that with their own kit and kin. Those who brought into the
Greco-Roman world in those days the Christianity that has continued to our
own time were not well-informed theosophists, were by no means highly
educated people. The Gnostics who were the learned theosophists of those
times had, it is true, risen to sublime ideas concerning Christ, but even
they contributed only what must be placed in the rising scale of the
balance. If everything had depended upon the Gnostics, Christianity would
certainly not have made its victorious headway through the world. It was no
highly developed intellectuality that came over from the East, causing the
comparatively rapid decline of the old Hellenic and Roman culture. There we
have one side of the picture.
"We see the other side when we consider men of intellectual distinction,
beginning with Celsus - the opponent of Christianity who even then brought
forward all the arguments that are still valid to-day - down to Marcus
Aurelius, the philosopher of the throne. We think of the Neo-Platonists
with their subtle scholarship, whose ideas make those of philosophy today
seem mere child's play, so gently do they surpass them in loftiness and
breadth of wision. If we think of all the arguments against Christianity
brought from the standpoint of Greek philosophy by these men of high
intellectual eminence in the world of Greek-Roman culture, we get the
impression that they all failed to understand the Christ Impulse.
Christianity was spread by men who understood nothing of its real nature;
it was opposed by a highly developed culture incapable of grasping its
significance. Truly, Christianity makes a strange entry into the world -
with adherents and opponents alike understanding nothing of its real
nature. And yet men bore within their souls the power to secure for the
Christ Impulse its victorious march through the world.
"And now let us think of men such as Tertullian who with a certain
greatness and power entered the lists on behalf of Christianity. Tertullian
was a Roman who, so far as his language is concerned, may almost be said to
have re-created the Latin tongue; the very certainty of aim with which he
restored to words a living meaning constrains us to recognize him as a
personality of real significance. But if we ask about his *ideas*, there is
a very different story to tell. In his ideas and thoughts he gives very
little evidence of intellectual or spiritual eminence. Supporters of
Christianity even of the calibre of Tertullian do not accomplish anything
very considerable. And yet as personalities they are potent - these men
like Tertullian, to whose arguments no highly educated Greek could attach
much weight. There is something about Tertullian that attracts one's
attention - but what exactly is it? That is the important point.
"Let us realise that a real problem lies here. What power is responsible
for the achievements of these bearers of the Christ Impulse who themselves
do not really understand it? What power is responsible for the influence
exercised by the Church Fathers, including even Origen, in spite of all
their manifest ineptitude? Why is Greco-Roman scholarship itself unable to
comprehend the essential nature of the Christ Impulse? What does all this
signify?
"But let us go further. The same spectacle stands out in still stronger
relief when we study the course of history. As the centuries go by,
Christianity spread over Europe, among peoples such as the Germanic, with
quite different ideas of religion and worship, who are, or at least appear
to be, inseparable from these ideas and who nevertheless accepted the
Christ Impulse with open hearts, as if it were part and parcel of their own
life. And when we think of those who were the most influential missionaries
among the Germanic peoples, were these men highly educated theologians? No
indeed! Comparatively speaking, they were simple, primitive souls who went
out among the people, talking to them in the most homely, everyday
language, but moving their very hearts. They knew how to frame their words
in such a way as to touch the deepest heartstrings of those to whom they
spoke. Simple men went out into regions far and wide, and it was their work
that produced the most significant results. So we see Christianity
spreading through the centuries. But then we are astonished to find this
same Christianity becoming the motive force of profound scholarship,
science and philosophy. We do not undervalue this philosophy, but to-day we
will focus our attention on the remarkable fact that up to the Middle Ages
the peoples among whom Christianity spread in such a way that it soon
became part of their very souls, had lived until then with different forms
of thought and belief. And in no very distant future many other features in
connection with the spread of Christianity will be stressed. So far as the
effect produced by this spread of Christianity is concerned, it will not be
difficult to agree with the statement that there was a period when these
Christian teachings were the source of fervent enthusiasm. But in modern
times mthe fervor which in the Middle Ages accompanied the spread of
Christianity seems to have died away.
"And now think of Copernicus, of the whole development of natural science
on into the nineteenth century. This natural science, which since the time
of Copernicus has become an integral part of Western culture, might appear
to run counter to Christianity. The facts of history may seem, outwardly,
to substantiate this. For example, until the 'twenties of the nineteenth
century the writings of Copernicus were on the so-called Index of the Roman
Catholic Church. But that is an external detail and the fact remains that
Copernicus was a dignitary of the Church. Giordano Bruno was burnt at the
stake by the Roman Church, but he was, for all that, a member of the
Dominican Order. The ideas of both these thinkers sprang from the soil of
Christianity and their work was an outcome of the Christian impulse. To
maintain that these teachings were not the fruits of Christianity would
denote very poor understanding on the part of those who claim to hold fast
by the church. These facts only go to prove that the Church did not
understand the fruits of Christianity. Those who see more deeply into the
roots of these things will recognize that what the peoples have achieved,
even in the more recent centuries, is a result of Christianity; that
through Christianity, as also through the findings of Copernicus, the gaze
of the human mind was turned from the Earth towards the wide spaces of the
Heacens. Such a change was possible only within christian culture and
through the Christian impulse. Those who observe the depths and not merely
the surface of spiritual life will understand something which, although it
will seem highly paradoxical when I say it now, is nevertheless correct.
For this deeper observation, a Haeckel, for all his opposition to
Christianity, could have sprung only from the soil of this same
Christianity. Ernst Haeckel is inconceivable without the basis of Christian
culture. And however hard modern natural science may try to promote
opposition to Christianity, this natural science is itself an offspring of
Christianity, a direct development of the Christian impulse. When modern
natural science has got over the ailments of childhood, men will perceive
quite clearly that if followed to its logical conclusions, it leads to
Spiritual Science; that there is an entirely consistent path from Haeckel
to Spiritual Science. when that is grasped, it will also be realised that
Haeckel is Christian through and through, although he himself has no notion
of it. the Christian impulses have given birth not only to what claims to
be Christian but also to what appears on the surface to run counter to
Christianity. This will soon be realised if we study the underlying
reality, not merely the concepts and ideas that are put into words. As can
be seen from my little essay on Reincarnation and Karma, a direct line
leads from the Darwinian theory of evolution to the teaching of repeated
earthly lives.
"But in order to understand these things correctly we must be able to
perceive the influence of the Christian impulses with entirely unprejudiced
eyes. Anyone who understands the doctrines of Darwin and Haeckel and is
himself convinced that only as a Christian movement was the Darwinian
movement possible (Haeckel had no notion of this, but Darwin was aware of
many things) - anyone who realises this is led by an absolutely consistent
path to the idea of reincarnation. And if he can call upon a certain power
of clairvoyance, this same path will lead him to knowledge of the
*spiritual* origin of the humkan race. True, it is a *detour*, but with the
help of clairvoyance an uninterrupted path leads from Haeckel's thought to
the conception of a spiritual origin of the Earth. It is conceivable, of
course, that someone may accept Darwinism in the form in which it is
presented to-day, without grasping the life-principles which in reality are
contained in it. In other words, if Darwinian thought becomes an impulse in
someone who lacks any deep understanding of Christianity - which
nevertheless lies in Darwinism - he may end by understanding no more of
Darwinism than he does of Christianity. The good spirit of Christianity and
the good spirit of Darwinism may alike forsake him. But if he has a grasp
of the good spirit of Darwinism, then - however much of a materialist he
may be - his thought will carry him back over the Earth's history to the
point where he recognises that man has *not* evolved from lower animal
forms but must have a spiritual origin. He is led to the point where man is
perceived as a spiritual being, hovering as it were over the earthly world.
Darwinism, if developed to its logical conclusion, leads to this
recognition. But if someone has been forsaken by the good spirit of
Darwinism and happens to believe in the idea of reincarnation, he may
imagine that he himself once lived as an ape in some incarnation of the
planet Earth. anyone who can believe this lacks all real understanding of
Darwinism and of Christianity and must have been forsaken by the good
spirits of both! For Darwinism, consistently elaborated, could lead to no
such belief. In such a case the idea of reincarnation has been grafted into
the soil of materialism. It is possible, of course, for modern Darwinism to
be stripped of its Christian elements. If this does *not* happen, we shall
find that on into our own times the impulses of Darwinism have been born
out of the Christ Impulse, that the impulses of Christianity work even
where they are repudiated. Thus we find that in the early centuries,
Christianity spreads quite independently of scholarship or erudition in its
adherents; in the Middle Ages it spreads in such a way that the Schoolmen,
with all their learning, can contribute very little to it; and finally we
have the paradox of Christianity appearing in Darwinism as in an inverted
picture. Everything that is great in the Darwinian conception derives its
motive power from the Christian impulses. The Christian impulses within it
will lead this science out of and beyond materialism.
"The spread of Christian impulses has indeed been strange, owing nothing,
it appears, to intellectuality, learning, erudition. Christianity has
spread regardless of the views of its adherents or opponents - even
appearing in an inverted form in the domain of modern materialism. But what
exactly is it that spreads? It is not the ideas or the knowledge of
Christianity; nor can we say that it is the morality instilled by
Christianity. Think only of what morality was like in those times and we
shall find much justification for the diatribes levelled by the
representatives of Christianity against its real or alleged enemies. Even
the moral power that might have been possessed by sould without much
intellectual education will not greatly impress us. What, then, is this
mysterious impulse which makes its victorious way through the world? Let us
turn here to Spiritual Science, to clairvoyant consciousness. What power is
at work in those unlearned men who, coming over from the East, infiltrated
the world of greco-Roman culture? What power is at work in the men who
bring Christianity into the foreign world of the Germanic tribes? What is
really at work in the materialistic natural science of modern times - the
doctrines of which disguise its real nature? What is this power? It is
Christ Himself who through the centuries wends His way from soul to soul,
from heart to heart, no matter whether souls understand Him or not. It
behooves us to look away from our ingrained concepts and scientific ideas
and point to the reality, showing how mysteriously Christ Himself is
present in multitudinous impulses, taking form in the souls of thousands
and tens of thousands of human beings, filling them with His power. It is
christ Himself, working in simple men, who sweeps over the world of
Greco-Roman culture; it is Christ Himself who stands at the side of those
who in later times bring Christianity to the Germanic peoples; it is He -
Christ Himself in all His reality - who makes His way from place to place,
from soul to soul, penetrating these souls regardless of the ideas they may
hold concerning Him.
"Let me here make a vivid comparison. How many people are there who
understand nothing about the composition of foodstuffs and are none the
less well and properly nourished? It would certainly mean starvation if
scientific knowledge of foodstuffs were essential to nourishment.
Nourishment has nothing whatever to do with understanding the nature of
foodstuffs. Similarly, the spread of Christianity over the earth had
nothing to do with men's understanding of it. That is the strange fact.
There is a mystery here, only to be explained when the answer can be found
to the question: How does Christ Himself wield dominion in the minds and
hearts of men?
"When Spiritual Science, clairvoyant investigation, puts this question to
itself, it is led, first of all, to an event from which the veils can
really be lifted only by clairvoyant vision - an event that is entirely
consistent with what I have been saying to-day. We shall see one thing
clearly: the time when Christ worked in the way I have desdcribede is past
and gone, and the time has come when men must *understand* Christ, must
have real knowledge of Christ.
Hence we must also answer the question why our age was preceded by that
other age when it was possible for the Christ Impulse to spread
independently of men's understanding.
"The event to which clairvoyant consciousness points is that of Pentecost,
the sending of the Holy Spirit. Clairvoyant vision, quickened by the power
of the Christ Impulse, was therefore directed, in the first place, to this
event of Pentecost, the sending of the Holy Spirit. It is this event that
presents itself first and foremost to clairvoyant investigation carried out
from a certain standpoint."
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism, Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality, death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1215 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1216 --------------
001 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Ant
002 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: my introduction
003 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthr
004 - Robert Flannery (litvas i - Re: See ya
005 - Robert Flannery (litvas i - Darwinism
006 - BruceyJ aol.com - Re: Darwinism
007 - John & Wendy Morehead (mo - Re: my introduction
008 - Bob Jones (b2251 yahoo.co - Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is Anth
009 - "MICHAEL RONALL" (mronall - Re: Dan's book, discussion, scientific method, etc. ...
010 - John & Wendy Morehead (mo - Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthrop
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1216.1 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 11:26:46 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199904112103.OAA11017 lists1.best.com)
(199904101605.JAA16177 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904120117.SAA11713 lists1.best.com)
Tarjei Straume, you wrote,
)In the first place, comprehension of divine-spiritual truth requires a
)higher logic, an extra-rational logic.
That one line says more than all the rest of your voluminous writing.
-Dan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1216.2 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: my introduction
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 11:58:15 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199904120701.AAA17997 lists1.best.com)
Yael, thanks for speaking up on the list. It's always refreshing to have a
new point of view. I look forward to reading the NJP articles.
Your description of your guru:
((
I don't really think one should put oneself in the position of judging
whether someone else's reverence is excessive. And I disagree with the
generalization that "many, of all faiths" judge the reverence for the Rebbe
to be excessive. On the contrary, those *of all faiths* who had personal
contact with him tended instead to feel that same awe and admiration --
reverence -- for the Rebbe's genuinely lofty level of Torah and secular
learning (besides knowing the whole body of Jewish thought inside and out,
he spoke at least seven languages fluently, had an excellent grasp of the
sciences, medicine, law, etc.), his deep and insightful understanding of
human nature and relationships (people from ALL religions and walks of
life, from everywhere in the world, including world leaders, came to him or
wrote to him for guidance in personal, spiritual, political and business
matters), his devout commitment to G-d, to his wife (they had no children,
yet their marriage was faithful, peaceful and loving by all accounts, and
he had the deepest respect for her opinions), to his mother (he visited her
daily throughout her lifetime) and to the welfare of the Jewish people and
of all humankind (as one of countless examples: until past his 90th
birthday, the Rebbe spent hours upon hours every Sunday greeting and
blessing literally thousands of people who stood in line to be face to face
with him -- again, people of all types, not just Lubavitchers -- and giving
a dollar to each one so that his blessing would be connected to a mitzva, a
good deed [it was expected that each person who received a dollar would
give it, or more than that amount, to charity], since it is the Jewish
belief that spiritual matters are best grounded in physically tangible
things), and I could go on but I am starting to go on and on, and I have a
feeling my words are going to come back to me!
))
sounds a lot like the way Anthroposophists talk about Steiner! Remember, a
cult is invisible from inside. From outside Lubovitchers sure look like a
cult to ome. But to bring it back to our topic, Lubovitchers don't claim
that their schools are "non-sectarian"!
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1216.3 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 10:16:37 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199904101605.JAA16177 lists1.best.com)
Tarjei Straume, you wrote,
)The reason for this is very simple: Anthroposophy was developed for those
)who cannot accept orthodox Christianity as a foundation for religious truth
)because it is irrational, illogical, and at odds with Darwinism and other
)branches of natural science.
Knocking people for being "at odds with Darwinism"? How about Steiner?
"So with regard to the animal the child comes to feel that all animals are
related to man, but that man has something that reaches out beyond them
all, for he unites all the animals in himself. And all this idle talk of
the scientists about man descending from an animal will be laughed at by
people who have been educated in this way. For they will know that man
unites within himself the whole animal kingdom, he is a synthesis of all
the single members of it."
[Steiner, Kingdom of Childhood, p. 64]
He was a prophet! "will be laughed at by people who have been educated in
this way" We hear them on this list.
And if anyone doubts that Steiner's ideas on evolution come into Waldorf,
see the popular teaching handbooks:
"The man and Animal period in the Rudolf Steiner school, which is given at
about the age of ten, is one of the most difficult from the teacher's point
of view. In the first place, the teacher must subscribe to, or be in
sympathy with, the ideas on evolution propounded by Dr. Steiner.
(Otherwise, of course, he should not be in the school). More than that, he
must also understand them and this understanding is notsomething that can
be acquired the night before the lessons are given, nor is it something
that can be superficially communicated. ... Contrary to the Darwinistic
ideas of man being the final product of animal evolution, Dr. Steiner
considers animals to be the by-products of human development. Man has been
involved from the beginning but not in a physical form. Man existed
spiritually and the animal forms represent physically incarnated soul
forces which the human being had to dispense with in order to mature
sufficiently to receive the ego."
[Wilkinson, Man and Animal, p. 2]
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1216.4 ---------------
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Re: See ya
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 15:55:41 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199904121331.GAA21856 lists1.best.com)
)List-
) For the next week, if I am conspicuous on this list, it will be by my
)absence.
)I'm sure you will all miss me desperately and pine for my return. (g)
)
)XXXOOO
)
)Charlie
Good luck in noCal, Charlie.
regards,
Robert
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1216.5 ---------------
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Darwinism
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 16:38:24 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199904101605.JAA16177 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904121924.MAA28609 lists1.best.com)
Dan Dugan says:
)And if anyone doubts that Steiner's ideas on evolution come into Waldorf,
)see the popular teaching handbooks:
)
)"The man and Animal period in the Rudolf Steiner school, which is given at
)about the age of ten, is one of the most difficult from the teacher's point
)of view. In the first place, the teacher must subscribe to, or be in
)sympathy with, the ideas on evolution propounded by Dr. Steiner.
)(Otherwise, of course, he should not be in the school). More than that, he
)must also understand them and this understanding is notsomething that can
)be acquired the night before the lessons are given, nor is it something
)that can be superficially communicated. ... Contrary to the Darwinistic
)ideas of man being the final product of animal evolution, Dr. Steiner
)considers animals to be the by-products of human development. Man has been
)involved from the beginning but not in a physical form. Man existed
)spiritually and the animal forms represent physically incarnated soul
)forces which the human being had to dispense with in order to mature
)sufficiently to receive the ego."
)
)[Wilkinson, Man and Animal, p. 2]
Wilkinson's booklets represent an *extremely* dogmatic view, and are
becoming more and more controversial. I've heard it said that some within
AWSNA are discouraging their use, but at the same time AWSNA has officially
promoted them in a mailing they sent out less than a year ago. They also
seem to be steady sellers in the anthropop bookstores.
For those who might take issue with some of Roy Wilkinson's ideas about
waldorf pedagogy, there is an interesting new title just out by Lindisfarne
Books:
"Thinking Beyond Darwin: The Idea of Type as a Key to Vertebrate
Evolution", by Ernst-Michael Kranich, 1999.
I've only just started it, but would be happy to provide chapter-by-chapter
updates if anyone is interested.
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1216.6 ---------------
From: BruceyJ aol.com
Subject: Re: Darwinism
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 18:47:00 EDT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In einer eMail vom 12.04.99 22:56:54 (MEZ) - Mitteleurop. Sommerzeit schreibt
litvas icu.com:
)
) Wilkinson's booklets represent an *extremely* dogmatic view, and are
) becoming more and more controversial. I've heard it said that some within
) AWSNA are discouraging their use, but at the same time AWSNA has officially
) promoted them in a mailing they sent out less than a year ago. They also
) seem to be steady sellers in the anthropop bookstores.
There are many who write books and publish them themselves (well many is
maybe an exagerration), and those wanting to glean things from them can and
do. As I know Roy it is easier to see what he meant, but in some sense almost
anything tends to become dogmatic when it is written down. I like reading
Wilkinson to make me think! The best books and lectures, for me at least, are
those where one comes away with more "question" than "answer".
Bruce
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1216.7 ---------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead (morehead mail2.quiknet.com)
Subject: Re: my introduction
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 14:10:32
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199904111917.MAA15965 lists1.best.com)
(199904111547.IAA20490 lists1.best.com)
(199904111505.IAA09099 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904111959.MAA08168 lists1.best.com)
At 09:59 PM 4/11/99 +0200, you wrote:
))For example: Hypothetically, let's say that I now announce that I am now
))both an atheist (believing in the existence of no supernatural or
))supernormal spiritual worlds or reality), while at the same time affirming
))that I am an adherent of anthroposophy and spiritual science. Is this claim
))valid? Well, if nobody or nothing can set a boundary for my beliefs, and if
))I can combine any elements of the plethora of worldviews, surely this must
))be valid for me. Right?
)
)Correct.
))
))But surely this is self-contradictory, and therefore false.
)
)You have no right to to call someone else's religious philosophy false for
)the sole reason that it contradicts your personal logic. It does not make
)sense to you - fine. But you must accept that it can make sense to other
)people.
Then I submit you are irrational. I pointed out there is no such thing as
John's logic and Tarjei's logic. Just logic, period, which you *must* use
to deny you can use it, thus ending up with a self-refuting position. We
cannot have any further dialogue operating from this foundation, but I have
enjoyed our exchanges up to this point.
John Morehead
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
http://www.truthquest.org
(tqi quiknet.com)
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
(916) 652-7804
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1216.8 ---------------
From: Bob Jones (b2251 yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 16:04:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
--- Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com) wrote:
) Tarjei Straume, you wrote,
)
) )In the first place, comprehension of
) divine-spiritual truth requires a
) )higher logic, an extra-rational logic.
)
) That one line says more than all the rest of your
) voluminous writing.
)
) -Dan
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it
means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less".
Through the Looking Glass, Lewis Carroll;Chapter 6.
BJ
)
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1216.9 ---------------
From: "MICHAEL RONALL" (mronall rabecker.com)
Subject: Re: Dan's book, discussion, scientific method, etc. ...
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 19:08:44 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
)))) ckzfrey (ckzfrey ix.netcom.com) - 4/10/99 9:06 AM )))
))
))I think Dan's book will sell well in waldorf circles. As Lisa emphasizes,
))that's still a pretty limited market.
))
))
))Robert Flannery
))New York
))litvas icu.com
))
)I want an autographed copy!!!
))
)
)
)xxxooo,
)Charlie
But first we have to make sure that you're in a "Waldorf" circle -- which is like a crop circle, only that it's got lots of funny angles. /MRx
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1216.10 ---------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead (morehead mail2.quiknet.com)
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 14:30:25
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199904112103.OAA11017 lists1.best.com)
(199904101605.JAA16177 lists1.best.com)
(199904112103.OAA11017 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904120443.VAA06220 lists1.best.com)
At 10:51 PM 4/11/99 +0100, you wrote:
)A former colleague is a devout Roman Catholic and a member of the
)Anthroposophical Society. I very much doubt that she is the only person
)who is comfortable in this position.
Comfort within a contradictory position does not constitute rational
consistency.
Perhaps those who believe that such
)a situation is impossible misunderstand Roman Catholicism, anthroposophy
)(most likely), or both.
Or, those who believe it is contradictory understand the views quite
nicely, and it is in fact contradictory. Let's not leave out all the
logical possibilities for consideration.
Perhaps the solution to this conundrum lies in
)the fact that being an anthroposophist does not require a belief in
)anything (although I grant that I cannot imagine an anthropop who does
)not believe in the existence of a spiritual reality -- but it is not
)*required* -- this, IMHO, is one of the distinctions between
)anthroposophy and religion).
Just how can you be an anthroposophist, or adhere to any worldview or
belief system, without holding at least some beliefs which define it?
Sounds like anthroposophists want to have such a vague and undefined
position as to avoid any criticism, including religious education in a
public educational setting.
John Morehead
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
http://www.truthquest.org
(tqi quiknet.com)
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
(916) 652-7804
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1216 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1217 --------------
001 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - Re: my introduction
002 - John & Wendy Morehead (mo - Re: Defining Religion; Including Anthroposophy
003 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - RE: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is Anthr
004 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - PRIVATE -- SUGGESTION Re: my introduction
005 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: Dan's book, discussion, scientific method, etc. ...
006 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - Re: PRIVATE -- SUGGESTION Re: my introduction
007 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Apology for misdirected private correspondence
008 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: Projective Geometry
009 - "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf pe - Re: my introduction
010 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Addendum: Re: Apology for misdirected private correspondence
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1217.1 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: Re: my introduction
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 01:21:20 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199904111959.MAA08168 lists1.best.com)
(199904111917.MAA15965 lists1.best.com)
(199904111547.IAA20490 lists1.best.com)
(199904111505.IAA09099 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904122257.PAA05542 lists1.best.com)
)At 09:59 PM 4/11/99 +0200, you wrote:
)))For example: Hypothetically, let's say that I now announce that I am now
)))both an atheist (believing in the existence of no supernatural or
)))supernormal spiritual worlds or reality), while at the same time affirming
)))that I am an adherent of anthroposophy and spiritual science. Is this claim
)))valid? Well, if nobody or nothing can set a boundary for my beliefs, and if
)))I can combine any elements of the plethora of worldviews, surely this must
)))be valid for me. Right?
))
))Correct.
)))
)))But surely this is self-contradictory, and therefore false.
))
))You have no right to to call someone else's religious philosophy false for
))the sole reason that it contradicts your personal logic. It does not make
))sense to you - fine. But you must accept that it can make sense to other
))people.
)
)Then I submit you are irrational. I pointed out there is no such thing as
)John's logic and Tarjei's logic. Just logic, period, which you *must* use
)to deny you can use it, thus ending up with a self-refuting position. We
)cannot have any further dialogue operating from this foundation, but I have
)enjoyed our exchanges up to this point.
Now you're at the very core of your religious-philosophical fascism, John.
You are saying that nobody can be a Christian Buddhist or an
anthroposophical Catholic because it is contrary to objective logic that
should rule everybody's thoughts, not just your own. But I submit that you
are confusing objective logic with personal sentiment, which makes you
intolerant of religions and philosophies that don't suit you. That is why I
call it *your* logic, valid only for your own head and for the heads of
those who choose to go along with you.
Cheers
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism, Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality, death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1217.2 ---------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead (morehead mail2.quiknet.com)
Subject: Re: Defining Religion; Including Anthroposophy
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 14:47:11
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199904100235.TAA01036 lists1.best.com)
(199904100235.TAA01036 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904120833.BAA03716 lists1.best.com)
At 09:31 AM 4/12/99 +0100, you wrote:
)Thank you, John -- I don't recall seeing these before. You call these
)"accepted" definitions. I am prepared to concur with that acceptance
)until it can be shown that there are things which are embraced by the
)definitions which reasonable people would agree are not religions.
They are accepted by the scholarly community with regards to religious
studies. I suppose if one wants to take this up with the academics, they
have that right.
)For example, I am sure atheist Marxist-Leninists would argue that
)Marxism-Leninism meets the criteria of the following definition
Yes, and some scholars, and the courts, have defined Secular Humanism as a
religious worldview because of such definitions. I am not arguing that at
this point. I am simply providing a brief sampling of scholarly definitions
of religion as a criteria for consideration on this list with reference to
anthroposophy.
[snip]
)The main problem I have with fitting anthroposophy into these
)definitions is the inclusion of "belief" and "rite/ritual" in the
)definitions.
Anthroposophy does indeed have beliefs. Wouldn't it be impossible to have
any belief system without them? For example, a belief in reincarnation, the
fourfold nature of the human being, monism, the existence of "higher
worlds" which can be tapped into through various occultic means. These
surely qualify as beliefs.
As to rites and rituals, I am aware of the nature tables in at least
private Waldorf settings, and I belief churches associated with
anthroposophy have some type of rites. Regardless, it could be argued that
a belief system is religious without incorporating each and every element
in a given definition.
I would be interested to hear what you believe the beliefs
)and rituals *prescribed by anthroposophy* to be. As I have said
)elsewhere, I accept that implicit in anthroposophy is the general belief
)that there is an "unseen" spiritual reality, but is that belief alone
)sufficient to class something as a religion? (Not rhetorical.) I have
)been a member of the Anthroposophical Society for 15 years and have
)*never* been told that my membership was dependent on, for example, my
)practising any rites or rituals. In fact, since I joined no-one has made
)any effort to instil any belief or ritual into my life. (Lost cause,
)perhaps? (g))
Granted, anthroposophy is very individualistic with little structure which
would require a certain practice on the part of an anthroposophist. But
this does not mean it is not religious. Anthroposophy fits nicely into the
New Age movement, which also puts an emphasis upon an individualized,
eclectic spirituality with little or no ritual, yet this is surely
religious in nature, as recognized by New Age adherents and scholars of
religion.
)I am certainly prepared to concede that it meets *some* of the criteria
)of the definitions. The problem is that so does soccer! (Which some
)people would argue *does* have the status of religion on the terraces
)(g)).
Just how does soccer meet these definitions? And if you would hesitate to
define anthroposophy as a religion would you consider it a spirituality
then? A spiritual or religious philosophy is still religious in nature, no
matter how you slice it.
)I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about religion to know what the
)scholarly status of Ninian Smart's _The World Religions_ (Cambridge
)University Press, 1989) is, but it's the only book about religions on my
)bookshelf and both "anthroposophy" and "Steiner" are notably absent,
)even from the (admittedly small) section on _New Forms of Religion_.
Unfortunately, many reference works omit it, but again, this does not mean
it is not religious. No reference work is all-encompassing and exhaustive
now is it? This sounds like you're making an argument from silence, which
does not negate the weight given to those reference works which do classify
it as religious.
)Absolutely! But, again, IMHO there is a distinction between something
)having a religious nature and being a religion. I would argue that what
)Steiner meant in those translations you quoted was that underlying our
)teaching must be the acceptance *by the teacher* that there is an
)"unseen" or "spiritual" or "supersensible" (choose whichever suits you)
)reality. The religion lessons he mentioned were (as you probably know),
)the non-denominational "free religion lessons" given to children who did
)not attend the denominational religion lessons given by priests,
)pastors, etc. of those denominations.
Then if the teacher must recognize the religious basis for Waldorf, and
must pass an unseen stream of consciousness to the child to instruct the
child's developing fourfold being, just how does this not consitution
religion in the Waldorf methodology?
)As for other lessons, let us take a quote like:
))"It [religion] must permeate the teaching of every subject...No education
))can be conducted without a religious foundation."
))(The Education of the Child, 69)
)
)If we interpret Steiner to mean that the teacher should, when preparing
)and delivering a lesson, keep in mind that there is an "unseen spiritual
)world" and that each child has a spiritual nature, then I am in complete
)agreement (although I fall very short of this ideal!). If we interpret
)it to mean that we must teach a specific religious view in every lesson,
)then I completely disagree with him.
In context, Steiner appears to be taking the position you disagree with.
The Anthroposophical press states that Steiner's writings serve as "the
authoritative foundation" for Waldorf education. While your disagreement is
important, and noted, the "discoverer"/creator of Waldorf education must be
regarded as a higher authority according to those who promote this
methodology!
)Somewhat tangential to this is the following question: If keeping in
)mind the spiritual nature (above) whilst preparing and delivering public
)school lessons is found to be contrary to the US constitution, how, in
)practice, can it's exclusion be ensured if there is no outer evidence of
)its inclusion? Or, put another way, how is it possible to legislate
)against that which cannot be detected?
But there is evidence of the inclusion of a religious elemnt which has been
included in the Waldorf pedagogy. That's the problem. The question is not
whether or not these supersensible realms exist.
John Morehead
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
http://www.truthquest.org
(tqi quiknet.com)
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
(916) 652-7804
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1217.3 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: RE: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is Anthropo
sophical Influence?)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 11:13:03 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199904121331.GAA22071 lists1.best.com)
Robert Tolz says:
)) -----Original Message-----
)) From: Michael Kopp [mailto:mkopp xtra.co.nz]
))
)) They are further told that if they study Anthroposphy according to
)) Steiner's prescriptions, they will come to understand.
)) Invariably, people
)) who do this become as convinced of Anthroposophy's tenets as
)) those who have
)) told them the path to understanding. In other words, to study
)) according to
)) the master's teachings is to become what the master had in mind in the
)) first place, despite his guru-trick pronouncement that each
)) should come to
)) his or her own conclusions.
))
)
) This is not a criticism of your criticism, Michael. I just want to
)make sure I understand what you're saying here.
)
) Is it you or the anthroposophists who are making the conclusion that
)"invariably" those who study it become convinced?
Me.
) In the third sentence, which is obviously your own conclusion, you
)state (I think) that because those who study anthroposophy invariably
)become
)entranced by it, they have not come to their own conclusions. I'm not sure
)that the conclusion follows the premise.
Come on, Robert, we've been over this ground before. Critics think
Anthroposophy is full of clever cult-like tricks to make people believe
what Steiner wants them to believe while making them think they have
arrived at the beliefs through their own insight.
) Help me out here.
Maybe you should stop studying so much Anthroposopy?
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1217.4 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: PRIVATE -- SUGGESTION Re: my introduction
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 11:44:27 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199904111959.MAA08168 lists1.best.com)
(199904111917.MAA15965 lists1.best.com)
(199904111547.IAA20490 lists1.best.com)
(199904111505.IAA09099 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904122257.PAA05542 lists1.best.com)
John,
May I suggest that, even though some people are following your
conversation, it would be good for the archives, and "thread
comprehension", if you always said exactly who it is you're replying to,
each time.
I'm enjoying your deconstruction of Tarjei's tortured mind, and learning a
lot about both religion and logic that I never knew. I loved logic, but was
not any better at it in college (35 years ago) than I was at maths.
You must have been a lurker for a long time; was your salvo strategically
"PLANSed" to come into the debate late and sharp, or did you just get tired
of all the BS and decide for yourself to write back?
Cheers from Godzone[*],
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
[*]Reference to what the white descendents of the colonial British usurpers
of this originally Polynesian-settled island call NZ: "God's Own Country".
)At 09:59 PM 4/11/99 +0200, you wrote:
)))For example: Hypothetically, let's say that I now announce that I am now
)))both an atheist (believing in the existence of no supernatural or
)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1217.5 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Dan's book, discussion, scientific method, etc. ...
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 11:50:19 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199904122311.QAA15517 lists1.best.com)
Michael Ronall says:
))))) ckzfrey (ckzfrey ix.netcom.com) - 4/10/99 9:06 AM )))
)))
)))I think Dan's book will sell well in waldorf circles. As Lisa
)))emphasizes,
)))that's still a pretty limited market.
)))
)))
)))Robert Flannery
)))New York
)))litvas icu.com
)))
)
))I want an autographed copy!!!
)))
))
))
))xxxooo,
))Charlie
RONALL:
)But first we have to make sure that you're in a "Waldorf" circle -- which
)is like a crop circle, only that it's got lots of funny angles. /MRx
Well, there are similarities.
Believers in both ascribe their creation to extra-terrestrial, often
supernatural powers.
Yet both are natural phenomena that are completely understandable in terms
of human psychology and self-delusion and trickery.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1217.6 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: Re: PRIVATE -- SUGGESTION Re: my introduction
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 02:13:01 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199904122257.PAA05542 lists1.best.com)
(199904111959.MAA08168 lists1.best.com)
(199904111917.MAA15965 lists1.best.com)
(199904111547.IAA20490 lists1.best.com)
(199904111505.IAA09099 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904122345.QAA10473 lists1.best.com)
Psssst John,
Here is your chance to save Michael's soul from the eternal hellfire of the
fundies by witnessing to him about Jesus. (He thinks Jesus is Santa Claus
or the tooth fairy and that only gullible twits believe in him.)
Tarjei
)John,
)
)May I suggest that, even though some people are following your
)conversation, it would be good for the archives, and "thread
)comprehension", if you always said exactly who it is you're replying to,
)each time.
)
)I'm enjoying your deconstruction of Tarjei's tortured mind, and learning a
)lot about both religion and logic that I never knew. I loved logic, but was
)not any better at it in college (35 years ago) than I was at maths.
)
)You must have been a lurker for a long time; was your salvo strategically
)"PLANSed" to come into the debate late and sharp, or did you just get tired
)of all the BS and decide for yourself to write back?
)
)
)Cheers from Godzone[*],
)
)Michael Kopp
)Wellington, New Zealand
)
)
)[*]Reference to what the white descendents of the colonial British usurpers
)of this originally Polynesian-settled island call NZ: "God's Own Country".
)
)
)
)
))At 09:59 PM 4/11/99 +0200, you wrote:
))))For example: Hypothetically, let's say that I now announce that I am now
))))both an atheist (believing in the existence of no supernatural or
))
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism, Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality, death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1217.7 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Apology for misdirected private correspondence
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 12:18:44 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Well, Michael Kopp finally committed the ultimate e-mail error and sent a
private message for John Morehead to the list.
Add me to a long, if not distinguished, group of some of the best of our
little community -- at least I'm not alone.
For the record:
I have never had any previous private correspondence with John Morehead.
I am not a member or "fellow-traveller" of PLANS, and am not privy to any
of PLANS internal affairs.
I have very little private correspondence with any of PLANS' members;
certainly no more than I have privately with other list folk, including
those I characterise here as "Defenders of the Faith".
My pun on PLANS was nothing more than an attempt at wit, and my question to
Mr Morehead nothing more than journalistic fishing expedition for my own
knowledge. It's a life-time habit, and signals nothing sinister. Those who
have experience with journalists know that they often assume a
confidential, friendly, `you-can-tell-me' persona when asking questions.
Mr Morehead and PLANS have my unreserved apology for any embarrassment my
gaffe may have caused them.
At least now those who have been asking what "Godzone" means will now know
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1217.8 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Projective Geometry
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 16:48:36 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199904030554.VAA26011 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904030624.WAA14036 lists1.best.com)
Tarjei Straume, you posted,
)Alan Fine wrote:
))I am holding in my hand a flier for the Denver Waldorf High School. It
))mentions that WE was founded by "philosopher/scientist" Rudolf Steiner.
(snip)
Just today I ran across Steiner being called a 'scientist' on the AWSNA web
site. This is total bullshit. Steiner never did a lick of science in his
life. He talked about it a lot, but that's nothing special. He would act
like an expert on anything somebody asked him. As best I can tell, his
science activities were:
1) taking the technical track in school
2) being asked to edit Goethe's writings about science.
3) giving high-school level lectures to the workers party
4) giving science courses to his devotees.
As for 2), I suspect no real scientist wanted the job, scientists being
fully aware that Goethe's 'science' was ignorant pretensions. Steiner was
perfect for the job.
Transcripts of 4) exist, courses on light, warmth (sic), and astronomy. In
them Steiner pretentiously declares he is giving the real facts about
nature, while dogmatically promulgating his amazingly ignorant world-view
that science is wrong and nature spirits and forces from the stars are
responsible for physical phenomena.
)To take a stand for the spirit requires a certain amount of boldness,
)courage. Steiner mentioned that it took him a long time of preparation to
)muster the courage necessary to present anthroposophy publicly. The courage
)required of Waldorf staff is minute in comparison, but we are faced with
)laziness or love of ease here.
)
)So I agree with you wholeheartedly, Alan - it sounds like a lousy flyer.
)Somebody imbued with the living spirit of anthroposophy should march into
)that school and give those people a real shake-up.
I agree, too. The majority of Anthroposophists seem to lack the courage of
their convictions and try to present their philosophy as "science" or
something else that it isn't.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1217.9 ---------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf peakpeak.com)
Subject: Re: my introduction
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 18:41:19 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
-----Original Message-----
From: Yael Resnick (njpmail mindspring.com)
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com (waldorf-critics lists.best.com)
Date: Monday, April 12, 1999 1:09 AM
Subject: Re: my introduction
)Well, I have one Jewish friend who does credit her ten years at a Waldorf
)school with at least helping her be open to spirituality -- but she had to
)"unlearn" much of what she had learned there in order to become an
)observant Jew later on. She wouldn't choose such a convoluted path for her
)children! (Her story is in the NJP Waldorf section.)
)
Hello Yael. I enjoyed your introduction, so here is a little about myself.
I am a Denver resident, and a parent of one child. My early interests were
in theoretical physics and mathematics, but i gave up a promising career in
that field to train in psychiatry which i have been practicing for twenty
years. Through an interest in psychosomatics, I became involved with
individuals with dissociative disorders, many of whom were products of
coercive and abusive cults (mainly satanism, white supremist activity, and
gangs). My introduction to Waldorf and anthroposophy, came about not
through my practice but purely through a few personal relationships.
Having spent a considerable amount of time in discussions both with
Lubovitcher chassidim and Anthroposophists I have come to the conclusion
that both movements can generate what I would call a cult
mentality. This troubles me because I have seen much psychological damage
among my cultist patients. Although I have not found either of these
movements to espouse anything overtly distructive, being psychologically
minded I am more concerned with patterns of thinking and relating than the
content of the thought itself. I honestly believe that a cult mentality
carries potential for problems within the individual as well as for society
as a whole, no matter how beautiful and inspiring the content of the
doctrine may be. I will be honest that I have been strongly critical of
the Lubovitch movement.
However I do feel that Chabad education (and its entire public facade for
that matter) is far more open about its spiritual underpinnings than Waldorf
schools. In this regard I would like to know what of her Waldorf education
your friend had to unlearn in order to enter her chosen path. I will be
looking for the article, but in the meantime your comments would be
appreciated.
To contribute to answering your question about the appropriateness of
Waldorf education for Jewish children, I have been looking for a recently
published book by Rene Querido on the spiritual basis of Waldorf education.
I think you may find it relevent. Can anyone tell me how to get a copy?
Alan S. Fine MD
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1217.10 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Addendum: Re: Apology for misdirected private correspondence
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 13:21:51 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199904130026.RAA14801 lists1.best.com)
Have a field day, all you good Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposphical folk --
Tarjei's kicked off with his view of my religious sensibilities (I don't
know the difference between Santa Claus and Jesus Christ).
Enjoy.
Michael Kopp
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1217 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1218 --------------
001 - Robert Flannery (litvas i - Roy Wilkinson and the "How-To" Books
002 - Robert Flannery (litvas i - Re: Apology for misdirected private correspondence
003 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - Re: Projective Geometry
004 - Robert Flannery (litvas i - Querido's Latest Book
005 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is Anthr
006 - njpmail mindspring.com (Y - cultural anthroposophists?
007 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anth
008 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: Roy Wilkinson and the "How-To" Books
009 - njpmail mindspring.com (Y - cults
010 - njpmail mindspring.com (Y - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n1217
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1218.1 ---------------
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Roy Wilkinson and the "How-To" Books
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 21:58:14 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199904122249.PAA29137 lists1.best.com)
Bruce writes:
)There are many who write books and publish them themselves (well many is
)maybe an exagerration), and those wanting to glean things from them can and
)do. As I know Roy it is easier to see what he meant, but in some sense almost
)anything tends to become dogmatic when it is written down. I like reading
)Wilkinson to make me think! The best books and lectures, for me at least, are
)those where one comes away with more "question" than "answer".
The "how-to" books can be relied on for a lesson in a pinch.
Consequently, every teacher who falls back on such a crutch has missed an
opportunity to work the material through for themselves. Under such
conditions, Wilkinson's books promote dogmatic behavior and thinking (apart
from any consideration of the quality of his suggestions).
If reading Wilkinson makes you think (especially if it makes you think of
alternatives), it's effective enough. That said, I find these particular
books to be the most dangerous guides on the market because the boundary
between anthroposophy and lesson plan is quite blurry.
Given the wide circulation of these titles, I'm amazed that more examples
of miseducation of the type described by Micheal Kopp and Dan Dugan aren't
in evidence. I strongly suspect that most waldorf teachers recognize this
material for what it is, as well as what it isn't.
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1218.2 ---------------
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Re: Apology for misdirected private correspondence
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 22:05:20 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199904130026.RAA14801 lists1.best.com)
Michael comes to us on bended knee:
)Well, Michael Kopp finally committed the ultimate e-mail error and sent a
)private message for John Morehead to the list.
)
)Add me to a long, if not distinguished, group of some of the best of our
)little community -- at least I'm not alone.
(snip)
)Mr Morehead and PLANS have my unreserved apology for any embarrassment my
)gaffe may have caused them.
Actually, Michael, it read pretty safely for a private email--just consider
what it might've looked like if you and John had been more familiar.
The only thing you should be embarrassed by is your pun.
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1218.3 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: Re: Projective Geometry
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 04:10:48 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199904030624.WAA14036 lists1.best.com)
(199904030554.VAA26011 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904130038.RAA24553 lists1.best.com)
Dan Dugan wrote:
)I agree, too. The majority of Anthroposophists seem to lack the courage of
)their convictions and try to present their philosophy as "science" or
)something else that it isn't.
I did not say that anthroposophy should not be presented as science. What I
had in mind was that it should be presented as science of the spirit.
Cheers
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism, Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality, death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1218.4 ---------------
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Querido's Latest Book
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 22:22:53 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199904130101.SAA13062 lists1.best.com)
)To contribute to answering your question about the appropriateness of
)Waldorf education for Jewish children, I have been looking for a recently
)published book by Rene Querido on the spiritual basis of Waldorf education.
)I think you may find it relevent. Can anyone tell me how to get a copy?
)
)Alan S. Fine MD
I will bet bottom dollar that what you're looking for is:
"The Esoteric Background of Waldorf Education: The Cosmic Christ Impulse",
by Rene M. Querido, Rudolf Steiner College Press, 1995 (ISBN
0-945803-25-7).
This one's a hum-dinger. I'm sure you'll enjoy it. The Anthroposophic
Press or Rudolf Steiner College Bookstore or Amazon.com should carry it.
Considering Rene lives in your neck of the woods, it might be found at one
of the local waldorf schools.
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1218.5 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is Anthropo
sophical Influence?)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 23:09:23 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
) -----Original Message-----
) From: Michael Kopp [mailto:mkopp xtra.co.nz]
)
) ) In the third sentence, which is obviously your own
) conclusion, you
) )state (I think) that because those who study anthroposophy invariably
) )become
) )entranced by it, they have not come to their own
) conclusions. I'm not sure
) )that the conclusion follows the premise.
)
) Come on, Robert, we've been over this ground before. Critics think
) Anthroposophy is full of clever cult-like tricks to make
) people believe
) what Steiner wants them to believe while making them think they have
) arrived at the beliefs through their own insight.
You give more credit to the "tricks" in anthroposophy than I would
think you would. You say that the tricks "invariably" make people believe
they are arriving at their own insight. Hogwash. You can't (invariably)
fool all of the people all of the time. If you believe that the vast
majority of people who study anthroposophy are entranced by it, then unless
the written word of Mr. Steiner is capable of some sort of mass hypnosis,
which I doubt, then there have to be at least one or two people (probably
more) who do use some form of critical thinking in the process.
)
) ) Help me out here.
)
) Maybe you should stop studying so much Anthroposopy?
)
That's a bit like "maybe you should stop beating your wife?" I've
never studied any Anthroposophy in my life. Are you confusing me with
Robert Flannery for the fourth time?
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1218.6 ---------------
From: njpmail mindspring.com (Yael Resnick)
Subject: cultural anthroposophists?
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 00:03:58 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On another topic (sorry, but I accidentally deleted the part of the digest
that identified the writer of the first quote):
)
) Perhaps the solution to this conundrum lies in
))the fact that being an anthroposophist does not require a belief in
))anything (although I grant that I cannot imagine an anthropop who does
))not believe in the existence of a spiritual reality -- but it is not
))*required* -- this, IMHO, is one of the distinctions between
))anthroposophy and religion).
)
) [John Morehead: ]Just how can you be an anthroposophist, or adhere to any
)worldview or
)belief system, without holding at least some beliefs which define it?
Unless one was *born* an anthroposophist, perhaps? Or unless one simply
enjoys the trappings of anthroposophy (one of the trappings being Waldorf
Schools)?
I know lots of people who are Jewish because they were born Jewish, but who
don't adhere to (or necessarily know anything about) any Jewish philosophy,
theology, or practice. There are also "cultural" Jews who identify strongly
as Jewish, but what it boils down to is they had relatives who were killed
in the Holocaust, or they like bagels, or they like swimming on Sundays at
the JCC (Jewish Community Center). Or they just like being around other
Jewish people, or they want their kids to learn Hebrew, or they live in a
Jewish neighborhood... It's more a question of identity than theology. Is
there an anthroposophical parallel to this phenomenon, i.e., cultural
anthroposophists? Just wondering.
B'shalom,
Yael
*****
Yael Resnick, Publisher/Editor, Natural Jewish Parenting
mailto:njpmail mindspring.com
173 Speedwell Ave., Suite 127, Morristown, NJ 07960
phone (973) 538-3737 fax (973) 539-5454
The only magazine dedicated to a holistic Jewish perspective on
childraising and health!
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1218.7 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 05:29:30 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199904101605.JAA16177 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904121924.MAA28609 lists1.best.com)
Dan Dugan wrote:
)Knocking people for being "at odds with Darwinism"? How about Steiner?
My post with the excerpt from "The Fifth Gospel" should provide a glimpse
of Steiner's view on Darwinism.
There is an interesting remark about Darwin in this lecture. He says:
"Anyone who understands the doctrines of Darwin and Haeckel and is
himself convinced that only as a Christian movement was the Darwinian
movement possible (Haeckel had no notion of this, but Darwin was aware of
many things)..."
This reminds me of a story I heard from an entirely different quarter:
Charles Darwin kept working on his theory of evolution throughout his long
life, and when he died, there were stacks of unpublished manuscripts at his
residence. These manuscripts involved reincarnation and spiritual evolution
very similar to theosophy and anthroposophy. But when the arrangements were
being made for Darwin's funeral, the clergy from the Church of England, who
had been informed about what kind of ideas the old man might publish some
day, conveniently stole the unpublished manuscripts from the estate and
destroyed them. If Darwinism had been given a spiritual direction by Darwin
himself, it would have been too much of a threat to the church, which still
excercised considerable influence over the spiritual life of the population.
I haven't found a confirmation of this story, but whether it is true or
not, it illustrates the course of Darwin's thoughts and the attitude of the
church.
Ernst Haeckel was a personal friend of Rudolf Steiner. They discussed
biological evolution, but Haeckel was not capable of grasping the idea of
the spirit behind this evolution. Still, Steiner and Haeckel were always
the best of friends with mutual respect and admiration. But precisely
because Haeckel could grasp evolution only in the the physical-material
sense, Steiner says about the Christ Impulse in Darwinism: "Haeckel had no
notion of this, but Darwin was aware of many things..."
Darwinism has in many ways stagnated in the hands of his followers, waiting
to be awakened like a sleeping wolf. But if Steiner was right about
spiritual evolution, about the Christ Idea in the course of history, and
the true nature of Darwinism, the students in American public schools may
begin to ask some embarrassing New Age questions - even with no help from
Waldorf, anthroposophy, or New Age religion. They may start asking about
reincarnation in biology class, perhaps also about Christ. And the public
schools will have start disciplining and dismissing students for
inappropriate behavior, for violating the constitutional amendment for the
separation of church and state.
Like I've mentioned before, I don't envy you this problem.
Cheers
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism, Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality, death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1218.8 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Roy Wilkinson and the "How-To" Books
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 16:06:47 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199904122249.PAA29137 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904130151.SAA24553 lists1.best.com)
Robert Flannery says:
)Bruce writes:
)
))There are many who write books and publish them themselves (well many is
))maybe an exagerration), and those wanting to glean things from them can
))and
))do. As I know Roy it is easier to see what he meant, but in some sense
))almost
))anything tends to become dogmatic when it is written down. I like reading
))Wilkinson to make me think! The best books and lectures, for me at least,
))are
))those where one comes away with more "question" than "answer".
)
FLANNERY:
)The "how-to" books can be relied on for a lesson in a pinch.
)Consequently, every teacher who falls back on such a crutch has missed an
)opportunity to work the material through for themselves. Under such
)conditions, Wilkinson's books promote dogmatic behavior and thinking (apart
)from any consideration of the quality of his suggestions).
)
)If reading Wilkinson makes you think (especially if it makes you think of
)alternatives), it's effective enough. That said, I find these particular
)books to be the most dangerous guides on the market because the boundary
)between anthroposophy and lesson plan is quite blurry.
)
)Given the wide circulation of these titles, I'm amazed that more examples
)of miseducation of the type described by Micheal Kopp and Dan Dugan aren't
)in evidence. I strongly suspect that most waldorf teachers recognize this
)material for what it is, as well as what it isn't.
KOPP:
How would you know what's "in evidence"? Where are the studies?
It perturbs me that I and the group of people who are most critical of
Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy (SWA) on this list are the only ones who
seem to offer much "evidence".
But it doesn't surprise me in the least.
People don't like to hang out their bad experiences with such things to dry
on the washing line of a mailing list like this (or any other public forum)
because they inevitably become the subjects of gossip, at the least, and
attack, at the worst.
The same is true in spades one the ground in real communities. I am by a
long shot not the only person in my neck of the woods who has had problems
of the type I have described with our former SWA school. But most of them
know that Godzone is like a small village. And people in small villages can
often be hard on anyone who stands out.
As a journalist, I don't trade in gossip. But there is plenty of it
available about the other SWA schools, the SWA teachers' seminary, and the
SWA school for special-needs children in Godzone. From it, I know that my
experiences are not isolated.
I suspect, contrary to Flannery's suspicion, that "most" SWA teachers are
completely under the spell of such mumbo jumbo (there's that word again;
slap my hand, Robert) or under the heavy influence of senior teaching
colleagues who essentially either lead them willingly or force them to
teach it.
Reports of SWA junior teachers being indoctrinated and coerced in their
teaching are not unknown, and I am aware of some of their stories. But it
is difficult, for the same reasons parents don't talk, to get former
teachers to talk.
Careers, standing in society, ability to get other employment, and a
general desire to get on with life and leave these unfortunate, unpleasant
experiences behind keep both parents and teachers silent. Some also need
more time to come to terms with what happened to them, and need more work.
Only people who have a need to see public exposure of SWA's irresponsible,
incompetent, duplicitous, coercive practices, such as have been detailed
here, will weather the storms of abuse that come to those who speak out.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1218.9 ---------------
From: njpmail mindspring.com (Yael Resnick)
Subject: cults
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 00:03:56 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Dan posted:
)
)Your description of your guru:
I object to the use of the word 'guru' to describe a Chassidic rebbe. I
don't think even skeptical, anti-religious Jews would think it an
appropriate label. By using that term, you are putting Chassidic rebbes on
the same level as, say, Dr. Berg of the Kabbalah Centre. Or Guru Dev of
Kripalu. The term loses meaning when used as a perjorative catch-all.
I wrote:
)((
)I don't really think one should put oneself in the position of judging
)whether someone else's reverence is excessive. And I disagree with the
)generalization that "many, of all faiths" judge the reverence for the Rebbe
)to be excessive. On the contrary, those *of all faiths* who had personal
)contact with him tended instead to feel that same awe and admiration --
)reverence -- for the Rebbe's genuinely lofty level of Torah and secular
)learning... (snip description of the Rebbe's admirable qualities)
)))
And you wrote:
))sounds a lot like the way Anthroposophists talk about Steiner!
I don't think people of all faiths have expressed similar admiration for
Steiner (correct me if I'm wrong). And I don't see the problem in having
great admiration for someone who one feels genuinely lives up to the
highest ideals of humanity. It's inspiring. Isn't there anyone you look up
to and try to emulate? Perhaps not; but it's a natural and useful human
desire to aspire to greatness (which I would define as a kind of quiet
spiritual strength -- but maybe that's just because I'm the quiet type)
and to seek inspiration from role models -- in this case, a role model for
spiritual growth in the context of traditional Judaism.
)Remember, a
)cult is invisible from inside. From outside Lubovitchers sure look like a
)cult to some.
I don't form opinions based on what "some people think." I make my own
decisions; I go to primary sources. Anyway, my parents, old friends,
extended family, etc., have an intimate knowledge of my present lifestyle
and no one has felt remotely that Lubavitch is a cult, G-d forbid! Cults
are *strictly prohibited* by Jewish law, since they constitute idolatry,
one of the three gravest transgressions a Jew can commit (the others being
adultery and murder). People who are well-informed -- even from "outside"
-- see Lubavitch for what it is: a Chassidic community -- a community of
"orthodox" (I dislike that term) Jews who have chosen to try to live up to
very strict standards of Jewish practice in an atmosphere of joy, and who
are inspired to continue to do so in the face of external obstacles or
internal struggles by their Rebbe -- their rabbi, their teacher. Chassidism
is NOT cultism; it never was, and it isn't now.
That said, I have no problem at all "agreeing to disagree" with you on this
subject; after all, I am a Lubavitcher and you're not, and I respect your
right to your views about my chosen affiliation, whether or not you are
well-informed in those views. But I do object to having Lubavitch
classified as a cult, which, as I have already explained in a previous
post, it is not. If you insist on labeling it that way, you must also label
adherents of Catholicism cultists (and the Pope a guru), as well as any
sincere small-town guy who goes regularly to his synagogue, mosque, or
church and asks his highly-respected clergyperson for advice, listens
attentively to his clergyperson's sermons, tries to live up to his
community's moral standards... you get my point. It's not really fair to
slap the word "cult" on a religious group -- large or small -- just
because, well, it's a religious group. Not all religious leaders are gurus;
the word is insulting when it's misused.
)But to bring it back to our topic, Lubovitchers don't claim
)that their schools are "non-sectarian"!
You're absolutely correct; they don't. Even parents of non-Lubavitch kids
can (and do, in large numbers) send their kids in good faith and with
informed consent to Lubavitch schools and summer camps, because they *know*
their kids will be getting a Torah-true Jewish education, in a Lubavitch
Chassidic environment (which in Jewish circles is known for being warm and
homey, with small classes, dedicated teachers, etc.). They also *know*
there will be no coercion -- overt, subtle, or invisible -- to "become"
Lubavitch, and that the sole purpose of Lubavitch schools is to provide a
thorough and joyful Jewish education to any child whose parents desire
that.
B'shalom,
Yael
*****
Yael Resnick, Publisher/Editor, Natural Jewish Parenting
mailto:njpmail mindspring.com
173 Speedwell Ave., Suite 127, Morristown, NJ 07960
phone (973) 538-3737 fax (973) 539-5454
The only magazine dedicated to a holistic Jewish perspective on
childraising and health!
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1218.10 ---------------
From: njpmail mindspring.com (Yael Resnick)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n1217
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 00:46:02 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hi Alan,
You posted:
)Having spent a considerable amount of time in discussions both with
)Lubovitcher chassidim and Anthroposophists I have come to the conclusion
)that both movements can generate what I would call a cult
)mentality. This troubles me because I have seen much psychological damage
)among my cultist patients. (snip) ... a cult mentality
)carries potential for problems within the individual as well as for society
)as a whole, no matter how beautiful and inspiring the content of the
)doctrine may be.
Anyone who develops a "cult mentality" about Chabad has completely
misunderstood what a Chassid is. This is wrong and I would also worry about
such a person. I do think certain (rare) people are vulnerable to this type
of reaction to *any* spiritual system.
)I will be honest that I have been strongly critical of
)the Lubovitch movement.
Not based on articles you've read in the New York Times, I hope. And not
based on Chabad's theoretical *potential* -- in the wrong person's hands --
for becoming a venue for cultist tendencies. Sports fans can also acquire
cult-like behaviors; are you strongly critical of sports? I repeat,
Lubavitch is not a cult, and the vast majority of its Chassidim understand
this and act accordingly. Please don't let your professional psychological
orientation lead to you generalizing, oversimplifying, or pathologizing.
Lubavitch is a respected, worldwide religious movement that has been around
for hundreds of years, with very *positive* effects both on individuals and
their communities. (Dwindling Jewish populaces in remote areas frequently
*request* that a Lubavitch family come to live among them and set up a
Chabad House, school, classes, camp, etc. in order to revitalize their
communities. Groups of Chabad Chassidim are often the first to offer food
and assistance to victims of natural disasters, refugees such as those from
Kosovo, the children of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, etc. -- no
religious strings attached whatsoever [tzitzis pun not intended!]. Chabad
strongly stresses community service, including a responsibility to the
larger community. Lubavitchers, like all Jews, must -- by Jewish law --
abide by all laws of the country, state, etc., in which they reside. And so
on.)
May I ask what your personal background is, if that's relevant to how you
have developed this critical view of Lubavitch? Has someone in your family
had a negative experience? (Maybe something traumatic happened in your
childhood... (g))
Please don't take offense at that last joke! It really was a joke. (I have
nothing against psychology or psychologists; I was a member of Psi Chi in
college, and won the Psych department's scholarship prize when I graduated
-- in the interdisciplinary field of Human Factors Engineering, otherwise
known as Engineering Psychology.)
)However I do feel that Chabad education (and its entire public facade for
)that matter) is far more open about its spiritual underpinnings than Waldorf
)schools.
It is completely open.
) In this regard I would like to know what of her Waldorf education
)your friend had to unlearn in order to enter her chosen path. I will be
)looking for the article, but in the meantime your comments would be
)appreciated.
I don't know. Maybe after you read her (brief) article, you might write a
letter to the editor, or directly to her?
)To contribute to answering your question about the appropriateness of
)Waldorf education for Jewish children,
It's not really a question for me at this point. My opinion is that it is
inappropriate for Jewish children.
)I have been looking for a recently
)published book by Rene Querido on the spiritual basis of Waldorf education.
)I think you may find it relevent. Can anyone tell me how to get a copy?
There is a book by Querido entitled, "The Mystery of the Holy Grail: A
Modern Path of Initiation." I don't know when it was published (the latest
would be 1993, so maybe there is a more recent title from him). You can try
Amazon.com.
I would be very happy to continue this discussion with you, on this list if
it's of interest to others, or off-list if that's more appropriate. Thanks
for responding to my intro.
Be well,
Yael
*****
Yael Resnick, Publisher/Editor, Natural Jewish Parenting
mailto:njpmail mindspring.com
173 Speedwell Ave., Suite 127, Morristown, NJ 07960
phone (973) 538-3737 fax (973) 539-5454
The only magazine dedicated to a holistic Jewish perspective on
childraising and health!
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1218 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1219 --------------
001 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - Re: cultural anthroposophists?
002 - "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf pe - Re: Querido's Latest Book
003 - Daniel Sabsay (danielsabs - Darwin and Church story according to Tarjei
004 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Ant
005 - Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordw - Re: cults
006 - Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis - Re: Roy Wilkinson and the "How-To" Books
007 - Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis - Re: Defining Religion; Including Anthroposophy
008 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
An
009 - Robert Flannery (litvas i - Re: Roy Wilkinson and the "How-To" Books
010 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: Defining Religion; Including Anthroposophy (2 of 2)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1219.1 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: Re: cultural anthroposophists?
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 07:07:23 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199904130408.VAA19230 lists1.best.com)
Yael wrote:
)I know lots of people who are Jewish because they were born Jewish, but who
)don't adhere to (or necessarily know anything about) any Jewish philosophy,
)theology, or practice. There are also "cultural" Jews who identify strongly
)as Jewish, but what it boils down to is they had relatives who were killed
)in the Holocaust, or they like bagels, or they like swimming on Sundays at
)the JCC (Jewish Community Center). Or they just like being around other
)Jewish people, or they want their kids to learn Hebrew, or they live in a
)Jewish neighborhood... It's more a question of identity than theology. Is
)there an anthroposophical parallel to this phenomenon, i.e., cultural
)anthroposophists? Just wondering.
Yes there are,. There are people who feel anthroposophical because they
like to be around anthroposophists, or to have their kids in Waldorf
school, or to eat biodynamic vegetable soups, or a bunch of other stuff
like celebrating Michaelmas. Perhaps they've read a lecture or two by
Steiner many years ago. And maybe their parents were anthroposophists, or
they have colleagues or neighbors who are, and they feel at home among
anthroposophists, but they've never bothered to take the effort to learn
much about it. But when they feel like going to church once in a while,
they stroll down to the nearest Christian Community Church. Oh yes, there
are cultural anthroposophists.
Cheers
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism, Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality, death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1219.2 ---------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf peakpeak.com)
Subject: Re: Querido's Latest Book
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 23:07:27 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
That's the one thank you. I did read most of it a year ago. Robert
Flannery is kind (and bold) enough to give us the title. I recommend it to
Yael and anyone interested in appreciating the spiritual valence of the
Waldorf curriculum.
Alan S. Fine MD
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com (waldorf-critics lists.best.com)
Date: Monday, April 12, 1999 8:31 PM
Subject: Querido's Latest Book
)
))To contribute to answering your question about the appropriateness of
))Waldorf education for Jewish children, I have been looking for a recently
))published book by Rene Querido on the spiritual basis of Waldorf
education.
))I think you may find it relevent. Can anyone tell me how to get a copy?
))
))Alan S. Fine MD
)
)
)I will bet bottom dollar that what you're looking for is:
)
)"The Esoteric Background of Waldorf Education: The Cosmic Christ Impulse",
)by Rene M. Querido, Rudolf Steiner College Press, 1995 (ISBN
)0-945803-25-7).
)
)This one's a hum-dinger. I'm sure you'll enjoy it. The Anthroposophic
)Press or Rudolf Steiner College Bookstore or Amazon.com should carry it.
)Considering Rene lives in your neck of the woods, it might be found at one
)of the local waldorf schools.
)
)
)
)
)
)Robert Flannery
)New York
)litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1219.3 ---------------
From: Daniel Sabsay (danielsabsay pacbell.net)
Subject: Darwin and Church story according to Tarjei
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 22:30:40 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no) wrote )
)This reminds me of a story I heard from an entirely different quarter:
)Charles Darwin kept working on his theory of evolution throughout his long
)life, and when he died, there were stacks of unpublished manuscripts at his
)residence. These manuscripts involved reincarnation and spiritual evolution
)very similar to theosophy and anthroposophy. But when the arrangements were
)being made for Darwin's funeral, the clergy from the Church of England, who
)had been informed about what kind of ideas the old man might publish some
)day, conveniently stole the unpublished manuscripts from the estate and
)destroyed them. If Darwinism had been given a spiritual direction by Darwin
)himself, it would have been too much of a threat to the church, which still
)excercised considerable influence over the spiritual life of the population.
)
)I haven't found a confirmation of this story, but whether it is true or
)not, it illustrates the course of Darwin's thoughts and the attitude of the
)church.
Well, now, doesn't it depend on which parts of this story you believe?
Did these purported manuscripts really contain what you alledge? Maybe it
just illustrates YOUR attitude.
Daniel Sabsay Macintosh Consultant
http://www.eb-skeptics.org Ignorance is the Ultimate Renewable Resource
danielsabsay pacbell.net
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1219.4 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 08:46:34 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199904112103.OAA11017 lists1.best.com)
(199904101605.JAA16177 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904120153.SAA00786 lists1.best.com)
Michael Kopp wrote:
)As I understand SWA, there has not been one critic from within who has
)published any kind of major difference of opinion with Steiner. (We have
)seen some people on this list who call themselves apostates of some sort,
)but they mostly say it is the _practice_ of SWA today which bothers them,
)not Steiner's original world view and cosmology.) Anthroposophy has not
)progressed, despite the myriad books purporting to explain it or build on
)it or employ it.
)
)This seems to me to be at variance with Mr Morehead's and other Protestant
)Christian religions, at least, and with most others, like Catholicism,
)Judaism, Islam and Buddhism, which have extremely lively intellectual
)arguments and schisms. (Some too lively, at the moment, leading to
)authoritarian, patriarchal fascism.)
)
)To my knowledge -- despite the claim of the SWA apologists on this list --
)there is no such process, no such schisming, in SWA.
)
)Now isn't this curious?
You wouldn't bother to find out, Michael. On the Anthropos-Views list, for
example, I have recently witnessed and participated in quite serious
schisms of all sorts - strong disagreements among anthropops. And one of
the major problems with the history of the Anthroposophical Society has
been too many schisms and disagreements through the years.
It's interesting how you shoot off your judgements and conclusions about
subjects that you do not wish to investigate sufficiently to be able to
make pronouncements about them. In plain English: When it comes to
anthroposophy, you don't know what you're talking about.
Cheers
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism, Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality, death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1219.5 ---------------
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: cults
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 09:17:48 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (199904130411.VAA23688 lists1.best.com)
Yael Resnick wrote, answering Dan:
) ...I don't see the problem in having
) great admiration for someone who one feels genuinely lives up to the
) highest ideals of humanity. It's inspiring. Isn't there anyone you look up
) to and try to emulate?
Correct me if I¥m wrong, but I think Socrates, to secular humanists,
stands out as such an outstanding individual that never later has been
surpassed in history as a humanist ideal.
Regards,
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell biology and
EU as a mechanical esoteric temple and threefolding of society
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1219.6 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Roy Wilkinson and the "How-To" Books
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 07:47:23 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: (199904122249.PAA29137 lists1.best.com)
(199904130151.SAA24553 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904130151.SAA24553 lists1.best.com)
Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com) wrote:
)If reading Wilkinson makes you think (especially if it makes you think of
)alternatives), it's effective enough. That said, I find these particular
)books to be the most dangerous guides on the market because the boundary
)between anthroposophy and lesson plan is quite blurry.
IMHO it's not blurry, it's absent. I don't like them and don't use them.
Noctis Gaudia Carpe,
Stephen
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829) | (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk) +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1219.7 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Defining Religion; Including Anthroposophy
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 08:55:57 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: (199904100235.TAA01036 lists1.best.com)
(199904100235.TAA01036 lists1.best.com)
(199904120833.BAA03716 lists1.best.com)
(199904122323.QAA24442 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904122323.QAA24442 lists1.best.com)
John,
Thank you for your comprehensive reply.
ST:
))The main problem I have with fitting anthroposophy into these
))definitions is the inclusion of "belief" and "rite/ritual" in the
))definitions.
)
JM:
)Anthroposophy does indeed have beliefs. Wouldn't it be impossible to have
)any belief system without them? For example, a belief in reincarnation, the
)fourfold nature of the human being, monism, the existence of "higher
)worlds" which can be tapped into through various occultic means. These
)surely qualify as beliefs.
ST:
OK -- I'll concede that one. But if one believes those things, does that
make one an anthroposophist? I believed them before I discovered
anthroposophy, so I have never considered them to be specific tenets of
anthroposophy. If such belief does make one an anthropop, there must be
a lot of anthropops who don't know that's what they are. If not, what
belief do you think does define an anthropop and sets him apart from
others who believe in the above?
)
JM:
)As to rites and rituals, I am aware of the nature tables in at least
)private Waldorf settings,
ST:
A nature table is an anthroposophical rite? We had them when I was a kid
in my (Rhodesian government) kindergarten -- if that was a Waldorf
school, my nose is a kipper!
JM:
) and I belief churches associated with
)anthroposophy have some type of rites.
ST:
I am not disputing that the Christian Community is a religion. The
question is whether or not *anthroposophy* is a religion, not whether or
not the religion associated with it is a religion.
The House of Commons (UK Parliament) has daily prayers; the Church
associated with it (Church of England) has rituals. Does that make Her
Majesty's Government a religion?
JM:
) Regardless, it could be argued that
)a belief system is religious without incorporating each and every element
)in a given definition.
ST:
That could indeed be argued -- the question, as far as a working
definition goes, is precisely which elements need to be incorporated? If
a religion need not incorporate each and every element, then some of
those elements must be redundant -- which ones, and why have them in the
definition if they need not be incorporated?
Perhaps I am seeking the impossible: a definition which is akin to the
sort of thing I meet in science.
JM:
)Granted, anthroposophy is very individualistic with little structure which
)would require a certain practice on the part of an anthroposophist. But
)this does not mean it is not religious. Anthroposophy fits nicely into the
)New Age movement, which also puts an emphasis upon an individualized,
)eclectic spirituality with little or no ritual, yet this is surely
)religious in nature, as recognized by New Age adherents and scholars of
)religion.
ST:
I dispute that anthroposophy fits into the New Age movement; ISTR others
(Tarjei? Sune?) have recently gone into detail about this, so I'll not
do so here.
ST:
)
))I am certainly prepared to concede that it meets *some* of the criteria
))of the definitions. The problem is that so does soccer! (Which some
))people would argue *does* have the status of religion on the terraces
))(g)).
)
JM:
)Just how does soccer meet these definitions?
ST:
E.g. adherence to a set of beliefs and rituals. As one team manager
famously said, "This game isn't a matter of life and death -- it's much
more important than that."
JM:
)And if you would hesitate to
)define anthroposophy as a religion would you consider it a spirituality
)then? A spiritual or religious philosophy is still religious in nature, no
)matter how you slice it.
ST:
Do I take it you are arguing that anything that has a religious nature
is a religion? The direct answer to your direct question is that I
consider it to be a spiritual philosophy (which, I submit, is distinct
from a religion).
ST:
))I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about religion to know what the
))scholarly status of Ninian Smart's _The World Religions_ (Cambridge
))University Press, 1989) is, but it's the only book about religions on my
))bookshelf and both "anthroposophy" and "Steiner" are notably absent,
))even from the (admittedly small) section on _New Forms of Religion_.
)
JM:
)Unfortunately, many reference works omit it, but again, this does not mean
)it is not religious. No reference work is all-encompassing and exhaustive
)now is it? This sounds like you're making an argument from silence, which
)does not negate the weight given to those reference works which do classify
)it as religious.
ST:
No, I'm not arguing from silence, but one would hardly expect books to
have a paragraph stating "The following things are not religions: ..."
My intention was to convey that it is not necessarily a clear-cut case,
and it might be that some scholars believe it is and others believe it
isn't. Groliers calls it a "social philosophy", not a religion;
Hutchinson's has it as a "mystical philosophy" and again, not a
religion. Next time I go to the library I'll look up "anthroposophy" in
Britannica and Colliers and see if they describe anthroposophy as a
religion. If not, may it be that the scholars who wrote those entries
did not consider it to be a religion?
I certainly concede that it is not a clear-cut case, either way.
ST:
))Absolutely! But, again, IMHO there is a distinction between something
))having a religious nature and being a religion. I would argue that what
))Steiner meant in those translations you quoted was that underlying our
))teaching must be the acceptance *by the teacher* that there is an
))"unseen" or "spiritual" or "supersensible" (choose whichever suits you)
))reality. The religion lessons he mentioned were (as you probably know),
))the non-denominational "free religion lessons" given to children who did
))not attend the denominational religion lessons given by priests,
))pastors, etc. of those denominations.
)
JM:
)Then if the teacher must recognize the religious basis for Waldorf, and
)must pass an unseen stream of consciousness to the child to instruct the
)child's developing fourfold being, just how does this not consitution
)religion in the Waldorf methodology?
ST:
John, the context of the above is the religion lessons. Of course the
religion lessons in a Waldorf school are religious! I had religion
lessons in my school -- that did not make the Rhodesian government a
religion. My understanding is that the Waldorf schools in the US public
school system do *not* have religion lessons. Is this correct?
ST:
))If we interpret Steiner to mean that the teacher should, when preparing
))and delivering a lesson, keep in mind that there is an "unseen spiritual
))world" and that each child has a spiritual nature, then I am in complete
))agreement (although I fall very short of this ideal!). If we interpret
))it to mean that we must teach a specific religious view in every lesson,
))then I completely disagree with him.
)
JM:
)In context, Steiner appears to be taking the position you disagree with.
ST:
It wouldn't be the first time -- but I also submit that a large (and
growing? majority?) number of Waldorf teachers share my view on this.
JM:
)The Anthroposophical press states that Steiner's writings serve as "the
)authoritative foundation" for Waldorf education.
ST:
I take Steiner's writings to serve as *indications*, not as
*prescriptions*. There was a time, when I was new to Waldorf teaching (I
was previously an A-level (top end of high school; university entrance)
physics teacher, so I wasn't new to teaching), that I tended to take
them as prescriptions -- it didn't work. I do concede that one of the
problems Waldorf education faces is that inexperienced teachers can tend
to take Steiner's writings and, more importantly, "fundamentalist"
interpretations of them like those of Roy Wilkinson, as gospel
prescriptions. To my mind this is antithetical to effective teaching in
a modern Waldorf school.
JM:
) While your disagreement is
)important, and noted, the "discoverer"/creator of Waldorf education must be
)regarded as a higher authority according to those who promote this
)methodology!
ST:
I guess I'll have to concede that one as well. (bg)
)
ST:
))Somewhat tangential to this is the following question: If keeping in
))mind the spiritual nature (above) whilst preparing and delivering public
))school lessons is found to be contrary to the US constitution, how, in
))practice, can it's exclusion be ensured if there is no outer evidence of
))its inclusion? Or, put another way, how is it possible to legislate
))against that which cannot be detected?
)
JM:
)But there is evidence of the inclusion of a religious elemnt which has been
)included in the Waldorf pedagogy.
ST:
I'm not sure quite what you mean here.
Do you mean the free religion lessons? They were one of Steiner's
"afterthoughts" in the context of a situation where many pupils were
leaving class for denominational religion lessons (which have been given
in schools (not just Waldorf ones) in many European countries until very
recently.
Do you mean the teachers who do teach anthroposophy in the classroom?
This aspect has been addressed adequately by Robert Flannery and I have
nothing to add other than that I am in full agreement with him that it
is wrong.
Do you mean something else?
John, do you think we are getting anywhere?
Noctis Gaudia Carpe,
Stephen
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829) | (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk) +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1219.8 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 20:04:48 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199904120153.SAA00786 lists1.best.com)
(199904112103.OAA11017 lists1.best.com)
(199904101605.JAA16177 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904130647.XAA06359 lists1.best.com)
Tarjei Straume wrote:
)Michael Kopp wrote:
)
))To my knowledge -- despite the claim of the SWA apologists on this list --
))there is no such process, no such schisming, in SWA.
))
))Now isn't this curious?
And TARJEI replied:
)You wouldn't bother to find out, Michael. On the Anthropos-Views list, for
)example, I have recently witnessed and participated in quite serious
)schisms of all sorts - strong disagreements among anthropops. And one of
)the major problems with the history of the Anthroposophical Society has
)been too many schisms and disagreements through the years.
KOPP:
But I've spent about eight years of my life working on it, Tarjei, which is
how long ago I started to look at enrolling my kids in an alternative to
the public school system they were then in.
But, please, can you tell me where the alternative sects of the
Anthroposphical Society are located? What are there names? Who are their
leaders?
Or is there another offshoot of Anthroposophy that has formed a new society
by another name, because it has rejected Steiner's teaching?
Can you tell me, please, where is the discussion list on the internet for
"Anthroposophical Science" which rejects Goethean Science as its basis, and
instead chooses "materialistic science" to the exclusion of all other
spiritual mumbo jumbo?
Can you tell me where there is a Waldorf school that has, for instance,
eschewed -- nay, banned -- Goethean phenomenology and the "four elements"
in the teaching of science? That might have been a school to which I could
have sent my children, because it would have indicated a certain
rationality which is missing in every other
)From the look of the availble evidence on the Internet and in my neck of
the woods (which has a national Anthroposophical Society which is
associated with the Federation of Rudolf Steiner Schools in New Zealand,
which is the body which runs the Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophical teachers'
training seminary, and is involved in the financing of SWA school in this
country, and their pedagogy) there is no such schism anywhere in the world
that meets the definition of the word.
Sure, you Anthropops _love_ internecine warfare among yourselves, and some
even become apostates. But none of the apostates has formed an alternative
sect, that I'm aware of. You'd think that such an event would be big enough
news to be made known on a discussion list like this one, in the 3-1/2
years I've been here. Can you point me at one, please, Tarjei?
STRAUME:
)It's interesting how you shoot off your judgements and conclusions about
)subjects that you do not wish to investigate sufficiently to be able to
)make pronouncements about them. In plain English: When it comes to
)anthroposophy, you don't know what you're talking about.
KOPP:
Well, from the impenetrability of your discourse, and that of Tom Mellet,
and Joel Wendt, and several others of your ilk on this list in the past, I
guess that's understandable. I don't have the education of John Morehead,
for instance, that would enable me to deconstruct Steiner's creation.
It's certainly the case that studying _Anthroposophy_ as a subject is very
difficult for a person who is a lifetime skeptic, and who has no desire to
give up that trait just to understand, from the point of view of an
apprentice or whatever, which is the only way Anthroposophists believe it
can be studied, what looks from the outside like mumbo jumbo. I was not
popular at the few study group meetings I attended at our former Steiner
school (but then, I'm not popular with a lot of people of whom I ask blunt
questions, such as the Anthroposophists and their apologists on this list).
However, as a journalist and observer of human affairs, I think it is
possible to get some idea of the nature of Anthroposophy as a practice of
people who run schools and try to inject their philosophy into existing
public schools.
As a parent who spent five years getting children into and out of a Steiner
school -- a difficult process as I have described here previously -- and a
fairly intelligent person who has tried to follow the discourse between
better critics than myself and a variety of Anthropops and apologists here,
and reading the quotes from Steiner and his followers _from both sides_, I
think I have a pretty good idea of what I was duped by and then shunned
when I learnt its weirdness.
If I have not invesgitated Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy to a degree
which you find acceptable, Tarjei, then I apologise for wasting your time
all these months of trying to get you to speak plainly.
However, I don't think I will let an Anthroposophy apologist (or an
"anarchosophist", for that matter) determine for me or others whether I
have experienced enough, or learned enough, to make judgements about SWA.
I may not know what I'm talking about, from your point of view. From my
point of view, if you DO know what you're talking about, you don't make it
very comprehensible in the language I grew up with.
Perhaps you want me to learn another, special, Anthroposophical language,
like you seem to believe exists in terms of Anthroposophical logic, as you
posted recently: "In the first place, comprehension of divine-spiritual
truth requires a higher logic, an extra-rational logic".
Every other religion, every other subject I have ever studied, has been
comprehensible in terms of the language (and that means the thought
processes, because the two are inseparable) I was taught.
Maybe that's why I took my kids out of our former Steiner school: its
teaching, even of ordinary, everyday subjects, was incomprehensible to me,
much less to my kids.
I believe -- no matter how much you deny it -- that Anthroposophical dogma
and beliefs are at the heart of all SWA teaching, and cannot help but be
present in everything a child learns, thus inculcating SWA thought
processes, if not Anthroposophical inclinations, in them.
Your statements make a powerful argument for keeping Steiner/ Waldorf/
Anthroposophical education separated completely from secular, state, or
state-funded schools.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1219.9 ---------------
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Re: Roy Wilkinson and the "How-To" Books
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 06:20:12 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199904130151.SAA24553 lists1.best.com)
(199904122249.PAA29137 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904130411.VAA23392 lists1.best.com)
I said:
))Given the wide circulation of these [how-to, Wilkinson-type] titles, I'm
))amazed that more examples
))of miseducation of the type described by Micheal Kopp and Dan Dugan aren't
))in evidence. I strongly suspect that most waldorf teachers recognize this
))material for what it is, as well as what it isn't.
)
)KOPP:
)
)How would you know what's "in evidence"? Where are the studies?
I'm not using "in evidence" as a legal or scientific term of art. I simply
mean "at or on hand".
)
)It perturbs me that I and the group of people who are most critical of
)Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy (SWA) on this list are the only ones who
)seem to offer much "evidence".
)
)But it doesn't surprise me in the least.
)
)People don't like to hang out their bad experiences with such things to dry
)on the washing line of a mailing list like this (or any other public forum)
)because they inevitably become the subjects of gossip, at the least, and
)attack, at the worst.
)
)The same is true in spades one the ground in real communities. I am by a
)long shot not the only person in my neck of the woods who has had problems
)of the type I have described with our former SWA school. But most of them
)know that Godzone is like a small village. And people in small villages can
)often be hard on anyone who stands out.
)
)As a journalist, I don't trade in gossip.
(snip innuendo and gossip)
)
)Careers, standing in society, ability to get other employment, and a
)general desire to get on with life and leave these unfortunate, unpleasant
)experiences behind keep both parents and teachers silent. Some also need
)more time to come to terms with what happened to them, and need more work.
)Only people who have a need to see public exposure of SWA's irresponsible,
)incompetent, duplicitous, coercive practices, such as have been detailed
)here, will weather the storms of abuse that come to those who speak out.
I did this once before, but it seems time to do it again.
If one is critiquing waldorf education, especially classroom practice, such
a critic has the most direct kind of evidence available to him, short of a
seat in the first row of the class itself.
Waldorf students produce their own textbooks in everything they do. These
textbooks are a snapshot of the daily life in a waldorf classroom--they
aren't supplements to the instruction, or ancillary to mass-market
textbooks--they are primary source material. They aren't supplemented by
filmstrips, movies, CD-roms, televised instruction, or a lot of worksheets.
The main lesson books are worked with nearly every day, and they are
produced for year upon year in the lower and middle school.
There are approximately 700 waldorf schools worldwide that would produce
such textbooks. Let's guess that each school has an average of 50
students, who produce five main lesson books per year. That works out to
175,000 main lesson books worldwide every year.
You can change the numbers if you like. I've seen recent guesses for the
total number of grade schools that range from 600 to 740. A few schools
may have less than 50 students, the school where I teach has over 400
students. I imagine the number of main lesson books produced in a year
could vary from three to ten.
It is not necessary that a critic come forward personally in this forum to
testify against the evils of waldorf education (remember how your career
began, Michael?). Dan has posted a number of anonymous emails from
critical individuals over the years, and no doubt will continue to do so.
More tellingly, any parent with access to this list and a damning main
lesson book could deliver it to Dan, and he's not shy about asking--after
all, Dan has an eye for main lesson books the way a certain individual has
an eye for women.
If Wilkinson's books are being used extensively as teaching guides for the
lesson plans, or if dogmatic senior teachers are forcing or coercing
younger teachers to promote flawed material, or if racial ethnography were
still being taught, *you would have a great deal more evidence on hand*
than Dan's, Michael's, and Herman's experience.
If the teaching is so saturated with "mumbo-jumbo", why aren't we hearing
more directly about it? There are any number of ways such a miseducation
could be documented: either from parents themselves, speaking directly in
this forum or via anonymous posts, or through some of the hundreds of
thousands of main lesson books produced yearly by the students themselves,
or through journalism where the names have been changed to protect the
innocent. You're a journalist yourself, Michael, so why don't *you*
produce the expose?
It's a fine thing that you don't engage directly in promoting innuendo and
gossip on the list, Michael. Unfortunately, your claims of widespread
indoctrination and anthroposophical main-lesson content are every bit as
tenuous and insubstantial.
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1219.10 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Defining Religion; Including Anthroposophy (2 of 2)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 22:38:38 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
John Morehead and Stephen Tonkin are discussing whether Anthroposophy is a
religion (this is part two of two parts kept small for e-mail limits):
)ST:
)))I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about religion to know what the
)))scholarly status of Ninian Smart's _The World Religions_ (Cambridge
)))University Press, 1989) is, but it's the only book about religions on my
)))bookshelf and both "anthroposophy" and "Steiner" are notably absent,
)))even from the (admittedly small) section on _New Forms of Religion_.
))
)
)JM:
))Unfortunately, many reference works omit it, but again, this does not mean
))it is not religious. No reference work is all-encompassing and exhaustive
))now is it? This sounds like you're making an argument from silence, which
))does not negate the weight given to those reference works which do
))classify
))it as religious.
)
)ST:
)No, I'm not arguing from silence, but one would hardly expect books to
)have a paragraph stating "The following things are not religions: ..."
)My intention was to convey that it is not necessarily a clear-cut case,
)and it might be that some scholars believe it is and others believe it
)isn't. Groliers calls it a "social philosophy", not a religion;
)Hutchinson's has it as a "mystical philosophy" and again, not a
)religion. Next time I go to the library I'll look up "anthroposophy" in
)Britannica and Colliers and see if they describe anthroposophy as a
)religion. If not, may it be that the scholars who wrote those entries
)did not consider it to be a religion?
KOPP:
Britannica is equivocal, calling it in one article "a philosophy" and in
another a "spiritual philosophy". What do they know? An encyclopaedia whose
editor in chief was an American philosopher. I'll take their second
definition.
)[JM?:]
)
)I certainly concede that it is not a clear-cut case, either way.
)
)ST:
)))Absolutely! But, again, IMHO there is a distinction between something
)))having a religious nature and being a religion. I would argue that what
)))Steiner meant in those translations you quoted was that underlying our
)))teaching must be the acceptance *by the teacher* that there is an
)))"unseen" or "spiritual" or "supersensible" (choose whichever suits you)
)))reality. The religion lessons he mentioned were (as you probably know),
)))the non-denominational "free religion lessons" given to children who did
)))not attend the denominational religion lessons given by priests,
)))pastors, etc. of those denominations.
))
)
)JM:
))Then if the teacher must recognize the religious basis for Waldorf, and
))must pass an unseen stream of consciousness to the child to instruct the
))child's developing fourfold being, just how does this not consitution
))religion in the Waldorf methodology?
)
)ST:
)John, the context of the above is the religion lessons. Of course the
)religion lessons in a Waldorf school are religious! I had religion
)lessons in my school -- that did not make the Rhodesian government a
)religion. My understanding is that the Waldorf schools in the US public
)school system do *not* have religion lessons. Is this correct?
KOPP:
I don't believe, based on the quoting of Steiner and his successors and
interpreters and devotees and defenders and believers -- and critics --
here on this list for the last 3-1/2 years, that Steiner's exhortations
regarding religious practices by teachers ARE confined to "religion
lessons".
You say it is, Stephen, but you also say your school may be atypical, and
you, certainly, are atypical, in my experience.
)
)ST:
)))If we interpret Steiner to mean that the teacher should, when preparing
)))and delivering a lesson, keep in mind that there is an "unseen spiritual
)))world" and that each child has a spiritual nature, then I am in complete
)))agreement (although I fall very short of this ideal!). If we interpret
)))it to mean that we must teach a specific religious view in every lesson,
)))then I completely disagree with him.
))
)JM:
))In context, Steiner appears to be taking the position you disagree with.
)
)ST:
)It wouldn't be the first time -- but I also submit that a large (and
)growing? majority?) number of Waldorf teachers share my view on this.
KOPP:
How do you know this, Stephen? If SWA is so amorphous and diffuse, how CAN
you know this? Does the new "Waldorf Teachers" mailing list (to which I
subscribe) help you? I've not seen more than a post or two a week there,
and no such evidence. What about the new Web-based "Anthroposophy
Network"'s teachers' Web discussion area (which refused me entry because I
am not a Waldorf teacher. Are you a member of these, or other groups of
which I am not aware, which you can cite as evidence? Yes, you need to
provide evidence, Stephen. At least for the "large" quantifier which did
not have a question mark after it.
I would submit that it's likely to be just the opposite, based on the
reports of Kathy Sutphen of her Anthrposophical teacher training, and other
reports.
)JM:
))The Anthroposophical press states that Steiner's writings serve as "the
))authoritative foundation" for Waldorf education.
)
)ST:
)I take Steiner's writings to serve as *indications*, not as
)*prescriptions*. There was a time, when I was new to Waldorf teaching (I
)was previously an A-level (top end of high school; university entrance)
)physics teacher, so I wasn't new to teaching), that I tended to take
)them as prescriptions -- it didn't work. I do concede that one of the
)problems Waldorf education faces is that inexperienced teachers can tend
)to take Steiner's writings and, more importantly, "fundamentalist"
)interpretations of them like those of Roy Wilkinson, as gospel
)prescriptions. To my mind this is antithetical to effective teaching in
)a modern Waldorf school.
KOPP:
Stephen, could you please devote an entire post to your understanding of
the word "indications" and its application to your teaching?
As you know, most critics believe this is just another one of Steiner's
"guru tricks", designed to create the appearance of something esoteric and
original and deeply meaningful, but really nothing more than his dogma.
And, as you know, most critics believe that whatever you call them, current
SWA teachers follow them ... religiously [no pun intended, okay, Robert
Flannery?].
But we've never had an elucidation of the meaning -- either as Steiner
meant it or as you or anyone else understands it today -- that we could
discuss.
)JM:
)) While your disagreement is
))important, and noted, the "discoverer"/creator of Waldorf education must
))be
))regarded as a higher authority according to those who promote this
))methodology!
)
)ST:
)I guess I'll have to concede that one as well. (bg)
)
)ST:
)))Somewhat tangential to this is the following question: If keeping in
)))mind the spiritual nature (above) whilst preparing and delivering public
)))school lessons is found to be contrary to the US constitution, how, in
)))practice, can it's exclusion be ensured if there is no outer evidence of
)))its inclusion? Or, put another way, how is it possible to legislate
)))against that which cannot be detected?
KOPP:
It can't. The Constitution does not prohibit a teacher from "keeping in
mind the spiritual". It only prohibits the _expression_ of anything
spiritual in the teaching. If a teacher strays, and includes
spiritually-oriented matter -- say, "creation science", then the teacher is
in violation. The inclusion of spiritual thought or information or
inference IS "detectable" -- even by ordinary folks like myself.
If the school suborns this behaviour, or if a local body or state of the
union (they control education in the U.S., not the federal, or national,
government) legalizes it, then they are in contravention of the federal
Constitution, which is paramount when it comes to the First Amendment and
the separation clause. And they will be sued, usually successfully.
Especially where the supposed "science" is in fact nothing but a religion
or religious or spiritual belief dressed in emperor's new clothes.
(Unfortunately, in New Zealand, teaching religion in a state-integrated
private school is legal, as long as it is part of a recognized, separate,
"special character" curriculum. But the state-mandated secular curriculum
must also be taught. Unfortunately, in our former Steiner school, for all
the five years of its integrated status, the state school inspectorate
found it to be inadequately delivering the state curriculum. And *I* found
the state curriculum to be riddled with Anthroposophical spirituality, as I
have detailed elsewhere.)
)JM:
))But there is evidence of the inclusion of a religious elemnt which has
))been
))included in the Waldorf pedagogy.
)
)ST:
)I'm not sure quite what you mean here.
)
)Do you mean the free religion lessons? They were one of Steiner's
)"afterthoughts" in the context of a situation where many pupils were
)leaving class for denominational religion lessons (which have been given
)in schools (not just Waldorf ones) in many European countries until very
)recently.
)
)Do you mean the teachers who do teach anthroposophy in the classroom?
)This aspect has been addressed adequately by Robert Flannery and I have
)nothing to add other than that I am in full agreement with him that it
)is wrong.
KOPP:
You and Flannery may say you think it is wrong. (This could be dissembling,
if we were of a frame of mind to believe in conspiracy theories.)
But the evidence of the personal experience of almost every critic on this
list (certainly all those who either had children in an SWA school or were
involved in one in another way, such as Kathy Sutphen) is that it IS highly
prevalent.
There is no reason to believe otherwise, as Steiner's "indications" were
that it should be there (in more than "religion" lessons).
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1219 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1220 --------------
001 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: Defining Religion; Including Anthroposophy (1 of 2)
002 - BruceyJ aol.com - Re: Apology for misdirected private correspondence
003 - BruceyJ aol.com - Re: Projective Geometry
004 - BruceyJ aol.com - Scientific Evidence for Crop Circles (was...)
005 - BruceyJ aol.com - Re: Roy Wilkinson and the "How-To" Books
006 - BruceyJ aol.com - Re: Roy Wilkinson and the "How-To" Books
007 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - R. Flannery's debating technique (Was: Re: Roy Wilkinson and t
008 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
A
009 - Neil Faiman (faiman zko.d - Inconclusive evidence
010 - Michael Hirsch (hirsch ma - Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anth
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1220.1 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Defining Religion; Including Anthroposophy (1 of 2)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 22:35:36 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199904122323.QAA24442 lists1.best.com)
(199904100235.TAA01036 lists1.best.com)
(199904100235.TAA01036 lists1.best.com)
(199904120833.BAA03716 lists1.best.com)
(199904122323.QAA24442 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904130757.AAA15739 lists1.best.com)
John Morehead and Stephen Tonkin are discussing whether Anthroposophy is a
religion (this is part one of two parts kept small for e-mail limits):
)John,
)
)Thank you for your comprehensive reply.
)
)ST:
)))The main problem I have with fitting anthroposophy into these
)))definitions is the inclusion of "belief" and "rite/ritual" in the
)))definitions.
))
)JM:
))Anthroposophy does indeed have beliefs. Wouldn't it be impossible to have
))any belief system without them? For example, a belief in reincarnation,
))the
))fourfold nature of the human being, monism, the existence of "higher
))worlds" which can be tapped into through various occultic means. These
))surely qualify as beliefs.
)
)ST:
)OK -- I'll concede that one. But if one believes those things, does that
)make one an anthroposophist? I believed them before I discovered
)anthroposophy, so I have never considered them to be specific tenets of
)anthroposophy.
KOPP:
I'm tempted to say your argument is persuasive that Stephen Tonkin has
invented a religion. And it's nice to have a clearer picture of what you,
personally, believe. However ...
This seems like bad logic to me, Stephen. The fact that A and B existed
simultaneously and unaware of each other, does not mean that after A and B
become aware of their mutuality they necessarily retain their duality and
separatism, even if A wishes it so.
The fact that you now are a practising Anthroposophist, and a member of the
Anthroposophical society, means that you MUST, to orginary logic and
reason, "consider [these beliefs that you once held independently] to be
specific tenets of Anthroposophy". (And would you please stop being cute
with the small "a".)
The fact that Anthroposophy (Steiner) considered these tenets to be
specific and defining supersedes your clever attempt to claim that they
must be common beliefs that many people (perhaps even Kopp?) have. The fact
that they are codified into dogma makes Anthroposphy a religion. What _you_
think of them does not lend deniability to your cause.
[snip]
)JM:
))As to rites and rituals, I am aware of the nature tables in at least
))private Waldorf settings,
)
)ST:
)A nature table is an anthroposophical rite? We had them when I was a kid
)in my (Rhodesian government) kindergarten -- if that was a Waldorf
)school, my nose is a kipper!
KOPP:
Stephen, did your childhood nature tables have candles on them, and did you
ceremonially light them of a morning? Were the things that you put on the
table suggested by your lessons to be of certain classes relevant to
unscientific things you were being taught about nature in your classroom,
such as the relationship between plant form and human form?
If your school was a public school, and was anything like mine in Middle
America of the same generation, the answer would be no: we just brought in
whatever kids found interesting, and there was nothing special about it. It
didn't have a particular place in the classroom, it wasn't covered with a
special cloth, there was no candle (!), and, in fact, any old surface
usually sufficed, such as the window sills. It wasn't even called a "nature
table", and it wasn't prescribed by the dogma of any sectarian (or secular)
organisation.
[snip]
ST:
)The House of Commons (UK Parliament) has daily prayers; the Church
)associated with it (Church of England) has rituals. Does that make Her
)Majesty's Government a religion?
KOPP:
Stephen, remember saying a few posts back that you actually thought rather
more of the U.S. political system than your own, peculiarly English (c.q.)
one?
I'm sure that despite this Anglophobia, you know that the answer is that
Her Majesty's Government IS a religion?
Britain is the closest thing to a theocracy left in the modern world. (I'm
leaving out the Islamic fundamentalist states and Israel, which seem to me
to have never left the Dark Ages.) The Queen is the head of the Church of
England, and the head of State as well. The Church of England is not just
"the church associated with [Her Majesty's Government]". It is still
constitutionally accepted as the State Religion, particularly in relation
to Royalty and Government. The British Upper House is called the house of
_Lords_, and had primacy over the House of Commons. It's only a few short
centuries since the King or Queen of England was, by the principle of
Divine Right of Kings, considered nearly Godlike.
)JM:
))Regardless, it could be argued that a belief system is religious without
))))incorporating each and every element in a given definition.
)
)ST:
)That could indeed be argued -- the question, as far as a working
)definition goes, is precisely which elements need to be incorporated? If
)a religion need not incorporate each and every element, then some of
)those elements must be redundant -- which ones, and why have them in the
)definition if they need not be incorporated?
)
)Perhaps I am seeking the impossible: a definition which is akin to the
)sort of thing I meet in science.
KOPP:
You're obviously still too much under the influence of "materialistic"
science, and need to study much harder, and embrace much more determinedly,
the only thing which proves Anthroposophy: "spiritual" science.
But, as you say, it's unlikely that "spiritual science" will produce a
definition of Anthroposophy as clear as those that science provides for our
understanding of the Universe.
And, of course, you will have to stop reminding the "Anthroposophical
Scientists" found on the A-S list of their shonky practices, as you see
them demonstrated in the work of the likes of Ralph Marinelli, the
[re-]discoverer of "levity", or anti-gravity.
)JM:
))Granted, anthroposophy is very individualistic with little structure which
))would require a certain practice on the part of an anthroposophist. But
))this does not mean it is not religious. Anthroposophy fits nicely into the
))New Age movement, which also puts an emphasis upon an individualized,
))eclectic spirituality with little or no ritual, yet this is surely
))religious in nature, as recognized by New Age adherents and scholars of
))religion.
)
)ST:
)I dispute that anthroposophy fits into the New Age movement; ISTR others
)(Tarjei? Sune?) have recently gone into detail about this, so I'll not
)do so here.
KOPP:
I'll agree that there's nothing "new" about Anthroposphy; it's medieval,
pre-enlightenment. Steiner added nothing except his own hagiography and
rehashing of the "old-age" mystical, esoteric, occultisms.
But that doesn't stop it from being enthusiastically adopted by many people
who identify themselves as "New-Agers". And it doesn't stop external
observers from noting that Anthroposophy and its educational arm are
playing to this "New-Age" mentality and nebulous world-view for all they're
worth.
This is certainly reinforced by the recent appearance of small
advertisements for Anthroposophy and Waldorf (as well as Anthropospohical
medicine and Weleda and biodynamic agriculture) in the backs of pupular
women's weekly magazines, and the like, along with ads for all the other
promises of uncertain provenance and rationality.
"New-Agers" eat this stuff up, uncritically (critical thinking having been
weened out of education, including Waldorf education). And they will eat up
Anthroposophy as well, as indicated by some people on this list.
)ST:
))
)))I am certainly prepared to concede that it meets *some* of the criteria
)))of the definitions. The problem is that so does soccer! (Which some
)))people would argue *does* have the status of religion on the terraces
)))(g)).
)
)JM:
))Just how does soccer meet these definitions?
)
)ST:
)E.g. adherence to a set of beliefs and rituals. As one team manager
)famously said, "This game isn't a matter of life and death -- it's much
)more important than that."
)
)JM:
))And if you would hesitate to
))define anthroposophy as a religion would you consider it a spirituality
))then? A spiritual or religious philosophy is still religious in nature, no
))matter how you slice it.
)
)ST:
)Do I take it you are arguing that anything that has a religious nature
)is a religion? The direct answer to your direct question is that I
)consider it to be a spiritual philosophy (which, I submit, is distinct
)from a religion).
KOPP:
Yes. Anything religious is a religion. Anything spiritual is religious.
You are using more of what Bob Jones calls "Humpty Dumpty" language,
Stephen. If a philosophy is "spiritual" then it is religious, in my
opinion.
My definition of "religion" subsumes "religious"; they are inseparable.
My definition of "religion" is "anything that treats of spiritual or
supernatural matters". Broad, sweeping, all-inclusive of everything outside
rational, "materialistic" scientific reality.
Most of what was "supernatural" in the dim, ancient past has been brought
under the umbrella of rational science. Some enclaves of belief in things
not in evidence (including scientific theories, if you insist) fit this
definition.
Perhaps someday the etheric spirits of Steiner will be seen to be some
natural phenomenon. Perhaps someday the gods of various religions will be
seen to be some naturally-occuring life form which has achieved a greater
mastery of science than we poor Earthlings (I doubt this, but I read a lot
of science fiction -- a large formative influence. I suppose Stephen will
now say this is my "religion" (G).).
Perhaps I will be proved wrong and burn in hell. At least then I'll have
some evidence. OTOH, if I'm reincarnated, I'll never know. Most likely,
I'll die ... and that will be that.
Sure, I'm interested in the ultimate questions of the Universe. And I'm
surprised that even Stephen Hawking says to know the answer would be "to
know the mind of God". Or was he just having a little joke at our expense?
-------------------------
End of part one.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1220.2 ---------------
From: BruceyJ aol.com
Subject: Re: Apology for misdirected private correspondence
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 07:13:10 EDT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In einer eMail vom 13.04.99 03:05:06 (MEZ) - Mitteleurop. Sommerzeit schreibt
mkopp xtra.co.nz:
) At least now those who have been asking what "Godzone" means will now know
At last! Thanks
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1220.3 ---------------
From: BruceyJ aol.com
Subject: Re: Projective Geometry
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 07:13:12 EDT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In einer eMail vom 13.04.99 03:46:48 (MEZ) - Mitteleurop. Sommerzeit schreibt
dan dandugan.com:
)
) Just today I ran across Steiner being called a 'scientist' on the AWSNA web
) site. This is total bullshit.
CORRECTION:
Dan Dugan thinks that this is total bullshit!
I (Bruce) do not believe that it is total bullshit at all, and for that
matter I am sure that there are more who share my view than there are who
share Dan's. Why?
Steiner wanted to become a teacher, so he attended University in order that
he could teach the sciences later. He studied biology, chemistry, physics and
mathematics. Having obtained his degree he went on to obtain his doctorate in
Philosophy.
If that doesn't qualify one to be called a scientist, Dan, then I would be
interested to hear what you think DOES!?
Bruce
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1220.4 ---------------
From: BruceyJ aol.com
Subject: Scientific Evidence for Crop Circles (was...)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 07:12:56 EDT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Michael Ronnall:
) )But first we have to make sure that you're in a "Waldorf" circle -- which
) )is like a crop circle, only that it's got lots of funny angles. /MRx
Michael Kopp:
) Well, there are similarities.
)
) Believers in both ascribe their creation to extra-terrestrial, often
) supernatural powers.
)
) Yet both are natural phenomena that are completely understandable in terms
) of human psychology and self-delusion and trickery.
I would like to see your explanation for the above assertion, Michael (Kopp)!
I have followed all the threads on crop-circles with an open mind and I am
FAR from convinced that there is an acceptable scientific explanation. With
the help of spiritual science then maybe.... but I guess you are excluding
that?!
Bruce
PS Sometimes I think that you have switched emails from me off - you have
"refused" to answer even private emails!
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1220.5 ---------------
From: BruceyJ aol.com
Subject: Re: Roy Wilkinson and the "How-To" Books
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 07:13:21 EDT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Robert Flannery wrote (to me):
) )If reading Wilkinson makes you think (especially if it makes you think of
) )alternatives), it's effective enough. That said, I find these particular
) )books to be the most dangerous guides on the market because the boundary
) )between anthroposophy and lesson plan is quite blurry.
Stephen responded:
) IMHO it's not blurry, it's absent. I don't like them and don't use them.
I agree with Stephen - I don't "use" them in that sense either! There are
many good books in German. FOr those who cannot follow me, a comparison would
be baking a cake. Some cooks would go to a cook-book and do everything
exactly as "prescribed" in the recipe (prescription and recipe are the same
in German). They produce a fantastic cake, as thousands had doutless before
them. I read cook books and recipes in magazines for ideas. I might make a
few notes. Then, maybe months later, I bake a cake. MOSTLY it works, and it
is NEVER the same as anyone elses. I have to disappoint when asked for my
recipes!! My teaching is SIMILAR. If I used the same "recipe" each time, even
if it is a good one, then the product is dry and boring.
I use MY sense of judgement to determine what is good, no-one elses.
Bruce
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1220.6 ---------------
From: BruceyJ aol.com
Subject: Re: Roy Wilkinson and the "How-To" Books
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 07:13:19 EDT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In einer eMail vom 13.04.99 06:45:16 (MEZ) - Mitteleurop. Sommerzeit schreibt
mkopp xtra.co.nz:
) Robert Flannery says:
)
) )Bruce writes:
) )
) ))There are many who write books and publish them themselves (well many is
) ))maybe an exagerration), and those wanting to glean things from them can
) ))and
) ))do. As I know Roy it is easier to see what he meant, but in some sense
) ))almost
) ))anything tends to become dogmatic when it is written down. I like reading
) ))Wilkinson to make me think! The best books and lectures, for me at least,
) ))are
) ))those where one comes away with more "question" than "answer".
) )
) FLANNERY:
)
) )The "how-to" books can be relied on for a lesson in a pinch.
) )Consequently, every teacher who falls back on such a crutch has missed an
) )opportunity to work the material through for themselves. Under such
) )conditions, Wilkinson's books promote dogmatic behavior and thinking
(apart
) )from any consideration of the quality of his suggestions).
) )
) )If reading Wilkinson makes you think (especially if it makes you think of
) )alternatives), it's effective enough. That said, I find these particular
) )books to be the most dangerous guides on the market because the boundary
) )between anthroposophy and lesson plan is quite blurry.
) )
) )Given the wide circulation of these titles, I'm amazed that more examples
) )of miseducation of the type described by Micheal Kopp and Dan Dugan aren't
) )in evidence. I strongly suspect that most waldorf teachers recognize this
) )material for what it is, as well as what it isn't.
)
) KOPP:
)
) How would you know what's "in evidence"? Where are the studies?
Bruce:
WHY must there be a STUDY for everything? Do you have so little faith in your
own powers of reasoning that you always have to seek out a STUDY first?
Bruce
PS I think that you have GOOD powers of reasoning!! Why don't you use them
and not always rely on other peoples?
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1220.7 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: R. Flannery's debating technique (Was: Re: Roy Wilkinson and the
"How-To" Books)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 23:54:23 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199904130411.VAA23392 lists1.best.com)
(199904130151.SAA24553 lists1.best.com)
(199904122249.PAA29137 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904131014.DAA15317 lists1.best.com)
Robert Flannery on Michael Kopp:
MK:
))As a journalist, I don't trade in gossip.
)
RF:
)(snip innuendo and gossip)
KOPP:
Reporting the nature of some of the anecdotal evidence I have heard, but
not confirmed -- and pointing out that it's unconfirmed hearsay -- hardly
seems like innuendo or gossip.
[snip]
RF: [later in a long post]
)It's a fine thing that you don't engage directly in promoting innuendo and
)gossip on the list, Michael.
KOPP:
?????
I suppose I should be grateful for Flannery contradicting himself, but, of
course, he had to have the last word and accuse me of even worse [snipped].
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1220.8 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 14:53:11 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (199904130647.XAA06359 lists1.best.com)
(199904120153.SAA00786 lists1.best.com)
(199904112103.OAA11017 lists1.best.com)
(199904101605.JAA16177 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904130811.BAA22656 lists1.best.com)
Michael Kopp wroteÿ
)But I've spent about eight years of my life working on it, Tarjei, which is
)how long ago I started to look at enrolling my kids in an alternative to
)the public school system they were then in.
If your nonsense about uniform anthroposophical conformity is the result of
eight years of research, your lack of objectivity must have interfered with
your work.
)
)But, please, can you tell me where the alternative sects of the
)Anthroposphical Society are located? What are there names? Who are their
)leaders?
This would be better commented by someone on eht list who is a current
member of the Anthroposophical Society, but to the best of mu knowledge,
the organization in question does not have any sects. It has administrative
branches, because all it does is distribute newsletters, coordinate
contacts, and arrange theater events and things like that.
)
)Or is there another offshoot of Anthroposophy that has formed a new society
)by another name, because it has rejected Steiner's teaching?
If a group or an organization rejects Steiner's teachings, it has no
interest in anthroposophy.
)
)Can you tell me, please, where is the discussion list on the internet for
)"Anthroposophical Science" which rejects Goethean Science as its basis, and
)instead chooses "materialistic science" to the exclusion of all other
)spiritual mumbo jumbo?
What do you need that kind of nonsense for?
)
)Can you tell me where there is a Waldorf school that has, for instance,
)eschewed -- nay, banned -- Goethean phenomenology and the "four elements"
)in the teaching of science? That might have been a school to which I could
)have sent my children, because it would have indicated a certain
)rationality which is missing in every other
Ask the teachers. I know very little about schools.
)
)From the look of the availble evidence on the Internet and in my neck of
)the woods (which has a national Anthroposophical Society which is
)associated with the Federation of Rudolf Steiner Schools in New Zealand,
)which is the body which runs the Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophical teachers'
)training seminary, and is involved in the financing of SWA school in this
)country, and their pedagogy) there is no such schism anywhere in the world
)that meets the definition of the word.
The schism you are looking for would involve a party very hostile to
anthroposophy itself. You are looking for a branch of anthroposophy that
harmonizes with your anti-spiritual views. Good luck with your search.
)
)Sure, you Anthropops _love_ internecine warfare among yourselves, and some
)even become apostates. But none of the apostates has formed an alternative
)sect, that I'm aware of. You'd think that such an event would be big enough
)news to be made known on a discussion list like this one, in the 3-1/2
)years I've been here. Can you point me at one, please, Tarjei?
Schisms can exist within a movement or an organization without forming all
kinds of separate sects. But all the internal disputes would be mumbo jumbo
to you anyway, so there is no wonder that your conclusions were so
uninformed.
)It's certainly the case that studying _Anthroposophy_ as a subject is very
)difficult for a person who is a lifetime skeptic, and who has no desire to
)give up that trait just to understand, from the point of view of an
)apprentice or whatever, which is the only way Anthroposophists believe it
)can be studied, what looks from the outside like mumbo jumbo.
And that is what it will always look like to you - mumbo jumbo and nothing
else.
)I was not popular at the few study group meetings I attended at our former
))Steiner school (but then, I'm not popular with a lot of people of whom I
)ask )blunt questions, such as the Anthroposophists and their apologists on
)this )list).
An anthroposophical study group consists of people who are genuinely drawn
to anthroposophy and who wish to learn from it. If someone in such a group
keeps attacking and scorning it, he or she is slowing down those who desire
to learn and grow.
)
)However, as a journalist and observer of human affairs, I think it is
)possible to get some idea of the nature of Anthroposophy as a practice of
)people who run schools and try to inject their philosophy into existing
)public schools.
I agree in theory, but the bitter venom that taints every word you write
about Anthroposophy makes it very difficult for the objective reader to
discern that idea.
)
)As a parent who spent five years getting children into and out of a Steiner
)school -- a difficult process as I have described here previously -- and a
)fairly intelligent person who has tried to follow the discourse between
)better critics than myself and a variety of Anthropops and apologists here,
)and reading the quotes from Steiner and his followers _from both sides_, I
)think I have a pretty good idea of what I was duped by and then shunned
)when I learnt its weirdness.
I would say that anyone who swallows all your posts to this list without
question, would be as least as duped by you as you were by the Waldorf
school.
)
)If I have not invesgitated Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy to a degree
)which you find acceptable, Tarjei, then I apologise for wasting your time
)all these months of trying to get you to speak plainly.
Haven't I been plain and straight forward? Haven't I answered all questions
asked me as best I could?
)
)However, I don't think I will let an Anthroposophy apologist (or an
)"anarchosophist", for that matter) determine for me or others whether I
)have experienced enough, or learned enough, to make judgements about SWA.
Fine, but that entails that your judgements will be regarded as spurious.
)
)I may not know what I'm talking about, from your point of view. From my
)point of view, if you DO know what you're talking about, you don't make it
)very comprehensible in the language I grew up with.
)
)Perhaps you want me to learn another, special, Anthroposophical language,
)like you seem to believe exists in terms of Anthroposophical logic, as you
)posted recently: "In the first place, comprehension of divine-spiritual
)truth requires a higher logic, an extra-rational logic".
)
)Every other religion, every other subject I have ever studied, has been
)comprehensible in terms of the language (and that means the thought
)processes, because the two are inseparable) I was taught.
If anthroposophy is mumbo jumbo to you because you find the language hard
to comprehend, that's fine. It's your hostility I'm getting at, and how
this hostility appears to affect your judgements. Almost everything you
write about anthroposophy is spiced with polemics.
(snip)
Cheers
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism, Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality, death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1220.9 ---------------
From: Neil Faiman (faiman zko.dec.com)
Subject: Inconclusive evidence
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 09:24:32 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Stephen Tonkin wrote:
)Do you mean the teachers who do teach anthroposophy in the classroom?
)This aspect has been addressed adequately by Robert Flannery and I
)have nothing to add other than that I am in full agreement with him
)that it is wrong.
and Michael Kopp replied:
)You and Flannery may say you think it is wrong. (This could be
)dissembling, if we were of a frame of mind to believe in conspiracy
)theories.)
)
)But the evidence of the personal experience of almost every critic on
)this list (certainly all those who either had children in an SWA
)school or were involved in one in another way, such as Kathy Sutphen)
)is that it IS highly prevalent.
Let us also recall that the evidence of the personal experience of
almost
every NON-critic on this list is consistent with the assertions of
Robert Flannery and Stephen Tonkin.
If, in Waldorf Education, there were "good apples" and "bad apples,"
one
would expect that the bad apples would lead to dissatisfied parents,
some of whom would be led to become vocal critics. Similarly, the good
apples would lead to satisfied parents, some of whom would be led to
become vocal supporters. The evidence of this list appears to be
entirely consistent with this hypothesis.
Of course, the evidence, which is almost entirely based on extremely
localized personal experience, is consistent both with a model in which
the bad apples are the aberrations and with a model in which the good
apples are the aberrations. (My personal guess is that the experience
and evidence of the supporters, who will tend to have plenty of
contacts
and connections within the wider circles of Waldorf Education, is
probably more broader and more representative than the experience and
evidence of the critics, who have, of course, chosen to separate
themselves from Waldorf Education and become outside observers. Your
personal guess will probably differ.)
Regards,
Neil Faiman (satisfied ex-Waldorf parent)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1220.10 ---------------
From: Michael Hirsch (hirsch mathcs.emory.edu)
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 09:51:52 -0400 (EDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199904101605.JAA16177 lists1.best.com)
(199904121924.MAA28609 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (34338927 toto.iv)
Tarjei Straume writes:
) Dan Dugan wrote:
)
) )Knocking people for being "at odds with Darwinism"? How about Steiner?
)
) My post with the excerpt from "The Fifth Gospel" should provide a glimpse
) of Steiner's view on Darwinism.
)
) There is an interesting remark about Darwin in this lecture. He says:
)
) "Anyone who understands the doctrines of Darwin and Haeckel and is
) himself convinced that only as a Christian movement was the Darwinian
) movement possible (Haeckel had no notion of this, but Darwin was aware of
) many things)..."
I'd like to hear the end of this sentence. It is all hypothesis
without conclusion. I would have finished the sentence with "...is
badly mistaken." How did Steiner finish it?
) This reminds me of a story I heard from an entirely different quarter:
) Charles Darwin kept working on his theory of evolution throughout his long
) life, and when he died, there were stacks of unpublished manuscripts at his
) residence. These manuscripts involved reincarnation and spiritual evolution
) very similar to theosophy and anthroposophy. But when the arrangements were
) being made for Darwin's funeral, the clergy from the Church of England, who
) had been informed about what kind of ideas the old man might publish some
) day, conveniently stole the unpublished manuscripts from the estate and
) destroyed them. If Darwinism had been given a spiritual direction by Darwin
) himself, it would have been too much of a threat to the church, which still
) excercised considerable influence over the spiritual life of the population.
This sounds very unlikely to me.
) I haven't found a confirmation of this story, but whether it is true or
) not, it illustrates the course of Darwin's thoughts and the attitude of the
) church.
Or it illustrates the mindset of anti-Darwinists. It only illustrates
Darwin's thoughts if it is a true story, and I doubt it is.
) Ernst Haeckel was a personal friend of Rudolf Steiner. They discussed
) biological evolution, but Haeckel was not capable of grasping the idea of
) the spirit behind this evolution. Still, Steiner and Haeckel were always
) the best of friends with mutual respect and admiration. But precisely
) because Haeckel could grasp evolution only in the the physical-material
) sense, Steiner says about the Christ Impulse in Darwinism: "Haeckel had no
) notion of this, but Darwin was aware of many things..."
To say "Haeckel could only grasp evolution only in the the
physical-material sense" is to say Haeckel could grasp Evolution. If
Steiner finds spirituality in evolution it is because he doesn't grasp
it.
) Darwinism has in many ways stagnated in the hands of his followers, waiting
) to be awakened like a sleeping wolf.
Examples, please? The last couple decades have seen great growth and
changes in our understanding of evolution.
) But if Steiner was right about
) spiritual evolution, about the Christ Idea in the course of history, and
) the true nature of Darwinism, the students in American public schools may
) begin to ask some embarrassing New Age questions - even with no help from
) Waldorf, anthroposophy, or New Age religion. They may start asking about
) reincarnation in biology class, perhaps also about Christ. And the public
) schools will have start disciplining and dismissing students for
) inappropriate behavior, for violating the constitutional amendment for the
) separation of church and state.
But then if he was wrong we won't. What exactly is your point?
--Michael
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1220 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1221 --------------
001 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: Apology for misdirected private correspondence
002 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: Projective Geometry
003 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: Roy Wilkinson and the "How-To" Books
004 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n1217
005 - Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis - Applying pedagogical indications
006 - Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis - Re: Defining Religion; Including Anthroposophy (1 of 2)
007 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: Roy Wilkinson and the "How-To" Books
008 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Admin: don't post long Steiner quotes
009 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Ant
010 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - Re: Admin: don't post long Steiner quotes
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1221.1 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Apology for misdirected private correspondence
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 02:08:13 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199904131115.EAA12033 lists1.best.com)
BruceyJ says:
)In einer eMail vom 13.04.99 03:05:06 (MEZ) - Mitteleurop. Sommerzeit
)schreibt
)mkopp xtra.co.nz:
)
)) At least now those who have been asking what "Godzone" means will now
))know
)
)At last! Thanks
KOPP:
I've explained it previously; I guess you weren't here yet, or were
somewhere else that day ...
BJ: [in another message]
))PS Sometimes I think that you have switched emails from me off - you have
))"refused" to answer even private emails!
KOPP:
See, I don't ignore your emails. Your private ones take longer because I'm
pretty busy with the 10-1 ratio of posts from your Anthropop buddies on the
list. I'll get back to you soon.
Michael Kopp
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1221.2 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Projective Geometry
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 02:13:24 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199904131115.EAA12100 lists1.best.com)
BruceyJ responds to Dan Dugan:
)In einer eMail vom 13.04.99 03:46:48 (MEZ) - Mitteleurop. Sommerzeit
)schreibt
)dan dandugan.com:
)
))
)) Just today I ran across Steiner being called a 'scientist' on the AWSNA
))web
)) site. This is total bullshit.
)
)CORRECTION:
)
)Dan Dugan thinks that this is total bullshit!
)
)I (Bruce) do not believe that it is total bullshit at all, and for that
)matter I am sure that there are more who share my view than there are who
)share Dan's. Why?
)
)Steiner wanted to become a teacher, so he attended University in order
)that
)he could teach the sciences later. He studied biology, chemistry, physics
)and
)mathematics. Having obtained his degree he went on to obtain his doctorate
)in
)Philosophy.
)
)If that doesn't qualify one to be called a scientist, Dan, then I would be
)interested to hear what you think DOES!?
)
)Bruce
Michael KOPP:
Use of the rational, "materialistic" (to its detractors, like Steiner)
scientific method, in a consistent, replicable, way to deal with the
material world, instead of invention of a completely weird and
pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo and calling IT a science, but dealing with
the supernatural world, as Steiner did.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1221.3 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Roy Wilkinson and the "How-To" Books
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 02:21:31 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199904131115.EAA12278 lists1.best.com)
BruceyJ writes:
)In einer eMail vom 13.04.99 06:45:16 (MEZ) - Mitteleurop. Sommerzeit
)schreibt
)mkopp xtra.co.nz:
)
)) KOPP: [to Robert Flannery]
))
)) How would you know what's "in evidence"? Where are the studies?
)
)Bruce:
)WHY must there be a STUDY for everything? Do you have so little faith in
)your
)own powers of reasoning that you always have to seek out a STUDY first?
KOPP:
Because reasoning is based on evidence in my rational, materialistic
world-view.
In Steiner's, it's based solely on introspection which is supposed to lead
one to "higher worlds" of knowledge.
Unfortunately, I am not capable of using Steiner's method, because I start
with the fact that there is no evidence (to me) of a "supersensible", or
spiritual, world for me to gain access to.
It's a bit of a chicken and egg problem, you see. I can't know the higher
worlds until I learn how to use Steiner's "spiritual science", but I can't
learn how to use Steiner's "spiritual science" without first believing that
there are higher realms for me to use the "spirtual science" to discover.
)Bruce
)PS I think that you have GOOD powers of reasoning!! Why don't you use them
)and not always rely on other peoples?
KOPP:
Well, thanks for that. But I don't rely on other people's reasoning alone;
I rely on their evidence. Steiner has provided no evidence.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1221.4 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n1217
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 10:34:15 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
) -----Original Message-----
) From: njpmail mindspring.com [mailto:njpmail mindspring.com]
)
) )To contribute to answering your question about the appropriateness of
) )Waldorf education for Jewish children,
)
) It's not really a question for me at this point. My opinion
) is that it is
) inappropriate for Jewish children.
)
Since, in another post, you qualified the definition of "Jewish" by
referring to different types of relationship to the religion, I was
wondering if your opinion extends to *all* classifications of Jewish
children or only to some classifications.
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1221.5 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Applying pedagogical indications
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 15:58:44 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Michael Kopp asked:
)Stephen, could you please devote an entire post to your understanding of
)the word "indications" and its application to your teaching?
I'm going to try to keep this short by giving a specific example. For
the teaching of Class (grade) 7 History, Steiner is reported to have
said. My comments are in square brackets:
"In the seventh class the main thing will be to make really
comprehensible to the children the kind of life mankind evolved in the
15th century [i.e. after the end of the mediaeval period], and to
describe European and extra-European conditions up to the beginning of
the seventeenth century." [quoted in Karl Stockmeyer's _Rudolf Steiner's
Curriculum for Waldorf Schools_, the only curriculum reference I bother
to use nowadays.]
So, what does that mean? 15th and 16th century Europe and nothing else?
I think not. I think he means that at this age one should be looking at
what *characterises* European history at this time and attempt to give
the pupils a picture of this. I also try to heed the old adage that
those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Three
important aspects come to mind:
* The Reformation (Luther, etc.) -- throwing off the corruption of the
Roman Catholic Church and striving to find a "purer" belief system. This
can lead to discussions of the nature and validity (or otherwise) of a
religious worldview. Anyone who has taught children of this age will
know that they are often rebelling against organised religion (and a
heck of a lot else too!) and it is well-nigh impossible to impose any
belief on them (should one be sufficiently foolish or misguided to try);
one of my aims is to sow the seeds of realisation that the choice of
"which" and "whether" where personal belief is concerned is ultimately
an individual one and cannot be dictated from above (whether "above"
means parent, teacher, government, or a postulated supreme being).
* The Voyages of Discovery -- I think this characterises a seeking
outside the confines in which one has been nurtured, the adventuring,
enquiring nature of the human spirit (sorry if you don't believe in
spirit). I have found that the tales of the early Portuguese explorers
and the eventual finding of a sea-route to the Indies are something that
"grabs" children of this age. I believe that there is a lesson for
everyone in that the only real impediment to reaching the "Cape of
Storms" was the failure of courage. This can lead to discussion of life-
obstacles and how we overcome them.
* The beginnings of the Rise of Natural Science. Here we have the
triumph of human reason and careful observation over religious dogma and
superstition. A difficulty is enabling modern children to feel what it
must have been like before this revolution in picturing the world, a
picture which they now take for granted. Children of this age are often
spontaneously interested in environmental issues of one form or another,
and it is interesting to discuss what, in that context, constitutes the
modern-day equivalent of religious dogma and superstition. (Yes,
Michael, I know you think that anthroposophy adequately fulfils that
role. (g))
Of course this approach does not cover all of European history of the
15th and 16th centuries -- it's not intended to, and I don't think it
possible to do so in the time allowed without being superficial. There
are many other tangents one could pursue within this (e.g. Tudor
England, Shakespeare, the effect of gunpowder on warfare, the effect of
the advent of printing on society, etc., etc.) I tend to leave those for
individual project work. As a teacher I feel my duty is to attempt to
distil out those bits which may aid the development of the young people
whose education is entrusted to me. (My God, that sounds pompous! -- but
I cant think of a better way to state it.) I don't claim I always manage
to fulfil this duty, but it's exciting to try -- it also, I think, helps
to counter one of the things which bored me rigid about history when I
was an adolescent: in the way it was presented it was irrelevant to me.
This is only one, essentially very European, interpretation of what
Steiner indicated; I know that if I was teaching in Africa or the
Americas I would try to find examples out of the local history. What I
have tried to do is find something which is relevant, *now*, to the
youngsters I am teaching.
OK Michael? You can start deconstructing it now. (g).
Noctis Gaudia Carpe,
Stephen
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829) | (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk) +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1221.6 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Defining Religion; Including Anthroposophy (1 of 2)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 14:48:06 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: (199904122323.QAA24442 lists1.best.com)
(199904100235.TAA01036 lists1.best.com)
(199904100235.TAA01036 lists1.best.com)
(199904120833.BAA03716 lists1.best.com)
(199904122323.QAA24442 lists1.best.com)
(199904130757.AAA15739 lists1.best.com)
(199904131041.DAA28897 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904131041.DAA28897 lists1.best.com)
Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz) wrote:
)John Morehead and Stephen Tonkin are discussing whether Anthroposophy is a
)religion (this is part one of two parts kept small for e-mail limits):
I intend to be brief, so I'll put them back together.
))ST:
))OK -- I'll concede that one. But if one believes those things, does that
))make one an anthroposophist? I believed them before I discovered
))anthroposophy, so I have never considered them to be specific tenets of
))anthroposophy.
)
)KOPP:
)
)I'm tempted to say your argument is persuasive that Stephen Tonkin has
)invented a religion. And it's nice to have a clearer picture of what you,
)personally, believe. However ...
)
)This seems like bad logic to me, Stephen. The fact that A and B existed
)simultaneously and unaware of each other, does not mean that after A and B
)become aware of their mutuality they necessarily retain their duality and
)separatism, even if A wishes it so.
I take, and concede, your point. However, I'd still like to know what it
is that makes belief in those things anthroposophy, since each of them
is found in other spiritual belief systems.
)(And would you please stop being cute
)with the small "a".)
I am being grammatically (and pedantically?) correct.
))ST:
))A nature table is an anthroposophical rite? We had them when I was a kid
))in my (Rhodesian government) kindergarten -- if that was a Waldorf
))school, my nose is a kipper!
)
)KOPP:
)
)Stephen, did your childhood nature tables have candles on them,
No that I recall (but it was over 40 years ago).
)Were the things that you put on the
)table suggested by your lessons to be of certain classes relevant to
)unscientific things you were being taught about nature in your classroom,
)such as the relationship between plant form and human form?
My current nature table has a plant (heather -- it is tolerant of my
plant-care (in)abilities) 3 rocks (one igneous, one sedimentary and one
metamorphic) and the ubiquitous candle on it.
)ST:
))The House of Commons (UK Parliament) has daily prayers; the Church
))associated with it (Church of England) has rituals. Does that make Her
))Majesty's Government a religion?
)
)KOPP:
)
)Stephen, remember saying a few posts back that you actually thought rather
)more of the U.S. political system than your own, peculiarly English (c.q.)
)one?
Indeed I do.
)
)I'm sure that despite this Anglophobia, you know that the answer is that
)Her Majesty's Government IS a religion?
If HMG is a religion, then so is anthroposophy! (g)
))ST:
))Perhaps I am seeking the impossible: a definition which is akin to the
))sort of thing I meet in science.
)
)KOPP:
)
)You're obviously still too much under the influence of "materialistic"
)science, and need to study much harder, and embrace much more determinedly,
)the only thing which proves Anthroposophy: "spiritual" science.
)
)But, as you say, it's unlikely that "spiritual science" will produce a
)definition of Anthroposophy as clear as those that science provides for our
)understanding of the Universe.
You misunderstand me (I think) -- what I seek is a "materialistic"
science definition of religion.
)KOPP:
)
)I'll agree that there's nothing "new" about Anthroposphy; it's medieval,
)pre-enlightenment. Steiner added nothing except his own hagiography and
)rehashing of the "old-age" mystical, esoteric, occultisms.
)
)But that doesn't stop it from being enthusiastically adopted by many people
)who identify themselves as "New-Agers".
Yes, but some of the S^HNew-Agers also enthusiastically adopt happy-
clappy Christianity; does that make Christianity (happy-clappy or
otherwise) a New-Age religion?
)This is certainly reinforced by the recent appearance of small
)advertisements for Anthroposophy and Waldorf (as well as Anthropospohical
)medicine and Weleda and biodynamic agriculture) in the backs of pupular
)women's weekly magazines, and the like, along with ads for all the other
)promises of uncertain provenance and rationality.
I've not seen these, but then I don't read that sort of mag. BTW,
"pupular" is cute, but perhaps "papular" would be more accurately
descriptive? (g)
)
)"New-Agers" eat this stuff up, uncritically (critical thinking having been
)weened out of education, including Waldorf education). And they will eat up
)Anthroposophy as well, as indicated by some people on this list.
My experience is that they generally tire of anthroposophy, because it
doesn't endorse the Newage hunger for freedom without responsibility.
)KOPP:
)
)Yes. Anything religious is a religion. Anything spiritual is religious.
If those premises are true, then the logical conclusion is that anything
spiritual is a religion. If religion is defined as "anything spiritual"
then yes, according to that definition anthroposophy is a religion. John
Morehead, do you agree with that definition?
)KOPP:
)
)I don't believe, based on the quoting of Steiner and his successors and
)interpreters and devotees and defenders and believers -- and critics --
)here on this list for the last 3-1/2 years, that Steiner's exhortations
)regarding religious practices by teachers ARE confined to "religion
)lessons".
No, I don't believe that they are, but I believe that they can and
should be, and that in many cases they are.
))ST:
))It wouldn't be the first time -- but I also submit that a large (and
))growing? majority?) number of Waldorf teachers share my view on this.
)
)KOPP:
)
)How do you know this, Stephen?
OK -- I could have been more careful in my wording -- how about "I
believe that the majority of Waldorf teachers I know share my view on
this"?
)What about the new Web-based "Anthroposophy
)Network"'s teachers' Web discussion area (which refused me entry because I
)am not a Waldorf teacher.
I don't know that one. URL?
)I would submit that it's likely to be just the opposite, based on the
)reports of Kathy Sutphen of her Anthrposophical teacher training, and other
)reports.
I don't for one moment claim that all share my view, I put a question
mark after "majority", and I am aware that others have different
experiences. I certainly cannot speak for what happens in the US, never
having been there.
)KOPP:
)
)Stephen, could you please devote an entire post to your understanding of
)the word "indications" and its application to your teaching?
We'll see -- it'll be necessarily brief -- term starts the day after
tomorrow and I'll be up to my eyeballs in things which detract from
participation in this list.
)
)As you know, most critics believe this is just another one of Steiner's
)"guru tricks",
Yes, I do know this -- I disagree, however.
MK on teaching religious views in all lessons:
)There is no reason to believe otherwise, as Steiner's "indications" were
)that it should be there (in more than "religion" lessons).
)
I'm still not convinced that this is what he did indicate. I agree that
he indicated that it should be there for the teacher during preparation
and delivery, but not that it should be delivered.
Noctis Gaudia Carpe,
Stephen
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829) | (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk) +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1221.7 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: Roy Wilkinson and the "How-To" Books
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 11:11:16 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
) -----Original Message-----
) From: Michael Kopp [mailto:mkopp xtra.co.nz]
) FLANNERY:
)
) )Given the wide circulation of these titles, I'm amazed that
) more examples
) )of miseducation of the type described by Micheal Kopp and
) Dan Dugan aren't
) )in evidence. I strongly suspect that most waldorf teachers
) recognize this
) )material for what it is, as well as what it isn't.
)
) KOPP:
)
) How would you know what's "in evidence"? Where are the studies?
)
) It perturbs me that I and the group of people who are most critical of
) Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy (SWA) on this list are the
) only ones who
) seem to offer much "evidence".
)
) But it doesn't surprise me in the least.
)
) People don't like to hang out their bad experiences with such
) things to dry
) on the washing line of a mailing list like this (or any other
) public forum)
) because they inevitably become the subjects of gossip, at the
) least, and
) attack, at the worst.
[Bob Tolz, not Robert Flannery]:
Michael, you are ignoring a qutie plausible explanation which has
been proffered on this list from time to time, which is that the experiences
of the WC's is not the norm, and that the WC's have been over-generalizing.
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1221.8 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Admin: don't post long Steiner quotes
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 02:08:40 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199904121515.IAA04136 lists1.best.com)
Tarjei, please don't use up everybody's space with long quotations. Please
provide URL's so readers may access the text if they wish.
-Dan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1221.9 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 19:37:32 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (34338927 toto.iv) (199904101605.JAA16177 lists1.best.com)
(199904121924.MAA28609 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904131353.GAA15841 lists1.best.com)
Michael Hirsch wrote:
)I'd like to hear the end of this sentence. It is all hypothesis
)without conclusion. I would have finished the sentence with "...is
)badly mistaken." How did Steiner finish it?
It was a teaser from the excerpt in the other post, where you find: "Anyone
who understands the doctrines of Darwin and Haeckel and ishimself convinced
that only as a Christian movement was the Darwinianmovement possible
(Haeckel had no notion of this, but Darwin was aware ofmany things) -
anyone who realises this is led by an absolutely consistent path to the
idea of reincarnation.\"
(snip)
)To say "Haeckel could only grasp evolution only in the the
)physical-material sense" is to say Haeckel could grasp Evolution. If
)Steiner finds spirituality in evolution it is because he doesn't grasp
)it.
So only materialists understand evolution, and atheists have a monolopy on
the science of cosmogenesis.
)
)) Darwinism has in many ways stagnated in the hands of his followers, waiting
)) to be awakened like a sleeping wolf.
)
)Examples, please?
Your inability to appreciate that because man is body soul, and spirit, the
latter permeates all of nature and is the active force behind its coming
into existence, - is a classic example of what I was getting at.
The last couple decades have seen great growth and
)changes in our understanding of evolution.
Evolutionary theory is still very much confined by the chains of materialism.
)
)) But if Steiner was right about
)) spiritual evolution, about the Christ Idea in the course of history, and
)) the true nature of Darwinism, the students in American public schools may
)) begin to ask some embarrassing New Age questions - even with no help from
)) Waldorf, anthroposophy, or New Age religion. They may start asking about
)) reincarnation in biology class, perhaps also about Christ. And the public
)) schools will have start disciplining and dismissing students for
)) inappropriate behavior, for violating the constitutional amendment for the
)) separation of church and state.
)
)But then if he was wrong we won't. What exactly is your point?
Because you can grasp evolution and I can't, you know there are no
spiritual elements in history. I was referring to some "mumbo jumbo" that
you cannot grasp. If you understood what I meant, you would not grasp
evolution if your premise is correct.
Cheers
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism, Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality, death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1221.10 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: Re: Admin: don't post long Steiner quotes
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 19:49:25 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (199904121515.IAA04136 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904131619.JAA28455 lists1.best.com)
)Tarjei, please don't use up everybody's space with long quotations. Please
)provide URL's so readers may access the text if they wish.
The text I quoted was not on the web. And my post was half the size of TWO
recent posts by Michael Kopp. If you had addressed your admonition to
everybody, I wouldn't need to respond with my 2¢ here.
Tarjei
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism, Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality, death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1221 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1222 --------------
001 - BruceyJ aol.com - Re: Projective Geometry
002 - John & Wendy Morehead (mo - Re: my introduction
003 - John & Wendy Morehead (mo - Re: PRIVATE -- SUGGESTION Re: my introduction
004 - Bob Jones (b2251 yahoo.co - Re: PRIVATE -- SUGGESTION Re: my introduction
005 - John & Wendy Morehead (mo - Re: Defining Religion; Including Anthroposophy
006 - BruceyJ aol.com - Re: PRIVATE -- SUGGESTION Re: my introduction
007 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: Projective Geometry
008 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - RE: Roy Wilkinson and the "How-To" Books
009 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
010 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - Re: my introduction
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1222.1 ---------------
From: BruceyJ aol.com
Subject: Re: Projective Geometry
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 14:14:20 EDT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bruce wrote:
) )
) )Steiner wanted to become a teacher, so he attended University in order
) )that
) )he could teach the sciences later. He studied biology, chemistry, physics
) )and
) )mathematics. Having obtained his degree he went on to obtain his doctorate
) )in
) )Philosophy.
) )
) )If that doesn't qualify one to be called a scientist, Dan, then I would be
) )interested to hear what you think DOES!?
) )
) )Bruce
Michael KOPP:
)
) Use of the rational, "materialistic" (to its detractors, like Steiner)
) scientific method, in a consistent, replicable, way to deal with the
) material world, instead of invention of a completely weird and
) pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo and calling IT a science, but dealing with
) the supernatural world, as Steiner did.
Bruce now writes:
THAT is what I call bullshit, Michael, Dan and anyone else who shares
Michael's extraordinary ideas. Did you, Michael, go to University to study
science or are you simply full of bullshit?
Bruce
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1222.2 ---------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead (morehead mail2.quiknet.com)
Subject: Re: my introduction
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 13:54:21
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199904122257.PAA05542 lists1.best.com)
(199904111959.MAA08168 lists1.best.com)
(199904111917.MAA15965 lists1.best.com)
(199904111547.IAA20490 lists1.best.com)
(199904111505.IAA09099 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904122321.QAA23167 lists1.best.com)
)Now you're at the very core of your religious-philosophical fascism, John.
)You are saying that nobody can be a Christian Buddhist or an
)anthroposophical Catholic because it is contrary to objective logic that
)should rule everybody's thoughts, not just your own. But I submit that you
)are confusing objective logic with personal sentiment, which makes you
)intolerant of religions and philosophies that don't suit you. That is why I
)call it *your* logic, valid only for your own head and for the heads of
)those who choose to go along with you.
Tarjei, you're very good at applying negative labels to those that don't
agree with you, but poor in responding to even the simplest of inquiries
regarding rational thought. Perhaps the best evidence demonstrating the
irrationality of your views is the responses you've provided in your posts.
I've provided arguments demonstrating that an anthroposophical Catholic and
a Christian Buddhist are just as contradictory as the notions of square
circles or married bachelors. You've responded with notions of a "higher
logic," whatever and wherever that might be.
I am not intolerant of non-Christian religions and philosophies. I simply
ask that when statements are made in the public arena that they be accurate
and that we be allowed to weigh the evidence for or against them. You have
been unwilling to allow for either. This makes it difficult, if not
impossible, to find common ground for dialogue between other
anthroposophists who might hold your epistemology and Waldorf critics.
John Morehead
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
http://www.truthquest.org
(tqi quiknet.com)
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
(916) 652-7804
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1222.3 ---------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead (morehead mail2.quiknet.com)
Subject: Re: PRIVATE -- SUGGESTION Re: my introduction
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 14:00:35
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199904122345.QAA10473 lists1.best.com)
(199904122257.PAA05542 lists1.best.com)
(199904111959.MAA08168 lists1.best.com)
(199904111917.MAA15965 lists1.best.com)
(199904111547.IAA20490 lists1.best.com)
(199904111505.IAA09099 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904130014.RAA04974 lists1.best.com)
At 02:13 AM 4/13/99 +0200, you wrote:
)Psssst John,
)
)Here is your chance to save Michael's soul from the eternal hellfire of the
)fundies by witnessing to him about Jesus. (He thinks Jesus is Santa Claus
)or the tooth fairy and that only gullible twits believe in him.)
)
)Tarjei
Pssst Tarjei,
Maybe you ought to consider posting items of worth to the list rather than
engage in continual ad hominems against me personally as well as orthodox
Christianity. (Hmm. I thought it was only us conservative Christians that
were intolerant. Guess Tarjei has single-handedly destroyed that myth.)
In the interests of this list I'll have to ask you to stick to the issues.
I won't respond to future taunts such as this. Perhaps our list moderator
could make known any rules which may apply to this list which might
preclude future such immature actions.
John Morehead
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
http://www.truthquest.org
(tqi quiknet.com)
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
(916) 652-7804
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1222.4 ---------------
From: Bob Jones (b2251 yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: PRIVATE -- SUGGESTION Re: my introduction
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 15:40:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
--- John & Wendy Morehead (morehead mail2.quiknet.com) wrote:
)
)
) Pssst Tarjei,
)
) Maybe you ought to consider posting items of worth
) to the list rather than
) engage in continual ad hominems against me
) personally as well as orthodox
) Christianity. (Hmm. I thought it was only us
) conservative Christians that
) were intolerant. Guess Tarjei has single-handedly
) destroyed that myth.)
)
) In the interests of this list I'll have to ask you
) to stick to the issues.
) I won't respond to future taunts such as this.
) Perhaps our list moderator
) could make known any rules which may apply to this
) list which might
) preclude future such immature actions.
)
I second the motion. The charter of the Waldorf Critics List is to
discuss Waldorf Education and it's inclusion in the public system. This
would, by necessity, include Anthroposophy & Steiner.
The rest is off-topic. If the Anthroposophists must construe every
critique as _personal criticism of their faith_, then perhaps they
should post through the listmaster, so that the interested participants
can get on with the discussion.
Critics are not allowed to post, or in some cases, to join,
Anthroposophical/Waldorf lists.
Intelligent critique of a religious path does not deserve constant ad
hominems towards all other paths.
The critiques posted to this list are not name-calling, bigotry, or
facism. Therefore, name-calling, expressions of bigotry against the
critquer's path and facist methods of stopping the dialogue, are
uncalled for.
Regardless of what the Anthroposophists think, they are not necessary
to the conversation and are, frankly, here as guests. I honestly
believe they should be treated on this list as critics are on their
lists.
BJ
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1222.5 ---------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead (morehead mail2.quiknet.com)
Subject: Re: Defining Religion; Including Anthroposophy
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 14:27:01
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199904122323.QAA24442 lists1.best.com)
(199904100235.TAA01036 lists1.best.com)
(199904100235.TAA01036 lists1.best.com)
(199904120833.BAA03716 lists1.best.com)
(199904122323.QAA24442 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904130757.AAA15739 lists1.best.com)
At 08:55 AM 4/13/99 +0100, you wrote:
)ST:
)OK -- I'll concede that one. But if one believes those things, does that
)make one an anthroposophist? I believed them before I discovered
)anthroposophy, so I have never considered them to be specific tenets of
)anthroposophy. If such belief does make one an anthropop, there must be
)a lot of anthropops who don't know that's what they are. If not, what
)belief do you think does define an anthropop and sets him apart from
)others who believe in the above?
Then regardless of whether you would have classified yourself as an
athroposophist, you did hold to a religious worldview. There are *man*
Americans who hold to an individualized, eclectic New Age spirituality
which is religious in nature, while not necessarily identifying with one
particular religious group or tradition. This is still a religious
worldview regardless of the personal affiliation. This is relevant to the
Waldorf case in that the question is should a pedagogy which flows from a
religious worldview/philosophy/spiritual science (pick your term) be
allowed in public schools or is this a violation of the establishment clause?
)ST:
)I am not disputing that the Christian Community is a religion. The
)question is whether or not *anthroposophy* is a religion, not whether or
)not the religion associated with it is a religion.
)
)The House of Commons (UK Parliament) has daily prayers; the Church
)associated with it (Church of England) has rituals. Does that make Her
)Majesty's Government a religion?
But I think it is clear that Anthroposophy does meet such a definition,
examples of which I've provided by religious studies scholars. Now another
individual questioned my ability to tackle the legal ramifications of
Waldorf education due to a lack of a background on my part in legal
studies. So the implication is that those trained to specialize in certain
disciplines know what they're talking about. I can agree with that.
Religious studies professors have defined religion variously, and because
anthroposophy *does* meet such definitions, they include it in standard
reference works on religion. The burden of proof is thus on those who would
argue contrary to this position that it should not be so included.
)ST:
)That could indeed be argued -- the question, as far as a working
)definition goes, is precisely which elements need to be incorporated? If
)a religion need not incorporate each and every element, then some of
)those elements must be redundant -- which ones, and why have them in the
)definition if they need not be incorporated?
The elements need not be redundant, simply that a group does not
necessarily have to incorporate each and every element to meet the
definition. Many expressions of New Age religion do not have formal rites,
putting the emphasis on individual expression in a variety of forms without
the necessity of traditional religious rites. But these New Age
spiritualities are still part of a religious worldview.
)ST:
)I dispute that anthroposophy fits into the New Age movement; ISTR others
)(Tarjei? Sune?) have recently gone into detail about this, so I'll not
)do so here.
Then you disagree with leading Waldorf educators (such as M.C. Richards who
included a chapter on Waldorf and "New Age education" in his book _Toward
Wholeness_), and religious studies scholars operating in their area of
speciality and scholarship. The burden of proof is again on those who would
seek to counter the weight of this evidence.
)ST:
)E.g. adherence to a set of beliefs and rituals. As one team manager
)famously said, "This game isn't a matter of life and death -- it's much
)more important than that."
Please look at the definitions more carefully. Religious studies scholars
have been very careful to try to define religion in such a way to include
both "tradition" theistic religions, as well as non-theistic religions and
the so-called "new spirituality" and new religious movements, while not
providing a definition so broad as to incorrectly incorporate clearly
non-religious groups or belief systems (such as soccer).
)ST:
)Do I take it you are arguing that anything that has a religious nature
)is a religion? The direct answer to your direct question is that I
)consider it to be a spiritual philosophy (which, I submit, is distinct
)from a religion).
I was asking your view. I think anthroposophy has both a religious nature
and is a religion, and have provided the reasons for that, contrary to your
denials. To call anthroposophy a spiritual philosophy or spiritual science
does not mean it does not meet the definition of religion, either according
to religious studies or the courts. For example, Transcendental
Meditation/Science of Creative Intelligence called TM a secular meditation
technique. But the courts ruled that it was religious in nature and the
public school's promotion of it involved a violation of the establishment
clause. We must look beyond preferred labels to other elements which would
define a given philosophy/religion/technique, etc.
)ST:
)No, I'm not arguing from silence, but one would hardly expect books to
)have a paragraph stating "The following things are not religions: ..."
)My intention was to convey that it is not necessarily a clear-cut case,
)and it might be that some scholars believe it is and others believe it
)isn't. Groliers calls it a "social philosophy", not a religion;
)Hutchinson's has it as a "mystical philosophy" and again, not a
)religion. Next time I go to the library I'll look up "anthroposophy" in
)Britannica and Colliers and see if they describe anthroposophy as a
)religion. If not, may it be that the scholars who wrote those entries
)did not consider it to be a religion?
I think you did argue from silence. I provided definitions of religion, and
then argued that because Anthroposophy meets these definitions, it is
included in scholarly reference works on religion. You then came back and
said something to the effect of, "Well, I check some of my religious
reference works and they don't include anthroposophy." This is an argument
from silence. No reference work is comprehensive, and you've got to deal
not only with what your books don't say, but what the sources I cited do say.
)I certainly concede that it is not a clear-cut case, either way.
I am arguing to the contrary.
)ST:
)John, the context of the above is the religion lessons. Of course the
)religion lessons in a Waldorf school are religious! I had religion
)lessons in my school -- that did not make the Rhodesian government a
)religion. My understanding is that the Waldorf schools in the US public
)school system do *not* have religion lessons. Is this correct?
Yes, that's the context, which I made clear in my posts (if I remember
correctly) and in my article where I quote Steiner here. But then Steiner
proceeds and says religion can be introduced in *any* subject and that
education is an illusion without religion. Steiner was not taling about a
comparative religion study as one would find in traditional public
education. He's referring, in context, to the religion undergirding
anthroposophy.
)ST:
)It wouldn't be the first time -- but I also submit that a large (and
)growing? majority?) number of Waldorf teachers share my view on this.
Glad to hear it. Maybe they'll join with Waldorf critics then to move
Waldorf education to private school settings only where it belongs as a
religious pedagogy.
)ST:
)I take Steiner's writings to serve as *indications*, not as
)*prescriptions*. There was a time, when I was new to Waldorf teaching (I
)was previously an A-level (top end of high school; university entrance)
)physics teacher, so I wasn't new to teaching), that I tended to take
)them as prescriptions -- it didn't work. I do concede that one of the
)problems Waldorf education faces is that inexperienced teachers can tend
)to take Steiner's writings and, more importantly, "fundamentalist"
)interpretations of them like those of Roy Wilkinson, as gospel
)prescriptions. To my mind this is antithetical to effective teaching in
)a modern Waldorf school.
Anthroposophical Press disagrees with you. How can the writings of the man
who pioneered the discovery of the supersensible worlds have less authority
in understanding anthroposophy and Waldorf than contemporary athroposophists?
)JM:
)) While your disagreement is
))important, and noted, the "discoverer"/creator of Waldorf education must be
))regarded as a higher authority according to those who promote this
))methodology!
)
)ST:
)I guess I'll have to concede that one as well. (bg)
Ok. Goes with my point above.
)John, do you think we are getting anywhere?
Sure. At least we are dialoguing patiently and trying to understand one
another, without resorting to personal to personal attacks, unlike a
certain other dialogue I've had recently. :)
John
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
http://www.truthquest.org
(tqi quiknet.com)
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
(916) 652-7804
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1222.6 ---------------
From: BruceyJ aol.com
Subject: Re: PRIVATE -- SUGGESTION Re: my introduction
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 19:09:45 EDT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In einer eMail vom 14.04.99 00:54:32 (MEZ) - Mitteleurop. Sommerzeit schreibt
b2251 yahoo.com:
) The charter of the Waldorf Critics List is to
) discuss Waldorf Education and it's inclusion in the public system. This
) would, by necessity, include Anthroposophy & Steiner.
then why do you (the WCs) spend most of the time attacking waldorf per se -
it is OK in private schools then per this Charter?!
(snip)
) Critics are not allowed to post, or in some cases, to join,
) Anthroposophical/Waldorf lists.
We were there just recently. If we werent there who would you argue with? I
will go amicably if that is what Dan wants - and I am not doing a Tarjei!
Bruce
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1222.7 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Projective Geometry
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 10:05:34 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199904131815.LAA20732 lists1.best.com)
)Bruce wrote:
)) )
)) )Steiner wanted to become a teacher, so he attended University in order
)) )that
)) )he could teach the sciences later. He studied biology, chemistry,
))physics
)) )and
)) )mathematics. Having obtained his degree he went on to obtain his
))doctorate
)) )in
)) )Philosophy.
)) )
)) )If that doesn't qualify one to be called a scientist, Dan, then I
))would be
)) )interested to hear what you think DOES!?
)) )
)) )Bruce
)
)Michael KOPP:
))
)) Use of the rational, "materialistic" (to its detractors, like Steiner)
)) scientific method, in a consistent, replicable, way to deal with the
)) material world, instead of invention of a completely weird and
)) pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo and calling IT a science, but dealing with
)) the supernatural world, as Steiner did.
)
)Bruce now writes:
)THAT is what I call bullshit, Michael, Dan and anyone else who shares
)Michael's extraordinary ideas. Did you, Michael, go to University to study
)science or are you simply full of bullshit?
)
)Bruce
KOPP:
Can you be a little more analytical, please, Bruce?
What part of my descriptions of "materialistic" and "Steiner" sciences is
... not accurate ... from your perception?
And what can your last sentence really mean? If I studied science at
university, does that mean that my view, above, is correct and I am NOT
"full of bullshit"? Or does it mean that if I studied science at
university, you think the science I studied is "full of bullshit"?
Enquiring minds want to know all about "bullshit".
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1222.8 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: RE: Roy Wilkinson and the "How-To" Books
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 09:53:20 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199904131507.IAA18603 lists1.best.com)
Robert Tolz (not Robert Flannery -- I'm getting better, Roberts) says:
)) -----Original Message-----
)) From: Michael Kopp [mailto:mkopp xtra.co.nz]
)
)) FLANNERY:
))
)) )Given the wide circulation of these titles, I'm amazed that
)) more examples
)) )of miseducation of the type described by Micheal Kopp and
)) Dan Dugan aren't
)) )in evidence. I strongly suspect that most waldorf teachers
)) recognize this
)) )material for what it is, as well as what it isn't.
))
)) KOPP:
))
)) How would you know what's "in evidence"? Where are the studies?
))
)) It perturbs me that I and the group of people who are most critical of
)) Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy (SWA) on this list are the
)) only ones who
)) seem to offer much "evidence".
))
)) But it doesn't surprise me in the least.
))
)) People don't like to hang out their bad experiences with such
)) things to dry
)) on the washing line of a mailing list like this (or any other
)) public forum)
)) because they inevitably become the subjects of gossip, at the
)) least, and
)) attack, at the worst.
)
)[Bob Tolz, not Robert Flannery]:
)
) Michael, you are ignoring a qutie plausible explanation which has
)been proffered on this list from time to time, which is that the
)experiences
)of the WC's is not the norm, and that the WC's have been over-generalizing.
)
) Bob Tolz
KOPP:
I don't ignore the possibility that critics' experiences are more _vivid_.
But I do NOT believe that they are "over-generalized", or less typical.
Unfortunately, I don't have evidence from studies, or greater anecdotal
reporting, to back up my belief. I admit that.
I think you underestimate the problem of ... "shyness" ... of people who
have had problems.
None of this invalidates critics' experiences as illustrative of general
problems with Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposohical religion and education,
particularly in public or state-funded schools. The critics' problems are
related to the fundmental character, dogma and history of these things, not
just to the admittedly narrow sample of specific schools critics represent.
It is reasonable to extrapolate these problems to most SWA schools and the
movement world-wide because the basic practices everywhere can be assumed
to follow the fundamental character, dogma and history of SWA.
I have asked Tarjei, particularly, and others, to specify where there are
exceptions to this expectable standard, and all I get is SWA apologists'
"belief" that there is variation and that the problems are confined to a
few schools.
I think it rather more likely that the vociferousness of the critics on
this list masks -- or perhaps speaks for -- a larger number of people who
have had similar problems but do not feel it necessary to expose themselves
since the critics have. They would be the "lurkers" who DO, occasionally,
step forward and relate similar experiences.
(I am in the process of creation of an "anonymizing" Web site where people
can leave specific information for me, as a journalist, about any number of
my interests. [This is difficult, technically, and involves using a server
programme to strip all Internet identifiers from the incoming messages and
Browser calls, and I'm not entirely sure it's completely possible. People
would have to trust the ISP not to allow me access to private server logs,
as these are virtually indestructable, and would provide traces. The only
other way is to insist that the "informant" take the necessary anonymizing
steps, which are easier technically from that side, but more effort and
hassle for the "informant", which is always undesirable. Although one could
simply advise people to use one of the various anonymizers available on the
internet, I'm not sure how many would take the time and trouble.] It may
turn up lots more such cases of SWA problems. Of course, it's likely that
critic-critics like Robert Tolz and Robert Flannery would discount such
information on the basis that _I_ could be inventing it, if not others who
wish to promote anti-SWA agendas. This is certainly a reasonable, if
invalid, argument; ordinarily I would double-check as a journalist should,
but again, that's extraordinarily difficult in the ... "protective" ... SWA
communities.)
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1222.9 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 11:02:49 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (199904130811.BAA22656 lists1.best.com)
(199904130647.XAA06359 lists1.best.com)
(199904120153.SAA00786 lists1.best.com)
(199904112103.OAA11017 lists1.best.com)
(199904101605.JAA16177 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904131253.FAA20923 lists1.best.com)
Tarjei Straumen writes:
)Michael Kopp wroteÿ
)
))But I've spent about eight years of my life working on it, Tarjei, which
))is
))how long ago I started to look at enrolling my kids in an alternative to
))the public school system they were then in.
)
And Tarjei Straume replied:
)If your nonsense about uniform anthroposophical conformity is the result of
)eight years of research, your lack of objectivity must have interfered with
)your work.
KOPP:
This "if...then" syllogism is illogical. In the first place, you haven't
provided any evidence that my conclusion is "nonsense".
MK:
))But, please, can you tell me where the alternative sects of the
))Anthroposphical Society are located? What are there names? Who are their
))leaders?
TS:
)This would be better commented by someone on eht list who is a current
)member of the Anthroposophical Society,
KOPP:
Okay, I'll readdress the question to Stephen Tonkin, who is a current
member. How about it, Stephen?
TS:
)but to the best of mu knowledge,
)the organization in question does not have any sects. It has administrative
)branches, because all it does is distribute newsletters, coordinate
)contacts, and arrange theater events and things like that.
KOPP:
I think, Tarjei, that you have just proved my point. No sects, no visible,
organised schisms, equals solidarity and uniformity of dogma and action, if
not the "monolithic" edifice SWA apologists are always accusing critics of
positing.
MK:
))Or is there another offshoot of Anthroposophy that has formed a new
))society
))by another name, because it has rejected Steiner's teaching?
TS:
)If a group or an organization rejects Steiner's teachings, it has no
)interest in anthroposophy.
KOPP:
This is like saying that reform Judaism, or evangelical Christianity, just
to cite two examples, have no interest in their gods or scriptures.
And who are you to tell such rejecters (or questioners) of Steiner's
teachings that they are excommunicated? When did you become "Anthro-pope"?
MK:
))Can you tell me, please, where is the discussion list on the internet for
))"Anthroposophical Science" which rejects Goethean Science as its basis,
))and
))instead chooses "materialistic science" to the exclusion of all other
))spiritual mumbo jumbo?
TS:
)What do you need that kind of nonsense for?
KOPP:
Because people like Stephen Tonkin, who IS a current member of the
Anthroposophical Society (and a rational scientist as well -- sometimes
(G)) say things like:
))KOPP:
))
))You're obviously still too much under the influence of "materialistic"
))science, and need to study much harder, and embrace much more
))determinedly,
))the only thing which proves Anthroposophy: "spiritual" science.
))
))But, as you say, it's unlikely that "spiritual science" will produce a
))definition of Anthroposophy as clear as those that science provides for
))our
))understanding of the Universe.
TONKIN:
)You misunderstand me (I think) -- what I seek is a "materialistic"
)science definition of religion.
KOPP:
If critics are right, and Anthroposophy is a religion (Tonkin, unlike you,
seems to be willing to approach the idea a little less dogmatically and a
little more ... rationally) then surely the (materialistic) scientific
examination of Anthroposophy and its realm is reasonable?
(I think the [materialist] science jury is already in on this one: if it
claims to be spiritual, then it's a religion, because it deals only in
beliefs which are not in physical evidence.)
MK:
))Can you tell me where there is a Waldorf school that has, for instance,
))eschewed -- nay, banned -- Goethean phenomenology and the "four elements"
))in the teaching of science? That might have been a school to which I could
))have sent my children, because it would have indicated a certain
))rationality which is missing in every other
)
)Ask the teachers. I know very little about schools.
KOPP:
No, I asked you. Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical schools are a primary
activity of SWA practice world-wide. As an Anthroposophical apologist, you
_should_ know the answer. Your answer is typical of SWA apologists: "I
dunno; go ask Joe".
All right, Robert Flannery and Stephen Tonkin are the two most visible SWA
teachers here: how about it, guys? Can YOU answer my question (and
enlighten Tarjei, so he'll know what he should know, and be able to answer
the question next time he's asked)?
MK:
))From the look of the availble evidence on the Internet and in my neck of
))the woods (which has a national Anthroposophical Society which is
))associated with the Federation of Rudolf Steiner Schools in New Zealand,
))which is the body which runs the Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophical
))teachers'
))training seminary, and is involved in the financing of SWA school in this
))country, and their pedagogy) there is no such schism anywhere in the world
))that meets the definition of the word.
TS:
)The schism you are looking for would involve a party very hostile to
)anthroposophy itself. You are looking for a branch of anthroposophy that
)harmonizes with your anti-spiritual views. Good luck with your search.
KOPP:
No, I'm trying to get you, or any other SWA apologist, to tell me why
critics shouldn't think you've all proved the critical point of view: no
sects, no visible, organised schisms, equals solidarity and uniformity of
dogma and action, if not the "monolithic" edifice SWA apologists are always
accusing critics of positing.
MK:
))Sure, you Anthropops _love_ internecine warfare among yourselves, and some
))even become apostates. But none of the apostates has formed an alternative
))sect, that I'm aware of. You'd think that such an event would be big
))enough
))news to be made known on a discussion list like this one, in the 3-1/2
))years I've been here. Can you point me at one, please, Tarjei?
TS:
)Schisms can exist within a movement or an organization without forming all
)kinds of separate sects. But all the internal disputes would be mumbo jumbo
)to you anyway, so there is no wonder that your conclusions were so
)uninformed.
KOPP:
But at least I could scientifically, rationally discuss those differrent
brands of mumbo jumbo.
MK:
))It's certainly the case that studying _Anthroposophy_ as a subject is very
))difficult for a person who is a lifetime skeptic, and who has no desire to
))give up that trait just to understand, from the point of view of an
))apprentice or whatever, which is the only way Anthroposophists believe it
))can be studied, what looks from the outside like mumbo jumbo.
TS:
)And that is what it will always look like to you - mumbo jumbo and nothing
)else.
KOPP:
Well, help me out here, Tarjei. Say something about it that is
comprehensible to the ordinary layman and either explains the mumbo jumbo,
or translates it into ordinary experience, or is at least not paradoxical
or self-contradictory, as much of your writing about it (it not the thing
itself) has been.
MK:
))I was not popular at the few study group meetings I attended at our former
)))Steiner school (but then, I'm not popular with a lot of people of whom I
))ask )blunt questions, such as the Anthroposophists and their apologists on
))this )list).
TS:
)An anthroposophical study group consists of people who are genuinely drawn
)to anthroposophy and who wish to learn from it. If someone in such a group
)keeps attacking and scorning it, he or she is slowing down those who desire
)to learn and grow.
MK:
No, I didn't attack or scorn anything when I was in the discussion groups.
All I did was ask questions based on my previous 40 years of understanding
of the Universe. But part of learning is critical, skeptical challenging of
the thing one is trying to understand.
You are saying that one can only be a part of such a "circle" if one is not
there to learn by challenge, but to "*desire* to learn and grow". To me
that is a perfect example of what I see as cult mentality: "don't question,
just accept; go out into the wilderness and examine yourself, and you will
come to the answer; you will know you have arrived at the answer because
you will then see the light that we have seen".
Thank you, Tarjei, for the confirmation that the critics are right about
SWA's "cult-like" nature.
MK:
))However, as a journalist and observer of human affairs, I think it is
))possible to get some idea of the nature of Anthroposophy as a practice of
))people who run schools and try to inject their philosophy into existing
))public schools.
TS:
)I agree in theory, but the bitter venom that taints every word you write
)about Anthroposophy makes it very difficult for the objective reader to
)discern that idea.
KOPP:
Bitter venom? I've admitted I'm angry about my and my kids' experiences
with a duplicitous, weird school.
And what has MY attitude got to do with YOUR and other apologists' ability
to explain the nature of SWA? You are saying that my criticism and very
pointed questioning is "bitter venom", and it interferes with the
understanding you would otherwise be able to give to the rest of the
readers who are more "objective" than I am, who would otherwise be able to
see your points?
But you are involved in other threads of discussion with people who could
not remotely be considered to have my "bitter, venomous" attitude, and you
don't seem to be able to get any further with them than with me. How do I
cause that? Do you really mean I upset your equanimity so much that you
can't discourse with others, even though I'm not involved in those other
discussions?
That sounds like what you said about Anthroposophical study groups: unless
one is totally humble and self-abnegating, one cannot come to the truth. I
think you expect the same thing on this list -- and when you don't get it,
you can't cope.
MK:
))As a parent who spent five years getting children into and out of a
))Steiner
))school -- a difficult process as I have described here previously -- and a
))fairly intelligent person who has tried to follow the discourse between
))better critics than myself and a variety of Anthropops and apologists
))here,
))and reading the quotes from Steiner and his followers _from both sides_, I
))think I have a pretty good idea of what I was duped by and then shunned
))when I learnt its weirdness.
TS:
)I would say that anyone who swallows all your posts to this list without
)question, would be as least as duped by you as you were by the Waldorf
)school.
KOPP:
Ditto, in spades, for your posts. At least I write plainly and clearly.
MK:
))If I have not invesgitated Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy to a degree
))which you find acceptable, Tarjei, then I apologise for wasting your time
))all these months of trying to get you to speak plainly.
TS:
)Haven't I been plain and straight forward? Haven't I answered all questions
)asked me as best I could?
KOPP:
Yes, I think you've acted in good faith [no pun intended, pun-cop Robert
Flannery].
Yes, I think you've done your best to answer questions.
I could be churlish and make an ad hominem QED.
But I think it's likely that the problem, dear Tarjei, is not in you, but
in your stars [pun intended, pun-cop Robert Flannery].
In other words, neither Steiner nor anyone else since has been able to
clearly explicate his philsophy in rational terms for non-predisposed
non-believers.
That certainly sounds like a cult, if not an esoteric (hidden meaning)
religion.
MK:
))However, I don't think I will let an Anthroposophy apologist (or an
))"anarchosophist", for that matter) determine for me or others whether I
))have experienced enough, or learned enough, to make judgements about SWA.
TS:
)Fine, but that entails that your judgements will be regarded as spurious.
KOPP:
Only by "Anthro-popes" like yourself. Thank you for yet again reinforcing
the apparent arrogance of the believer in Anthroposophy.
MK:
))I may not know what I'm talking about, from your point of view. From my
))point of view, if you DO know what you're talking about, you don't make it
))very comprehensible in the language I grew up with.
))
))Perhaps you want me to learn another, special, Anthroposophical language,
))like you seem to believe exists in terms of Anthroposophical logic, as you
))posted recently: "In the first place, comprehension of divine-spiritual
))truth requires a higher logic, an extra-rational logic".
))
))Every other religion, every other subject I have ever studied, has been
))comprehensible in terms of the language (and that means the thought
))processes, because the two are inseparable) I was taught.
TS:
)If anthroposophy is mumbo jumbo to you because you find the language hard
)to comprehend, that's fine. It's your hostility I'm getting at, and how
)this hostility appears to affect your judgements. Almost everything you
)write about anthroposophy is spiced with polemics.
KOPP:
Well, thanks for the qualifier. I am usually painted pure black. (You
should see my kids' "black-and-white-polarity-year" drawings of me!)
And "spiced" is wonderful: I didn't know I was so tasty!
But I think that almost everything you (and the other Anthroposophical
apologists, as with Robert Flannery's characterization of me as a "bully")
write about critics and their criticism, is tainted (not "spiced") with
polemics.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1222.10 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: Re: my introduction
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 01:20:23 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199904122321.QAA23167 lists1.best.com)
(199904122257.PAA05542 lists1.best.com)
(199904111959.MAA08168 lists1.best.com)
(199904111917.MAA15965 lists1.best.com)
(199904111547.IAA20490 lists1.best.com)
(199904111505.IAA09099 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904132159.OAA29119 lists1.best.com)
John Morehead wrote:
)Tarjei, you're very good at applying negative labels to those that don't
)agree with you, but poor in responding to even the simplest of inquiries
)regarding rational thought. Perhaps the best evidence demonstrating the
)irrationality of your views is the responses you've provided in your posts.
)I've provided arguments demonstrating that an anthroposophical Catholic and
)a Christian Buddhist are just as contradictory as the notions of square
)circles or married bachelors. You've responded with notions of a "higher
)logic," whatever and wherever that might be.
Comparing a Christian Buddhist or an anthroposophical Catholic to a square
circle or a married bachelor is nonsense. It has nothing do do with
objective, rational logic.
(snip)
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism, Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality, death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1222 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1223 --------------
001 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: PRIVATE -- SUGGESTION Re: my introduction
002 - Robert Flannery (litvas i - Re: PRIVATE -- SUGGESTION Re: my introduction
003 - Robert Flannery (litvas i - Re: Defining Religion; Including Anthroposophy
004 - Michael Hirsch (hirsch ma - Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Ant
005 - Michael Hirsch (hirsch ma - RE: Roy Wilkinson and the "How-To" Books
006 - Ezra Beeman (ezra ozymand - Re: Roy Wilkinson and the "How-To" Books
007 - Ezra Beeman (ezra ozymand - Re: my introduction
008 - Ezra Beeman (ezra ozymand - Re: Admin: don't post long Steiner quotes
009 - "ksutphen" (ksutphen jps. - Re: prayer(was..brainwashed...)
010 - "ksutphen" (ksutphen jps. - Re: prayer(was..brainwashed...)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1223.1 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: PRIVATE -- SUGGESTION Re: my introduction
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 16:21:49 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199904132239.PAA00792 lists1.best.com)
On 13 Apr 99, at 15:40, Bob Jones wrote:
) The charter of the Waldorf Critics List is to
) discuss Waldorf Education and it's inclusion in the public system. This
) would, by necessity, include Anthroposophy & Steiner.
)
) The rest is off-topic. If the Anthroposophists must construe every
) critique as _personal criticism of their faith_, then perhaps they
) should post through the listmaster, so that the interested participants
) can get on with the discussion.
)
) Critics are not allowed to post, or in some cases, to join,
) Anthroposophical/Waldorf lists.
The day anthroposophists are required to submit their posts
through Dan is the day I unsubscribe. It's the dialogue between
those of opposing viewpoints that makes the list interesting to me.
) Intelligent critique of a religious path does not deserve constant ad
) hominems towards all other paths. The critiques posted to this list are
) not name-calling, bigotry, or facism. Therefore, name-calling, expressions
) of bigotry against the critquer's path and facist methods of stopping the
) dialogue, are uncalled for.
Yep. On both sides there are those who engage in name-calling
and expressions of bigotry against the spiritual paths of others.
We all need to remember not to take criticism of one's ideas
personally, and to refrain from insulting one another.
) Regardless of what the Anthroposophists think, they are not necessary to
) the conversation and are, frankly, here as guests.
As far as I'm concerned, they are necessary to the conversation.
If you want a list without anthroposophists, Bob, start your own.
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1223.2 ---------------
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Re: PRIVATE -- SUGGESTION Re: my introduction
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 20:21:29 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199904132239.PAA00792 lists1.best.com)
Bob Jones suggests:
)Regardless of what the Anthroposophists think, they are not necessary
)to the conversation and are, frankly, here as guests. I honestly
)believe they should be treated on this list as critics are on their
)lists.
I am fascinated by your suggestion, Bob.
I doubt that Dan will ban any of us from the list, but I would like to
propose a little experiment to test your claim.
Start any new thread you like, but clearly label it CRITICS ONLY in the
subject line. The rules of the experiment are simple: no waldorf
supporters (self-defined) can post to the thread labeled CRITICS ONLY, or
make reference to it in any other thread on this list.
I'd be interested in observing two phenomena: 1) what the ensuing
discussion is like, so long as the self-defined supporters stay out of it,
and 2) how long the supporters can follow the single rule.
I will make the first pledge to stay out of your thread, should you
initiate a CRITICS ONLY experiment.
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1223.3 ---------------
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Re: Defining Religion; Including Anthroposophy
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 20:27:37 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199904130757.AAA15739 lists1.best.com)
(199904122323.QAA24442 lists1.best.com)
(199904100235.TAA01036 lists1.best.com)
(199904100235.TAA01036 lists1.best.com)
(199904120833.BAA03716 lists1.best.com)
(199904122323.QAA24442 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904132246.PAA06124 lists1.best.com)
)Then you disagree with leading Waldorf educators (such as M.C. Richards who
)included a chapter on Waldorf and "New Age education" in his book _Toward
)Wholeness_), and religious studies scholars operating in their area of
)speciality and scholarship. The burden of proof is again on those who would
)seek to counter the weight of this evidence.
Mary Caroline Richards is a woman.
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1223.4 ---------------
From: Michael Hirsch (hirsch mathcs.emory.edu)
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 21:14:12 -0400 (EDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (34338927 toto.iv)
(199904101605.JAA16177 lists1.best.com)
(199904121924.MAA28609 lists1.best.com)
(199904131353.GAA15841 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (96001594 toto.iv)
Tarjei Straume writes:
) Michael Hirsch wrote:
)
) )I'd like to hear the end of this sentence. It is all hypothesis
) )without conclusion. I would have finished the sentence with "...is
) )badly mistaken." How did Steiner finish it?
)
) It was a teaser from the excerpt in the other post, where you find: "Anyone
) who understands the doctrines of Darwin and Haeckel and ishimself convinced
) that only as a Christian movement was the Darwinianmovement possible
) (Haeckel had no notion of this, but Darwin was aware ofmany things) -
) anyone who realises this is led by an absolutely consistent path to the
) idea of reincarnation.\"
I think any scientist who tries to grapple with reincarnation has to
figure out where the new spirits come from. There are many more
humans live in the 20th century than in all previous centuries
combined, I believe. Where did the new spirits come from?
) )To say "Haeckel could only grasp evolution only in the the
) )physical-material sense" is to say Haeckel could grasp Evolution. If
) )Steiner finds spirituality in evolution it is because he doesn't grasp
) )it.
)
) So only materialists understand evolution, and atheists have a monolopy on
) the science of cosmogenesis.
No no. I said evolution is a material theory. I have always assumed
that spiritual people could understand it, but only if they are also
able to think materially. I've been assuming that you spiritualists
are _more_ capable than us materialists. After all, I may deny the
spiritual world for lack of evidence (or I may not--I ain't telling)
but surely you don't deny the material world! Or do you (like, say,
Bishop Berkeley)?
) )) Darwinism has in many ways stagnated in the hands of his followers, waiting
) )) to be awakened like a sleeping wolf.
) )
) )Examples, please?
)
) Your inability to appreciate that because man is body soul, and spirit, the
) latter permeates all of nature and is the active force behind its coming
) into existence, - is a classic example of what I was getting at.
But what does that have to do with the theory evolution stagnating?
) The last couple decades have seen great growth and
) )changes in our understanding of evolution.
)
) Evolutionary theory is still very much confined by the chains of materialism.
and always has been, so I don't think you can call that stagnation.
To say it has stagnated implies, I think, that it once was different.
) )) But if Steiner was right about
) )) spiritual evolution, about the Christ Idea in the course of history, and
) )) the true nature of Darwinism, the students in American public schools may
) )) begin to ask some embarrassing New Age questions - even with no help from
) )) Waldorf, anthroposophy, or New Age religion. They may start asking about
) )) reincarnation in biology class, perhaps also about Christ. And the public
) )) schools will have start disciplining and dismissing students for
) )) inappropriate behavior, for violating the constitutional amendment for the
) )) separation of church and state.
) )
) )But then if he was wrong we won't. What exactly is your point?
)
) Because you can grasp evolution and I can't, you know there are no
) spiritual elements in history. I was referring to some "mumbo jumbo" that
) you cannot grasp. If you understood what I meant, you would not grasp
) evolution if your premise is correct.
Good golly, I said evolution was a material science. I never said
history was. And I certainly didn't say that you couldn't grasp
evolution.
More confused than ever,
--Michael
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1223.5 ---------------
From: Michael Hirsch (hirsch mathcs.emory.edu)
Subject: RE: Roy Wilkinson and the "How-To" Books
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 21:51:58 -0400 (EDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: (132872681 toto.iv)
Tolz, Robert writes:
)
) Michael, you are ignoring a qutie plausible explanation which has
) been proffered on this list from time to time, which is that the experiences
) of the WC's is not the norm, and that the WC's have been over-generalizing.
Indeed, my conclusion after about a year reading/participating on this
list is that the quality of the education is primarily attributable to
the particular school and teacher and only secondarily to the Waldorf
system. It would appear that there are some very bad things going on
with Waldorf as has been attested by several here. Other, no less
rational people, seem to be quite happy with their school. (For
instance, compare Steve Premo's experience in Santa Cruz with Dan
Dugan's in San Francisco, only about 50 miles apart. As I recall,
even the teachers at Santa Cruz were aware of the large differences
between their school and the SF one.)
I joined this list _before_ I sent my daughter to Waldorf Kindergarten
(though after I had decided to), so my every experience there is seen
through a rather skeptical and wary viewpoint. In fact, my experience
has been mostly the opposite of what I expected. For instance, at the
St. Martin event, when the teacher told the story of St. Martin she
never used the word "saint" of "God". Afterwards I told her that
pleased me greatly.
On the other hand, the little story they want to tell at my daughters
birthday seems clearly to be teaching about spirits and/or
reincarnation. Fortunately, we are welcome to script our own
replacement story. (I should say that this is a private school and so
there is no constitutional problem here.)
A couple weeks ago someone asked if this list is doing anyone any
good. My answer is yes, it has helped me decide that Waldorf
elementary is not where I want my kids to be educated. I must say,
however, that the rather angry, hateful mailings of some of the
critics has very little to do with it. Nor have the angry and/or
misleading responses from some of the other side. Rather, the well
intentioned and informative letters from the Waldorf supporters and
graduates has convinced me that there is way too much religion in the
class, and I also see little evidence that it teaches it's graduates
to think or write well.
--Michael
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1223.6 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra ozymandias.net)
Subject: Re: Roy Wilkinson and the "How-To" Books
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 19:56:04 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199904132313.QAA02150 lists1.best.com)
It is equally likely (unless you have revealed knowledge) you are over exaggerating this problem .
Or maybe your are underestimating the problem of... 'ambivalence' ... of satisfied people.
e
Michael Kopp wrote:
) I think you underestimate the problem of ... "shyness" ... of people who
) have had problems.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1223.7 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra ozymandias.net)
Subject: Re: my introduction
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 19:22:53 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199904120701.AAA17997 lists1.best.com)
Hello Yael Resnick,
I have a question for you. If a given religion contains instructions for the education of youth,
should practitioner's of this religion automatically be disqualified from teaching at public
institutions?
I ask this question because it struck me that if you affirm anthros can't help but indoctrinate
children, then what is to keep you from condemning a Jew's ability to instruct gentiles? Do you
believe Jews should not teach in public education?
Once the anthros are driven out of the public schools, then they will come for the gays. After the
gays are cast out of the schools, then they will come for the insane. When the insane are driven
from the schools, then they will come for...
Regards,
e
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1223.8 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra ozymandias.net)
Subject: Re: Admin: don't post long Steiner quotes
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 19:48:10 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (199904121515.IAA04136 lists1.best.com) (199904131749.KAA00704 lists1.best.com)
I think Kopp needs to re-read his copy of Strunk and White.
e
Tarjei Straume wrote:
) )Tarjei, please don't use up everybody's space with long quotations. Please
) )provide URL's so readers may access the text if they wish.
)
) The text I quoted was not on the web. And my post was half the size of TWO
) recent posts by Michael Kopp. If you had addressed your admonition to
) everybody, I wouldn't need to respond with my 2¢ here.
)
) Tarjei
)
) Tarjei Straume
)
) Greetings from Uncle Taz
)
) http://www.uncletaz.com/
)
) Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism, Christianity, poetry,
) plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality, death, skulls,
) skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1223.9 ---------------
From: "ksutphen" (ksutphen jps.net)
Subject: Re: prayer(was..brainwashed...)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 21:06:21 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Kopp posts:
)Ezra? He never went away, but neither does he answer direct challenges,
)like the one I made to him about the morality of his attacks on science and
)scientific medicine in the face of the AIDS epidemic, and what his advice
)to an HIV-positive person would be.
I didn't have time to respond to this particular post of Ezra's. I noted
that it was made about the same time that Ezra made bold claims, once again,
that he wasn't an Anthroposophist and wasn't indoctrinated with the Anthro
mindset as a result of his Waldorf education.
Very soon after his disclaimer he posts the piece about AIDS not being the
result of the HIV virus and other pseudoscientific, wooly-headed (thanks
Kopp) thoughts in regard to treatment, etc.
It was another one of those Ezra posts that I dearly love. I dearly
appreciate his participation on this list becuase he demonstrates so clearly
the end result of Waldorf schooling. His thinking is muddy and he embraces
the blind willingness to bite into and swallow outlandish, psuedoscientific
claims, all the while trying to impress us with his statistical jargon
(read: big words). It's so very Anthroposophical of him.
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1223.10 ---------------
From: "ksutphen" (ksutphen jps.net)
Subject: Re: prayer(was..brainwashed...)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 20:58:14 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Robert posts to Kopp:
))
))You're a bully, plain and simple. Your posts are divisive and abusive,
))both in spirit and in fact. You specialize in singling out the weak, and
))harangue them until they drop out of sight or fall to silence.
))
))You claim the highest ideals and standards, but your words say otherwise.
))
))
))I apologize to the list for being so blunt.
Well, Robert. This sounds much like the accusations made against me by the
Waldorf devotees at my former school site. Let's see now - I think it goes
like this: She's unstable, dishonest, not to be believed, has an anger
problem, and - the icing on the cake - is a thief. (This one slung about
after I quit my job and left the area. I only found out about it recently
from a former coworker.) I supposedly stole some of the computer equipment
that had been removed from the school site after Rudolf Steiner College
decided it would be prudent to cleanse our public school of all Ahramanic
influences.
A saying comes to mind here: "if you can't take the heat, get out of the
kitchen." This sums it up for in regard to the issue of Waldorf inclusion in
public schools and Rudolf Steiner College/Betty Staley/et al, dipping into
the public coffers. The talk is all art, head, heart, hands, blah, blah,
blah, until someone begins to question the religious indoctrination aspects
of the pedagogy. Then, guess what, that individual is subjected to the usual
onslaught of character assassination.
Don't sink to the lowest element here Robert. You can do better.
Kathy
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1223 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1224 --------------
001 - Ezra Beeman (ezra ozymand - Re: PRIVATE -- SUGGESTION Re: my introduction
002 - Ezra Beeman (ezra ozymand - Re: PRIVATE -- SUGGESTION Re: my introduction
003 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: PRIVATE -- SUGGESTION Re: my introduction
004 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: PRIVATE -- SUGGESTION Re: my introduction
005 - "MICHAEL RONALL" (mronall - Re: PRIVATE -- SUGGESTION Re: my introduction
006 - Ezra Beeman (ezra ozymand - Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
An
007 - redon (redon geocities.co - Re: Charter and Choice WAS:Re: Dan's book, discussion, scient
008 - Daniel Sabsay (danielsabs - Ezra and Evolution
009 - Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis - Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is Anthroposophi
010 - Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis - Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is Anthroposophi
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1224.1 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra ozymandias.net)
Subject: Re: PRIVATE -- SUGGESTION Re: my introduction
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 20:05:26 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199904132239.PAA00792 lists1.best.com)
Tit for tat, an eye for eye, thus shall we all go blind.
If you honestly believe anthros should be treated as critics are/were, and the critics are
complaining about this behavior (and you are a critic) here, then you would be spouting hypocrisy
for suggesting an identical course of action.
Let's pretend being a hypocrite is not relevant to this debate, what would you prescribe for
anthros? Extermination? Exile? Harsh words? What of people who are sympathetic to anthros, but
are not anthros themselves? If they are not for you, are they against you? Shall we banish them as
well?
Dead men tell no tales.
e
Bob Jones wrote:
) Regardless of what the Anthroposophists think, they are not necessary
) to the conversation and are, frankly, here as guests. I honestly
) believe they should be treated on this list as critics are on their
) lists.
) BJ
) _________________________________________________________
) Do You Yahoo!?
) Get your free yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1224.2 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra ozymandias.net)
Subject: Re: PRIVATE -- SUGGESTION Re: my introduction
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 20:09:59 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199904140014.RAA06664 lists1.best.com)
Yes please, I want to play too! I promise to not ever comment on the critics thread! Cross my
heart, hope to die.
Maybe the first post could begin with an exhaustive but relevant posting of all 'supporters.'
e
Robert Flannery wrote:
) Bob Jones suggests:
)
) )Regardless of what the Anthroposophists think, they are not necessary
) )to the conversation and are, frankly, here as guests. I honestly
) )believe they should be treated on this list as critics are on their
) )lists.
)
) I am fascinated by your suggestion, Bob.
)
) I doubt that Dan will ban any of us from the list, but I would like to
) propose a little experiment to test your claim.
)
) Start any new thread you like, but clearly label it CRITICS ONLY in the
) subject line. The rules of the experiment are simple: no waldorf
) supporters (self-defined) can post to the thread labeled CRITICS ONLY, or
) make reference to it in any other thread on this list.
)
) I'd be interested in observing two phenomena: 1) what the ensuing
) discussion is like, so long as the self-defined supporters stay out of it,
) and 2) how long the supporters can follow the single rule.
)
) I will make the first pledge to stay out of your thread, should you
) initiate a CRITICS ONLY experiment.
)
) Robert Flannery
) New York
) litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1224.3 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: PRIVATE -- SUGGESTION Re: my introduction
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 14:49:21 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199904132239.PAA00792 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904140014.RAA06664 lists1.best.com)
Robert Flannery says:
)Bob Jones suggests:
)
))Regardless of what the Anthroposophists think, they are not necessary
))to the conversation and are, frankly, here as guests. I honestly
))believe they should be treated on this list as critics are on their
))lists.
)
)I am fascinated by your suggestion, Bob.
)
)I doubt that Dan will ban any of us from the list, but I would like to
)propose a little experiment to test your claim.
)
)Start any new thread you like, but clearly label it CRITICS ONLY in the
)subject line. The rules of the experiment are simple: no waldorf
)supporters (self-defined) can post to the thread labeled CRITICS ONLY, or
)make reference to it in any other thread on this list.
)
)I'd be interested in observing two phenomena: 1) what the ensuing
)discussion is like, so long as the self-defined supporters stay out of it,
)and 2) how long the supporters can follow the single rule.
)
)
)I will make the first pledge to stay out of your thread, should you
)initiate a CRITICS ONLY experiment.
Michael KOPP replies:
I hope this attempt to control the list gets the same sort of response from
Steve Premo as Bob Jones' original suggestion did.
I'll remind Robert Flannery, as I did Steve Premo, of the list charter:
)"waldorf-critics" is a mailing list for the discussion of Waldorf education
)as viewed from outside the cult of Rudolf Steiner. It is a networking
)resource for parents, teachers, writers, and people interested in
)separation of church and state.
Please see my response to Steve Premo for my futher views on this subject,
so I don't have to repeat them here.
All I want say here is that Robert Flannery's suggestion is an incindiary
device of propaganda mastery and demagoguery.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1224.4 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: PRIVATE -- SUGGESTION Re: my introduction
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 14:36:23 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199904132239.PAA00792 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904132355.QAA14671 lists1.best.com)
Steve Premo writes:
)On 13 Apr 99, at 15:40, Bob Jones wrote:
)
)) The charter of the Waldorf Critics List is to
)) discuss Waldorf Education and it's inclusion in the public system. This
)) would, by necessity, include Anthroposophy & Steiner.
))
)) The rest is off-topic. If the Anthroposophists must construe every
)) critique as _personal criticism of their faith_, then perhaps they
)) should post through the listmaster, so that the interested participants
)) can get on with the discussion.
))
)) Critics are not allowed to post, or in some cases, to join,
)) Anthroposophical/Waldorf lists.
And PREMO replies:
)The day anthroposophists are required to submit their posts
)through Dan is the day I unsubscribe. It's the dialogue between
)those of opposing viewpoints that makes the list interesting to me.
KOPP:
But the "dialogue" between opposing viewpoints has led nowhere. It does not
serve the practical purpose of the list of _critical thought_ about
Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy, and the goal of removing from public
education and exposing its true nature, but descends to opposing diatribes.
BJ:
)) Intelligent critique of a religious path does not deserve constant ad
)) hominems towards all other paths. The critiques posted to this list are
)) not name-calling, bigotry, or facism. Therefore, name-calling,
))expressions
)) of bigotry against the critquer's path and facist methods of stopping the
)) dialogue, are uncalled for.
SP:
)Yep. On both sides there are those who engage in name-calling
)and expressions of bigotry against the spiritual paths of others.
)We all need to remember not to take criticism of one's ideas
)personally, and to refrain from insulting one another.
KOPP:
Steve, I think you've gone a bit too far with the "bigotry" claim.
My review of the archives for my recent statistical exercise also gave me a
firmer conviction that the "name-calling" essentially originated on the SWA
side, particularly from people like David Schlesinger, aka "Lefty" or
"Lefty Redux". Only after great provocation and the discovery that it is
almost impossible to make any common ground with SWA apologists have the
critics become in any way strident or pungent. And I think the balance of
terror has always been in favour of the SWA side.
I really part company with your usually-astute comments when you say that
there have been expressions of "bigotry against the spiritual paths of
others" on the critics' side. Even at my worst, saying Tarjei is "full of
[it]", or Ezra is illiterate and foaming at the mouth, I have NEVER
expressed any bigotry against other people or their beliefs.
The operant word in the definition of "bigotry" is "intolerant".
Even when saying that to me, Anthroposophy is "mumbo jumbo", I am _most_
careful to say that anyone is entitled to believe in mumbo jumbo.
That is the greatest extent of tolerance required. Criticisms of anyone's
beliefs should be completely protected, else we run the risk of having
religous _fatwas_ -- and, while I am no Salman Rushdie, I have felt the
heat of the Anthroposophists attacks on me much more than they can claim
any hurt from my criticisms of their religion. They are equally cynical
about such doings as I am.
Critics do not want to demolish SWA, but simply to see it made honest in
the U.S., and exposed to all.
I would ask that you name names and cite specific quotes to back up your
assertion that critics are guilty of bigotry in the strict sense of wishing
the oppression or suppression of that which they criticize. Insult is in
the eye of the beholder, as is inference.
Methinks some SWA people on this list have confused criticism of their
religion with personal insult -- which is an easy charge to make, and
difficult to disprove in such a spirited debate as we have here.
BJ:
)) Regardless of what the Anthroposophists think, they are not necessary to
)) the conversation and are, frankly, here as guests.
ST:
)As far as I'm concerned, they are necessary to the conversation.
)
)If you want a list without anthroposophists, Bob, start your own.
KOPP:
It may be time. This list has run the gamut of all possible permutations of
argument about Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy between the opposing sides,
and has become repetitive.
The list had a charter objective:
)"waldorf-critics" is a mailing list for the discussion of Waldorf education
)as viewed from outside the cult of Rudolf Steiner. It is a networking
)resource for parents, teachers, writers, and people interested in
)separation of church and state.
Lately it has seemed as if it is a philosophical debating club, rather than
what it seems to have been intended for.
It has been useful to have SWA apologists on the list, when they are
interested in discussing the list's remit.
It has been frustrating and debilitating to have SWA apologists turn the
list into their own private "anti-critic-critics" list, as Robert Tolz
proclaims about his status.
I would hate to see the list heavily moderated. But I think Dan Dugan has
been overly tolerant of the ranting and proselytising -- for that is what
any apologia is -- by the SWA crowd.
And the list has, in recent months, focused way too much on the foundations
of SWA, and not enough on the schools and issues of the charter.
SWA apologists would say that that is because critics bring little new
evidence of their criticisms about the schools. Robert Flannery and Robert
Tolz, particularly, have been very strident about this.
Flannery, as a Waldorf teacher, has been extremely defensive and
unforthcoming about his own teaching and the inner realm of Waldorf
education.
Stephen Tonkin, on the other hand, has been extemely open and candid about
his experiences and what he knows and believes about the inner realm of
Waldorf education.
Either this is a cynical, coordinated good-cop/bad-cop conspiracy, or it's
what it seems to be: dogmatic, rigid, suspicious, and hectoring response to
criticism versus rational, open, good-willed (though sometimes pretty
sharp) engagement of critics in discussion.
I would not want to ban the Roberts. I would not want to censor them or
moderate their views.
I would not mind seeing a moderator decide which posts are on topic to the
list charter -- given the excesses of the anti-charter *lobby* on the list.
Reasonable, Steve, or what?
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington New Zealand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1224.5 ---------------
From: "MICHAEL RONALL" (mronall rabecker.com)
Subject: Re: PRIVATE -- SUGGESTION Re: my introduction
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 23:37:43 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
))) Ezra Beeman (ezra ozymandias.net) - 4/13/99 11:09 PM )))
)Yes please, I want to play too! I promise to not ever comment on the critics thread! Cross my
)heart, hope to die.
)Maybe the first post could begin with an exhaustive but relevant posting of all 'supporters.'
Arch supporters? /MRx (Hi, Michael)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1224.6 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra ozymandias.net)
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 20:47:54 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (34338927 toto.iv)
(199904101605.JAA16177 lists1.best.com)
(199904121924.MAA28609 lists1.best.com)
(199904131353.GAA15841 lists1.best.com) (199904140116.SAA23373 lists1.best.com)
The word 'evolution' implies improvement and improvement demands a criteria. The question, then, is
who or what decides on the criteria.
If you are a materialist, then the criteria for improvement changes with the environment, and what
is beneficial in one primordial goo is detrimental in another. You can extrapolate from this result
at your own peril.
The 'evolutionary' construct is not beholden to the material world, and I do not see why the fitness
of ideas would not be subject to these very same (abstracted) forces dictating biological survival.
In fact, I think the psychological study of memes is a fine example of an immaterial application of
evolutionary theory.
e
Michael Hirsch wrote:
) No no. I said evolution is a material theory. I have always assumed
) that spiritual people could understand it, but only if they are also
) able to think materially.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1224.7 ---------------
From: redon (redon geocities.com)
Subject: Re: Charter and Choice WAS:Re: Dan's book, discussion, scientific
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 23:23:50 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199904101605.JAA16179 lists1.best.com)
) From: Bob Jones (b2251 yahoo.com)
) Subject: Re: Charter and Choice WAS:Re: Dan's book, discussion, scientific
) --- redon (redon geocities.com) wrote:
) ) FYI: You may be interested to know that in Wisconsin
) ) the Teachers Union
) ) lost big time this past
) ) Wednesday.
) And how was that? Our elections were on Tuesday.
You are correct, I should have been clearer, the results came in on
Wednesday.
) Statewide, "The Teachers Union" (and just which union is that?) wasn't
) running for anything and that particular issue was not on the statewide
) ballot.
Federal State and Local: The Teachers Union and all of their connection
to this election are currently
under investigation.
) ) Wisconsin's largest school district now have a
) ) majority of board members
) ) who are pro charter and choice.
) One district, encompassing inner city Milwaukee.
There are 360,000 people who live in the City of Milwaukee. Milwaukee is
made up of more than just an
inner city.
) And I spent 15 years
) of my young adult life in Milwaukee and I have relatives who teach _in
) that district_, so don't tell me about it, ok?
OK, but what is that supposed to mean?
Sen. Joe McCarthey was from Madison does that mean nothing has changed
in Wisconsin's political landscape
since?
) ) The Mayor of Wisconsin's largest city, (a democrat)
) ) stands firmly behind
) ) the charter and choice schools
) ) as does the Governor of the state.
) Milwaukee is a long way away, in many ways.
Milwaukee is a long way away from what ways, please explain?
) We farmers are majority Republican. In fact, the one Waldorf parent elected to office here had to run
) as a Republican & manipulated a few folks for a short time in
) order to get one term.
I don't understand this statement, are you saying Waldorf parents can't
be Republicans?
) The Governor was born & raised 50 miles away
) (he's Republican). Our senate's past president(R) is local within 40
) miles, as we count things out here.
I don't understand this either, Tommy is for Charter and Choice he is a
Republican.
What do you mean by "we count things out here"?
) Choice means something other than
) Charter and Waldorf has been on the radar screen of a few Departments
) within the state government, as well as a few legislators from this
) area. A couple of personal experiences has been all it took.
Can you explain this further, please?
) ) The money that the Teachers Union spent was the
) ) largest amount recorded
) ) in this states political history
) ) and they still lost by 2/3's of the total votes
) ) counted.
) ) The Teachers Union is now under investigation for
) ) their spending
) ) practices, not to mention the damage
) ) they have done to themselves by their perpetual fear
) ) based ads flooding
) ) radio and television stations,
) ) their mean spirited campaign through flyers, and the
) ) perfidious lies
) ) they voiced about rival candidates.
) ) The Teachers Union in the State of Wisconsin has
) ) all, but lost any
) ) credibility they had.
) The teacher's paper (sorry, it is newsprint, tabloid- sized with some
) color on the front page...a friend showed me the article on Charters, I
) haven't a clue what it's title is) quoted Department of Education
) figures. It was not an editorial by union thugs who work on the other
) side of the state.
How do you know this, do you remember the name of the publisher and what
organization backs that
publication?
) The union never had any credibility at all, but the
) SE corner of the state is Democratic/Labor dominated. The power of the
) national teacher's organizations as well as that of the state
) organizations is written into legally binding contracts. More goes on
) behind the scenes than any of us would care to know. We voters have
) never had any power at all over the unions, especially in education.
) You, however, are generalizing from a single district with it's own
) unique politics & problems.
This is confusing me also, how am I generalizing about a legitimate
investigation into possible
corruption by the teachers union, firm quoted support for Choice and
Charters by the Mayor of Milwaukee
and the Governor of Wisconsin and after the resent election of 2/3
majority of people who voted for
School Board Members who favor Charters and Choice?
Yet, your statements say that you believe that the voters never had
power over the unions, especially
in education and that perhaps there is inappropriate 'goings on' behind
the scenes within the teachers
union, and then something about democratic labor in the SE corridor of
the state, these are pretty
general statements can you please elaborate and clarify?
) ) Parents on the other hand have seen through the
) ) tactics, and they
) ) expressed this by taking
) ) responsibility and participating in the democratic
) ) process, they have
) ) seen and experienced the results
) ) with their children. Even the University of
) ) Wisconsin who produces the
) ) bulk of Wisconsin Teachers will
) ) be heading 3 new Charter Schools this fall.
) Madison is fantasy land. Or are you talking about UW-Milwaukee, which
) has a huge School of Education? The Charters will rise or fall on their
) individual merits. UW-Madison is the _largest_ campus, period, so it
) would not be surprising they turned out the_most_teachers. However,
) UW-Milwaukee; UW-LaCrosse,
) Stout, Platteville & Whitewater all turn out teachers, as well, and it
) is usually those from the smaller campuses that teach, & therefore
) settle, out here. A farmer with a wife who is a teacher or a nurse, is
) a common combination. Some of my neighbors are both teachers _&_ they
) farm. My wife is an RN.
What do you mean by Madison being a fantasy land, I hope you are not
stereotyping all of the people
who live there or are you talking about the politicians?
And Yes, UW-Milwaukee will be sponsoring 3 new Charter schools,
UW-Madison is looking into some new
Charter projects, the Medical College of Wisconsin is also forming a
Charter School , and there are a
variety of others in the process state wide.
Other than the demographics of your area I am not following your other
points?
) With a
) ) YES vote for the
) ) winning candidates parents, the
) ) University, the Mayor, the Governor, along with the
) ) State Supreme Court
) ) of Wisconsin have aided and
) ) secured the future for charter and choice schools.
) ) Now it is up to the
) ) Teachers Union to try and work
) ) together.
)
) With whom?
Public, Charters, and Choice.
It's time the Union stop lam bashing Charters and Choice and think about
the children instead of their
pockets and political power.
) Parents in the inner city & working class district will get vouchers:
) by income level on an experimental basis in one district. There is an
) income qualifier.It is not in force here, yet. The gear-up is in
) process because Charters are in our future & it will mean a bigger
) budget for the Superintendant.
Only if they are District Public Charters.
If local Charters and Choice schools are mandated by the state and local
governments the Public District
Officials and Administrators will receive less money and the local Tax
Payers will be keeping more
money. This seems to present a large problem for the teachers union.
) We have parents on our school board,
) also. They and other parents also vote.That is how the Waldorf
) candidate was defeated.
I am unfamiliar with your personal situation, you said there was no
local school board election last
week in your district so how was this candidate defeated?
) Tommy is a Republican & he is being talked of in national political
) circles. He is gaining credibility with his base by backing choice &
) trying for some liberal votes with Charters.
Are you stating that the demand for a Charter School is an exclusively
liberal endeavor?
) This state is not run, in
) lockstep or separately, by the University (which varies campus to
) campus), the Governor, the Mayor of Milwaukee, or the State Supreme
) Court. Our State Supreme Court is in disarray; since the Chief Justice
) won re-election, several of the other Justices have declared they will
) retire. She is a flaming liberal and a darling of the Woman's Movement.
) She is also no spring chicken. Nor are her supporters.
These are some pretty broad and general statements, what brings you to
these conclusions?
) We are a representative democracy. _WE_ run the state thru the
) political process. We have Farmer's Co-operatives, Rural Electrical
) Co-operatives,Telephone Co-operatives, the Ag interests, and the land.
) We just won a referendum limiting lottery property tax credits to
) residents and special tax breaks for production cropland will likely
) pass this session of the legislature. Our county and townships are
) fighting rural zoning & so far, we have won.The media harps on the
) failing family farm & it _is tough_ out here, but it is Darwinism in
) action. The good producers hang on & they consolidate out of necessity.
) Producers Co-ops and Marketing Co-ops exist. You all still have to eat.
)
) As a group,we are a potent political & economic force in the upper
) Midwest, not just Wisconsin. Our grain keeps the barge traffic on the
) Mississippi profitable The grain elevators are players in the
) international commodities markets. The bakeries and breweries in
) Milwaukee and around the world need that grain.
)
) In addition, our children and many of us are teachers. You have a
) strange view of America, Wisconsin, the representative process and the
) educational system, let alone how they interact. Like any system, it is
) dynamic. It responds to ad hoc situations. As do we all.
)
) Expect challanges on a case-by-case basis. Science Charters? Sure. Real
) arts charters, sans Steiner? You betch'a. Waldorf? Nah!
I am not sure about everything you just started and what it is all
supposed to mean in reference to the
topic, but I think I do understand the system and how it works, further
I believe the movement for
Charters and Choice in the state of Wisconsin and the country is very
dynamic. So dynamic that the
election in Milwaukee made the Wall Street Journal's call that it will
speed up this trend around the
country.
) ) BTW, care to cite the publication of that article?
) As I said, I am not a teacher. Check Department of Education (Federal)
) statistics on outcome vs expectations for Charters, nationwide.
There are more than 500 Educational Periodical in the US, but I will see
if I can find the article and
publisher, any information you can send me to aid in my search would be
appreciated?
) Clinton threw out Charters with that entire Mardi-Gras of goodies he's
) been tossing at this constituency and that, these days. Will they last?
) Are they a fad? Can they make up for poor parenting? Will education
) itself survive the postmodern age? Inquiring minds want to know.
I give very little credence to Bill Clinton's solutions and credibility
when it comes to any issue
facing this country.
) If your info came from our state newspapers, please realize that
) politics extend everywhere, including the media.Milwaukee is Labor
) Democrat; Madison is considered Far Left. The LaCrosse Tribune is
) liberal, and LaCrosse is a working-class town, so Labor is big there,
) too.
I have several source for my information conservative and liberal,
including direct experience.
) The Internet is no substitute for real life, up close & personal.
Al Gore invented it, how could it not be ;)
) Charter doesn't equal Waldorf.
) BJ
How many Charter Waldorf Schools have you been to up close and personal
with?
I am also hoping that the bulk of your information about Waldorf isn't
coming off the Internet :)
Best,
-el
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1224.8 ---------------
From: Daniel Sabsay (danielsabsay pacbell.net)
Subject: Ezra and Evolution
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 22:52:52 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Oh, please Ezra,
)The word 'evolution' implies improvement and improvement demands a
)criteria. The question, then, is who or what decides on the criteria.
The word evolution implies change, nothing more. The rest is rant.
)If you are a materialist, then the criteria for improvement changes with
)the environment, and what is beneficial in one primordial goo is detrimental
in
)another. You can extrapolate from this result at your own peril.
Peril? I am not put in peril by understanding how things work.
)The 'evolutionary' construct is not beholden to the material world,
Ezra, again the fuzziness of either your education, or your thinking has
led you to choose the word "beholden". Nobody made this assertion. The
word that fits here really is "restricted".
)and I do not see why the fitness of ideas would not be subject to these very
same
)(abstracted) forces dictating biological survival.
Nobody said they weren't. But remember that local adaptation can also
become counter-productive for longterm survival. Thus, while belief in a
set of warm and fuzzy, but patently false, concepts such as "the heart is
not a pump" does bind believers into a mutually beneficial group, they
and their children will not contribute any cardiac surgeons to the world.
In the short run, this doesn't affect the world, since the rest of the
us will continue to train surgeons.
)In fact, I think the psychological study of memes is a fine example of an
immaterial
)application of evolutionary theory.
So what, this does not imply that mentation is not a material process,
nor does it mean that the success of St. Rudi's followers validates the
accuracy of Rudi's ideas.
)Michael Hirsch wrote:
)
)) No no. I said evolution is a material theory. I have always assumed
)) that spiritual people could understand it, but only if they are also
)) able to think materially.
-- Daniel
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Daniel Sabsay, president "Ignorance is the ultimate renewable resource"
East Bay Skeptics Society http://www.eb-skeptics.org
mail eb-skeptics.org
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1224.9 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 06:20:39 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: (34338927 toto.iv) (199904101605.JAA16177 lists1.best.com)
(199904121924.MAA28609 lists1.best.com)
(199904131353.GAA15841 lists1.best.com)
(199904140116.SAA23373 lists1.best.com)
(199904140340.UAA25157 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904140340.UAA25157 lists1.best.com)
Ezra Beeman (ezra ozymandias.net) wrote:
)The word 'evolution' implies improvement
Why? I agree that "Darwinian (or neo-Darwinian) evolution" probably
implies improvement, in the sense that the evolved product is better
suited to its environment, but unqualified "evolution" need not.
Noctis Gaudia Carpe,
Stephen
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829) | (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk) +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1224.10 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 06:25:13 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: (199904130811.BAA22656 lists1.best.com)
(199904130647.XAA06359 lists1.best.com)
(199904120153.SAA00786 lists1.best.com)
(199904112103.OAA11017 lists1.best.com)
(199904101605.JAA16177 lists1.best.com)
(199904131253.FAA20923 lists1.best.com)
(199904132313.QAA02293 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904132313.QAA02293 lists1.best.com)
Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz) wrote:
)MK:
)))But, please, can you tell me where the alternative sects of the
)))Anthroposphical Society are located? What are there names? Who are their
)))leaders?
)
)TS:
))This would be better commented by someone on eht list who is a current
))member of the Anthroposophical Society,
)
)KOPP:
)Okay, I'll readdress the question to Stephen Tonkin, who is a current
)member. How about it, Stephen?
I am unaware of any.
Noctis Gaudia Carpe,
Stephen
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829) | (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk) +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1224 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1225 --------------
001 - Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis - Re: Defining Religion; Including Anthroposophy
002 - Ezra Beeman (ezra ozymand - Re: Ezra (S J Gould) and Evolution
003 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: my introduction
004 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: Projective Geometry
005 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Admin: web counter 24,492
006 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: Roy Wilkinson and the "How-To" Books
007 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: Roy Wilkinson and the "How-To" Books
008 - Robert Flannery (litvas i - Re: PRIVATE -- SUGGESTION Re: my introduction
009 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: my introduction
010 - Robert Flannery (litvas i - Re: Roy Wilkinson and the "How-To" Books
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1225.1 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Defining Religion; Including Anthroposophy
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 08:54:41 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: (199904122323.QAA24442 lists1.best.com)
(199904100235.TAA01036 lists1.best.com)
(199904100235.TAA01036 lists1.best.com)
(199904120833.BAA03716 lists1.best.com)
(199904122323.QAA24442 lists1.best.com)
(199904130757.AAA15739 lists1.best.com)
(199904132246.PAA06124 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904132246.PAA06124 lists1.best.com)
John & Wendy Morehead (morehead mail2.quiknet.com) wrote:
))ST:
))OK -- I'll concede that one. But if one believes those things, does that
))make one an anthroposophist? I believed them before I discovered
))anthroposophy, so I have never considered them to be specific tenets of
))anthroposophy. If such belief does make one an anthropop, there must be
))a lot of anthropops who don't know that's what they are. If not, what
))belief do you think does define an anthropop and sets him apart from
))others who believe in the above?
)
)Then regardless of whether you would have classified yourself as an
)athroposophist, you did hold to a religious worldview.
By your definitions of religion/religious, you are correct. I am still
curious to know which of the beliefs distinguish an anthroposophist from
others who believe in those things. Yes, I agree that this is entirely
irrelevant to whether or not anthroposophy is a religion.
[...]
)This is relevant to the
)Waldorf case in that the question is should a pedagogy which flows from a
)religious worldview/philosophy/spiritual science (pick your term) be
)allowed in public schools or is this a violation of the establishment clause?
Indeed. But these are legal issues, which I am prepared to leave to the
courts.
)
))ST:
))I am not disputing that the Christian Community is a religion. The
))question is whether or not *anthroposophy* is a religion, not whether or
))not the religion associated with it is a religion.
))
))The House of Commons (UK Parliament) has daily prayers; the Church
))associated with it (Church of England) has rituals. Does that make Her
))Majesty's Government a religion?
)
)But I think it is clear that Anthroposophy does meet such a definition,
)examples of which I've provided by religious studies scholars. Now another
)individual questioned my ability to tackle the legal ramifications of
)Waldorf education due to a lack of a background on my part in legal
)studies. So the implication is that those trained to specialize in certain
)disciplines know what they're talking about. I can agree with that.
I would suggest that they almost certainly know more than the non-
specialist. I don't agree that it makes them infallible -- I'm sure we
can all find our favourite list of 50 gaffes by experts, probably with
little overlap.
In the context of our discussion I agree that you are much more
knowledgeable than I on the subject of religion in general and I respect
that. However, I am one of these arrogant iconoclastic types who has
almost made a vocation of challenging experts when I disagree with them
(g). Whilst I concede that an expert is more likely to know what he is
talking about, I think that what is said is far more important than the
source of the statement. "Appeal to authority" is not, IMHO, a valid
form of argumentation (scientists here will probably agree with me) -- I
detest arguing with the Commies who preface every second remark with
"Marx said..." (or the anthropops who start with "Steiner said...").
)Religious studies professors have defined religion variously, and because
)anthroposophy *does* meet such definitions, they include it in standard
)reference works on religion.
I still don't agree fully with this definition fitting (I'll come back
to that later with some questions), but can we agree that "they include
it in some (or even "most") standard reference works on religion." ?
) The burden of proof is thus on those who would
)argue contrary to this position that it should not be so included.
In reality, that is probably the case, but I wonder about the ethics
"guilty until proved innocent" overtones. (No, I am not implying that
you are being unethical -- I accept that you are merely explaining the
status quo.)
)
))ST:
))That could indeed be argued -- the question, as far as a working
))definition goes, is precisely which elements need to be incorporated? If
))a religion need not incorporate each and every element, then some of
))those elements must be redundant -- which ones, and why have them in the
))definition if they need not be incorporated?
)
)The elements need not be redundant, simply that a group does not
)necessarily have to incorporate each and every element to meet the
)definition.
I don't feel that you have fully addressed my questions. May I try
rephrasing them? I'll number them for later ease of reference. Apologies
if this reveals my classroom practice and brings back unhappy memories
of schoolroom tests (g).
(1) If each and every element need not be met:
(a) Specifically which, if any, elements *must* be met?
(b) Specifically which elements need not be met?
(c) Is there a minimum number of elements which must be met?
(d) If the answer to (c) is yes, how many?
(2) If there are elements in the definition which need not be met, why
are they included in the definitions?
Do correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that the formulation of
the definitions has happened in a somewhat "retrogressive circular"
manner. What I mean is this: It was decided that certain things are
religions, then attempts were made to formulate definitions which
included those things. Unsurprisingly, those things were found to fit
the definitions. This does not necessarily mean that they are not
religions, but it is (from a logical/philosophical perspective) not a
particularly helpful way to define things.
[...]
))ST:
))I dispute that anthroposophy fits into the New Age movement; ISTR others
))(Tarjei? Sune?) have recently gone into detail about this, so I'll not
))do so here.
)
)Then you disagree with leading Waldorf educators (such as M.C. Richards who
)included a chapter on Waldorf and "New Age education" in his book _Toward
)Wholeness_), and religious studies scholars operating in their area of
)speciality and scholarship.
Yes, I do disagree. I have given some reasons why in my reply to Michael
Kopp.
) The burden of proof is again on those who would
)seek to counter the weight of this evidence.
Probably, but I suggest that it is essentially a matter of opinion, and
not something which can be unequivocally decided.
)
))ST:
))E.g. adherence to a set of beliefs and rituals. As one team manager
))famously said, "This game isn't a matter of life and death -- it's much
))more important than that."
)
)Please look at the definitions more carefully.
I have. Given your statement:
)a group does not
)necessarily have to incorporate each and every element to meet the
)definition.
Soccer fits some of them on the grounds that it meets some of the
elements. Hence my enumerated questions above, specifically (1).
)Religious studies scholars
)have been very careful to try to define religion in such a way to include
)both "tradition" theistic religions, as well as non-theistic religions and
)the so-called "new spirituality" and new religious movements,
This is precisely what I meant by "retrogressive circular" definition!
Can you not see that deciding something is a religion, then defining it,
then using that definition to "prove" that it is a religion is not
exactly a process which enhances knowledge of what a religion is?
) while not
)providing a definition so broad as to incorrectly incorporate clearly
)non-religious groups or belief systems (such as soccer).
)From my (admittedly inexpert) perspective, they have failed in this
latter point. You have already, I think, conceded that Marxism-Leninism
and Secular Humanism can be considered by experts to be religions
according to some of these definitions.
)
))ST:
))Do I take it you are arguing that anything that has a religious nature
))is a religion? The direct answer to your direct question is that I
))consider it to be a spiritual philosophy (which, I submit, is distinct
))from a religion).
)
)I was asking your view. I think anthroposophy has both a religious nature
)and is a religion,
John, I don't think you have answered the question. Do you, like Michael
Kopp, argue that anything with a religious nature (or spiritual nature)
is a religion? If so, I suggest you may be getting into
logical/philosophical hot water.
) and have provided the reasons for that, contrary to your
)denials.
No, I do not deny that you have provided reasons, I deny that you have
provided *sufficient* reason. My point is that, whilst anthroposophy
certainly fits some of the definitions of religion which you have
posted, so do things which are clearly not religions -- like Secular
Humanism.
)To call anthroposophy a spiritual philosophy or spiritual science
)does not mean it does not meet the definition of religion, either according
)to religious studies or the courts.
I agree, but neither does it mean that it does. Again, I do not dispute
that it fulfils *some* of the criteria in the definitions you posted,
and again I point out that so do things which "reasonable people" would
agree are not religions.
) For example, Transcendental
)Meditation/Science of Creative Intelligence called TM a secular meditation
)technique. But the courts ruled that it was religious in nature and the
)public school's promotion of it involved a violation of the establishment
)clause.
I'm not sure that this is analogous -- are you suggesting that Waldorf
schools systematically promote anthroposophy in the classroom. I know
that it is the view of many of the participants on this list and I know
that far too many individual cases of this have happened (and I have
given my opinion on this). As to the question of it being systematic, I
don't think so. I am not aware that I do it. If I may do what you did
and appeal to the founder of Waldorf education, he (Steiner)
specifically said that we must not teach anthroposophy. I agree with him
on this one.
)We must look beyond preferred labels to other elements which would
)define a given philosophy/religion/technique, etc.
Yes, that makes sense.
)I think you did argue from silence. I provided definitions of religion, and
)then argued that because Anthroposophy meets these definitions, it is
)included in scholarly reference works on religion. You then came back and
)said something to the effect of, "Well, I check some of my religious
)reference works and they don't include anthroposophy." This is an argument
)from silence.
If that was I all I did, you would be correct. However, I submit that
this has not been my sole (or even main) argument. Do you submit that
*all* experts on religion agree that anthroposophy is a religion, or do
you concede that some may disagree?
) No reference work is comprehensive, and you've got to deal
)not only with what your books don't say, but what the sources I cited do say.
John, I have been trying to do just that. I submit that I have argued
that the definitions are flawed, not only in the process of their
formulation, but also in that they have a catch-all nature that catches
too much.
)
))I certainly concede that it is not a clear-cut case, either way.
)
)I am arguing to the contrary.
Noted.
))ST:
))John, the context of the above is the religion lessons. Of course the
))religion lessons in a Waldorf school are religious! I had religion
))lessons in my school -- that did not make the Rhodesian government a
))religion. My understanding is that the Waldorf schools in the US public
))school system do *not* have religion lessons. Is this correct?
)
)Yes, that's the context, which I made clear in my posts (if I remember
)correctly) and in my article where I quote Steiner here. But then Steiner
)proceeds and says religion can be introduced in *any* subject
What he said in the quote you cited was:
"It [religion] must permeate the teaching of every subject...No
education can be conducted without a religious foundation."
(The Education of the Child, 69)
I submit that there is a clear distinction between permeating teaching
and being introduced. I gave my interpretation of what he meant when I
responded the first time. I note that you believe that other Waldorf
educators disagree with my interpretation.
))ST:
))It wouldn't be the first time -- but I also submit that a large (and
))growing? majority?) number of Waldorf teachers share my view on this.
)
)Glad to hear it. Maybe they'll join with Waldorf critics then to move
)Waldorf education to private school settings only where it belongs as a
)religious pedagogy.
I think you are pre-empting the courts here.
I know what I am about to say is contrary to the US constitution but I
am making a general point, not specifically directed to the US, when I
state that I believe in the principle that the state should equally
support the education of all children of its (tax-paying) residents and
that the *only* criteria on which a decision to fund education are based
must be educational.
Whether or not Waldorf schools should accept publicly funding in such
circumstances would, IMHO, depend on what "strings" were applied. I'm
not convinced either way.
)
))ST:
))I take Steiner's writings to serve as *indications*, not as
))*prescriptions*.
[...]
)
)Anthroposophical Press disagrees with you. How can the writings of the man
)who pioneered the discovery of the supersensible worlds have less authority
)in understanding anthroposophy and Waldorf than contemporary athroposophists?
No contradictor here. Steiner exhorted his followers not to simply
believe what he said, but to find out for themselves. He insisted that
anthroposophy must develop and be superseded. I do not accept Steiner
(or any other man) as an infallible authority. However, I don't expect
to see a world-wide (or even local) movement of "Tonkin education"
develop over the next decades (g).
))John, do you think we are getting anywhere?
)
)Sure.
OK -- my replies are, as of tomorrow, going to be less prompt and
probably less comprehensive/voluminous (probably a relief to all).
May I try to sum up where we have got to -- tell me if you concur.
* We agree that there are scholarly definitions of religion which
anthroposophy fits.
* We disagree on whether these definitions are capable of catching non-
religions.
* We disagree on whether Waldorf education systematically teaches a
specific religious view in the classroom. (Religion lessons, which
would anyway be illegal in the US public education system excluded.)
Would you care to add to these points?
I suspect that we'll not get far with the last point, although I'm
willing to continue to debate it if you wish. I do think there may be
some mileage in trying to reach an agreement on the second point.
I appreciate your willingness to argue issues and the way your posts
challenge my thinking and views. I find it stimulating.
Noctis Gaudia Carpe,
Stephen
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829) | (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk) +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1225.2 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra ozymandias.net)
Subject: Re: Ezra (S J Gould) and Evolution
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 01:11:54 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199904140552.WAA02327 lists1.best.com)
My so called rant is loosely borrowed from 'Ever Since Darwin' by S. J. Gould. I
also happen to agree with him.
e
Daniel Sabsay wrote:
) Oh, please Ezra,
)
) )The word 'evolution' implies improvement and improvement demands a
) )criteria. The question, then, is who or what decides on the criteria.
)
) The word evolution implies change, nothing more. The rest is rant.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1225.3 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: my introduction
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 11:18:46 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199904130101.SAA13062 lists1.best.com)
Alan Fine, you wrote,
)To contribute to answering your question about the appropriateness of
)Waldorf education for Jewish children, I have been looking for a recently
)published book by Rene Querido on the spiritual basis of Waldorf education.
)I think you may find it relevent. Can anyone tell me how to get a copy?
The Esoteric Background of Waldorf Education: The Cosmic Christ Impulse by
Rene Querido. Fair Oaks, CA: Rudolf Steiner College Press, 1995.
also
The Spiritual Basis of Steiner Education: The Waldorf School Approach by
Roy Wilkinson. London: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1996.
I'm sure both are available from the RSC bookstore 916 961 8729.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1225.4 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Projective Geometry
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 22:48:10 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199904131115.EAA12100 lists1.best.com)
Bruce, you wrote,
)Steiner wanted to become a teacher, so he attended University in order that
)he could teach the sciences later. He studied biology, chemistry, physics and
)mathematics. Having obtained his degree he went on to obtain his doctorate in
)Philosophy.
He did not take a regular path to his doctorate. He did not have to face a
committee. It was granted by his mentor for his work on the Goethe papers,
what would be called "independent study" today. He took no graduate level
science courses.
)If that doesn't qualify one to be called a scientist, Dan, then I would be
)interested to hear what you think DOES!?
Having an eduation in science. Working in science. Publishing in scientific
journals, especially. Steiner did none of these. He was not a scientist.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1225.5 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Admin: web counter 24,492
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 01:33:54 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On April 12, 1999, the PLANS web site had registered 24,492 visitors since
August 12, 1996. That's 1163 visitors in the last month, averaging 40 per
day.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1225.6 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Roy Wilkinson and the "How-To" Books
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 02:04:27 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199904130411.VAA23392 lists1.best.com)
(199904130151.SAA24553 lists1.best.com)
(199904122249.PAA29137 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904131014.DAA15317 lists1.best.com)
Robert Flannery, you wrote,
)Waldorf students produce their own textbooks in everything they do. These
)textbooks are a snapshot of the daily life in a waldorf classroom--they
)aren't supplements to the instruction, or ancillary to mass-market
)textbooks--they are primary source material. They aren't supplemented by
)filmstrips, movies, CD-roms, televised instruction, or a lot of worksheets.
)The main lesson books are worked with nearly every day, and they are
)produced for year upon year in the lower and middle school.
(snip)
)If Wilkinson's books are being used extensively as teaching guides for the
)lesson plans, or if dogmatic senior teachers are forcing or coercing
)younger teachers to promote flawed material, or if racial ethnography were
)still being taught, *you would have a great deal more evidence on hand*
)than Dan's, Michael's, and Herman's experience.
)
)If the teaching is so saturated with "mumbo-jumbo", why aren't we hearing
)more directly about it? There are any number of ways such a miseducation
)could be documented: either from parents themselves, speaking directly in
)this forum or via anonymous posts, or through some of the hundreds of
)thousands of main lesson books produced yearly by the students themselves,
)or through journalism where the names have been changed to protect the
)innocent. You're a journalist yourself, Michael, so why don't *you*
)produce the expose?
Teachers on the list keep claiming that -their- classes don't have any
Anthroposophy in them, but when I ask for lesson books that prove it, I get
no response. How about it?
How about a 'snapshot.' Ship me one exemplary lesson book from each block
taught in your whole school this year. I'll pay the freight and return them
in 30 days.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1225.7 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Roy Wilkinson and the "How-To" Books
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 02:05:12 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199904122249.PAA29137 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904130151.SAA24553 lists1.best.com)
Robert Flannery, you wrote,
)The "how-to" books can be relied on for a lesson in a pinch.
)Consequently, every teacher who falls back on such a crutch has missed an
)opportunity to work the material through for themselves. Under such
)conditions, Wilkinson's books promote dogmatic behavior and thinking (apart
)from any consideration of the quality of his suggestions).
)
)If reading Wilkinson makes you think (especially if it makes you think of
)alternatives), it's effective enough. That said, I find these particular
)books to be the most dangerous guides on the market because the boundary
)between anthroposophy and lesson plan is quite blurry.
It's supposed to be, Robert.
"There is something we should try hard to do-and it works in a very
enlivening way on the child's whole forces-namely to incorporate
Anthroposophy organically into the lessons, in the sort of way you did, Dr.
von Heydebrand, in Anthropology, and you, Dr. Stein, in History. With some
of you it is there of itself. You cannot do Eurythmy without Anthroposophy.
You must try and bring Anthroposophy into the lesson in such a way that it
becomes part of it, without teaching it theoretically if you can possibly
avoid it."
[Steiner, Rudolf. Conferences with the Teachers of the Waldorf School in
Stuttgart 1919 to 1920: Volume One: The First and Second Years of the
Waldorf School, Stuttgart. (1920) Forest Row, U.K.: Steiner Schools
Fellowship Publications, 1986. p. 90]
"Tensions occur when opposing interests conflict. Each teacher must decide
for him or herself how to resolve the tensions inherent in the values most
Waldorf educators hold. For instance, Rudolf Steiner did not want his
schools to become Anthroposophical schools (see Chapter One). Although
teachers practice Anthroposophy themselves, they are not supposed to
introduce Anthroposophy in the classroom or encourage students to become
Anthroposophists. However, when the symbolic conditions in Waldorf classes
are examined closely, it becomes clear that the "pictures" Waldorf
educators present to students are those that have been stimulated by
Anthroposophy. For example, the idea that animals share the astral nature
of the human being is an Anthroposophical idea. Waldorf educators do not
teach this idea to students on a conscious level, but through symbolic
types of conditions the idea is presented on a subconscious level (see
Chapter Five). Also, the use of archetypes generally presents pictures to
children's minds. If Waldorf teachers are right, and symbolic conditions do
influence students in unconscious ways, then the Anthroposophical ideas
that affect teachers' pedagogy and curriculum may also affect students'
consciousness. Anthroposophy is potentially affecting children.
"Admittedly, there is a great deal of difference between a school that
purposely sets out to teach students a particular religion and Waldorf
schools that try, at least, to be spiritual, but unrestricted by any
organized religion. However, to suggest that Anthroposophy does not enter
into the classroom is not entirely accurate. I make this point because I
have heard some Waldorf educators talk as though Anthroposophy does not
enter the classroom. What does not enter into the classroom is a discussion
about Anthroposophy. Given this tension between the desire to keep
Anthroposophy out of the classroom and the inevitable fact that it
permeates the school in subtle ways, Waldorf educators ought to consider
the question of how they will or will not allow Anthroposophy in the
classroom."
[Uhrmacher, P. Bruce. Waldorf Schools Marching Quietly Unheard: A
Dissertation Submitted to the School of Education and the Committee on
Graduate Studies of Stanford University in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. May, 1991. pp. 255-256]
)Given the wide circulation of these titles, I'm amazed that more examples
)of miseducation of the type described by Micheal Kopp and Dan Dugan aren't
)in evidence. I strongly suspect that most waldorf teachers recognize this
)material for what it is, as well as what it isn't.
Whenever I visit a school I do see such evidence. The lesson books are
closely held, however, so it's hard to document. When I can, I photograph
pages in books left out for show.
You, Robert, and Stephen Tonkin, are exceptional teachers; exceptionally
smart and educated, and strong enough not to be cowed by elders and
mentors. I think, and excuse the amateur psychologizing, that you -have- to
believe that most teachers are like you, and that they can keep
Anthroposophy out of their lessons (taking you at your word that -you-
actually do). Otherwise your support of Waldorf education would be
hypocritical.
I think you're creating a convenient fantasy. Most Waldorf teachers teach
Anthroposophical concepts, as typically found in Wilkinson's handbooks,
because that's what they're supposed to do, and all the literature and
mentoring available to them encourages them to do that. When I see you guys
publishing articles in Renewal about how to recognize and avoid teaching,
for example, Steinerian pseudoscience, I'll believe that your agenda for
reform goes beyond your classroom door.
Sincerely, Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1225.8 ---------------
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Re: PRIVATE -- SUGGESTION Re: my introduction
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 06:15:43 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199904132355.QAA14671 lists1.best.com)
(199904132239.PAA00792 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904140306.UAA28968 lists1.best.com)
Michael Kopp says:
)Flannery, as a Waldorf teacher, has been extremely defensive and
)unforthcoming about his own teaching and the inner realm of Waldorf
)education.
Some months ago (it may have been as early as last summer), you posted a
request to the list. You called it a survey of teachers--I was the only
teacher who answered it. My post, if I recall correctly, was pretty
detailed, and took up a lot of different aspects of my teaching and where
my personal views fit in the waldorf movement, generally. I believe I
wrote about aspects of working with children as a waldorf teacher, the
issue of waldorf teacher training in areas like science and math, and
distinguishing anthroposophy and mainstream science. In my answer, I
raised the issue of waldorf teachers with a weak background in science
having the potential to confuse science and anthroposophy.
As soon as I posted, you replied to the list with a request that no further
dialogue follow with regard to the comments that I had made. You said all
subscribers should refrain from "cross-posting" so that any forthcoming
responses to your survey could remain untainted by a continuing thread.
You said I had raised some interesting points that you would address in a
post that you were in the process of preparing.
Nothing further happened. No more responses came to your survey, your
response never appeared. It died a'borning.
Another critic (perhaps it was Deby) more recently put forth another
request for a survey. She asked waldorf teachers to describe a typical day
in their classrooms, and asked for specifics about verses, songs, nature
tables and other aspects of classrooms and class life. I responded to that
in some detail, along with Stephen and Bruce.
The only point I wish to make here is this: I don't think the evidence at
hand supports your claim that I have been less than open. I have responded
to every request for information that has ever been made of me personally,
or waldorf teachers generally. I'm sorry to say that I have no studies or
statistical surveys available to support this claim, but the archives
support me.
The only request for information anyone's made to me directly that I have
not acted on would be the request you made yesterday about Goethean science
and the four elements (which is pending).
So, Michael, I would appreciate it greatly if you could provide examples of
where I have ever "been extremely defensive and unforthcoming about [my]
own teaching and the inner realm of Waldorf education."
I doubt you'll be able to find any such instances, so feel free to ask me
those questions now.
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1225.9 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: my introduction
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 19:22:31 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199904120701.AAA17997 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904140250.TAA22824 lists1.best.com)
Ezra Beeman writes:
)Hello Yael Resnick,
)
)I have a question for you. If a given religion contains instructions for
)the education of youth,
)should practitioner's of this religion automatically be disqualified from
)teaching at public
)institutions?
)
)I ask this question because it struck me that if you affirm anthros can't
)help but indoctrinate
)children, then what is to keep you from condemning a Jew's ability to
)instruct gentiles? Do you
)believe Jews should not teach in public education?
Michael KOPP butts in:
Ezra, you probably weren't paying attention, because you have vowed, after
my challenge to you on the HIV/AIDS issue and your advice for an infected
person, not to read any more of my posts. (But then, you've replied to
another one just today, so it can't be that ...
But I addressed this issue in my comments on the discussion between John
Morehead and Stephen Tonkin, in a post excerpted below:
--------------------------
Message-Id: (199904131041.DAA28846 lists1.best.com)
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Defining Religion; Including Anthroposophy (2 of 2)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 22:38:38 +1200
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
)Stephen Tonkin:
)))Somewhat tangential to this is the following question: If keeping in
)))mind the spiritual nature (above) whilst preparing and delivering public
)))school lessons is found to be contrary to the US constitution, how, in
)))practice, can it's exclusion be ensured if there is no outer evidence of
)))its inclusion? Or, put another way, how is it possible to legislate
)))against that which cannot be detected?
KOPP:
It can't. The Constitution does not prohibit a teacher from "keeping in
mind the spiritual". It only prohibits the _expression_ of anything
spiritual in the teaching. If a teacher strays, and includes
spiritually-oriented matter -- say, "creation science", then the teacher is
in violation. The inclusion of spiritual thought or information or
inference IS "detectable" -- even by ordinary folks like myself.
If the school suborns this behaviour, or if a local body or state of the
union (they control education in the U.S., not the federal, or national,
government) legalizes it, then they are in contravention of the federal
Constitution, which is paramount when it comes to the First Amendment and
the separation clause. And they will be sued, usually successfully.
Especially where the supposed "science" is in fact nothing but a religion
or religious or spiritual belief dressed in emperor's new clothes.
(Unfortunately, in New Zealand, teaching religion in a state-integrated
private school is legal, as long as it is part of a recognized, separate,
"special character" curriculum. But the state-mandated secular curriculum
must also be taught. Unfortunately, in our former Steiner school, for all
the five years of its integrated status, the state school inspectorate
found it to be inadequately delivering the state curriculum. And *I* found
the state curriculum to be riddled with Anthroposophical spirituality, as I
have detailed elsewhere.)
BEEMAN:
)Once the anthros are driven out of the public schools, then they will come
)for the gays. After the
)gays are cast out of the schools, then they will come for the insane.
)When the insane are driven
)from the schools, then they will come for...
)Regards,
)e
KOPP:
Sorry, Ezra, it's not the Anthroposphists the critics want kept out of
public schools. It's the religion of Anthroposophy pervading the
curriculum, and Rudolf Steiner's pedagogy that is steeped in his religion.
Anthroposophists are perfectly free to become public school teachers -- as
long as they understand the Constitutional separation of religion and
state. I hope my quoted remarks above have helped you to understand this
distinction.
As to gays and insane ... well, Ezra, you are known for hyperbole. Or maybe
thats perabole. Or ellipsole. Or ...
(I'll eschew another bad joke at your expense about who they come for next,
Ezra.)
Suggesting that the PLANS or Waldorf Critics agenda is fascist is
demagoguery.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1225.10 ---------------
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Re: Roy Wilkinson and the "How-To" Books
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 06:39:17 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199904131014.DAA15317 lists1.best.com)
(199904130411.VAA23392 lists1.best.com)
(199904130151.SAA24553 lists1.best.com)
(199904122249.PAA29137 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904140911.CAA16739 lists1.best.com)
Dan asks:
)Teachers on the list keep claiming that -their- classes don't have any
)Anthroposophy in them, but when I ask for lesson books that prove it, I get
)no response. How about it?
)
)How about a 'snapshot.' Ship me one exemplary lesson book from each block
)taught in your whole school this year. I'll pay the freight and return them
)in 30 days.
I'll be happy to describe any block I teach in detail, and you can
certainly look over and photograph all the fourth-grade work when you visit
this fall, but I will not send their materials to you.
That said, I have even less interest in coordinating a school-wide
collection across twelve grades.
How about this: since you're the one who wants this material so badly, and
you receive the school's newsletter, why not take out a classified ad in
"The Bulletin" requesting main-lesson books? You could offer to pay for
the rental, or use your pending book as a come-on. "Have you ever wanted
to see your child's work published. . . . .?"
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1225 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1226 --------------
001 - redon (redon geocities.co - Ezra and Evolution
002 - BruceyJ aol.com - Re: PRIVATE -- SUGGESTION Re: my introduction
003 - BruceyJ aol.com - Re: Projective Geometry
004 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: Roy Wilkinson and the "How-To" Books
005 - BruceyJ aol.com - Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anth
006 - BruceyJ aol.com - Re: Roy Wilkinson and the "How-To" Books
007 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
An
008 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: PRIVATE -- SUGGESTION Re: my introduction
009 - BruceyJ aol.com - Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthropo
010 - BruceyJ aol.com - Re: Projective Geometry
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1226.1 ---------------
From: redon (redon geocities.com)
Subject: Ezra and Evolution
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 04:51:48 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199904140755.AAA08178 lists1.best.com)
) From: Daniel Sabsay (danielsabsay pacbell.net)
) Subject: Ezra and Evolution
) Oh, please Ezra,
) )The word 'evolution' implies improvement and improvement demands a
) )criteria. The question, then, is who or what decides on the criteria.
) The word evolution implies change, nothing more. The rest is rant.
Evolution \Ev`o*lu"tion\, n. [L. evolutio an unrolling: cf. F. ['e]volution evolution. See Evolve.]
1. The act of unfolding or unrolling; hence, in the process of growth; development; as, the evolution of a
flower from a bud, or an animal from the egg.
2. A series of things unrolled or unfolded. ``The whole evolution of ages.'' --Dr. H. More.
3. (Geom.) The formation of an involute by unwrapping a thread from a curve as an evolute. --Hutton.
4. (Arith. & Alg.) The extraction of roots; -- the reverse of involution.
5. (Mil. & Naval) A prescribed movement of a body of troops, or a vessel or fleet; any movement designed to
effect a new arrangement or disposition; a maneuver. Those evolutions are best which can be executed with
the greatest celerity, compatible with regularity. --Campbell.
6. (Biol.) (a) A general name for the history of the steps by which any living organism has acquired the
morphological and physiological characters which distinguish it; a gradual unfolding of successive phases
of growth or development. (b) That theory of generation which supposes the germ to pre["e]xist in the
parent, and its parts to be developed, but not actually formed, by the procreative act; -- opposed to
epigenesis.
7. (Metaph.) That series of changes under natural law which involves continuous progress from the
homogeneous to the heterogeneous in structure, and from the single and simple to the diverse and manifold
in quality or function. The pocess is by some limited to organic beings; by others it is applied to the
inorganic and the psychical. It is also applied to explain the existence and growth of institutions,
manners, language, civilization, and every product of human activity. The agencies and laws of the process
are variously explained by different philosophrs.
Evolution is to me series with development. --Gladstone.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1226.2 ---------------
From: BruceyJ aol.com
Subject: Re: PRIVATE -- SUGGESTION Re: my introduction
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 09:23:33 EDT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In einer eMail vom 14.04.99 02:26:23 (MEZ) - Mitteleurop. Sommerzeit schreibt
litvas icu.com:
)
) I will make the first pledge to stay out of your thread, should you
) initiate a CRITICS ONLY experiment.
)
and I will join you
Bruce
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1226.3 ---------------
From: BruceyJ aol.com
Subject: Re: Projective Geometry
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 09:23:32 EDT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Michael Kopp asks:
) Can you be a little more analytical, please, Bruce?
I can always try!
) What part of my descriptions of "materialistic" and "Steiner" sciences is
) ... not accurate ... from your perception?
I really was meaning that Steiner can be called a scientist, even if you
don't like what he wrote and said. I don't really know how YOU define
mumbo-jumbo, and bullshit is used differently in Europe too (I think).
) And what can your last sentence really mean? If I studied science at
) university, does that mean that my view, above, is correct and I am NOT
) "full of bullshit"? Or does it mean that if I studied science at
) university, you think the science I studied is "full of bullshit"?
I meant that you seemed to spout what I referred to (maybe erroneously) as
bullshit, and I do not know whether you speak with scientific authority or
not. If qualifications are so important to you then I need to know what yours
are.
) Enquiring minds want to know all about "bullshit".
I have a very enquiring mind, but I couldn't care less about bullshit.
Bruce
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1226.4 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: Roy Wilkinson and the "How-To" Books
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 00:31:56 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
) -----Original Message-----
) From: Michael Kopp [mailto:mkopp xtra.co.nz]
)
) Robert Tolz (not Robert Flannery -- I'm getting better, Roberts) says:
I'm glad that I can detect a bit of a smile in your writing, even
amidst the anger.
)
) I don't ignore the possibility that critics' experiences are
) more _vivid_.
I'm quite sure you are correct. One wouldn't be a vociferous critic
without having had a vivid experience, while the experiences of those who
have been pleased would have been quite more mellow.
)
) But I do NOT believe that they are "over-generalized", or
) less typical.
Neither you nor I know that, and I am somewhat pleased to see -- in
the following quoted passage -- the beginnings of your acknowledgment of our
mutual ignorance of the statistics.
)
) Unfortunately, I don't have evidence from studies, or greater
) anecdotal
) reporting, to back up my belief. I admit that.
There's the magic word: belief. Belief, as I'm sure you would be
one of the first to argue, and which you have frequently argued in one form
or another, can be considered quite suspect, even if based on personal
experience and feelings, if it is not also based on something more
substantial. And I believe you would also argue strongly that anecdotal
evidence, even if repeated on more than one occasion, is not proof of the
existence of something, even if collecting several anecdotes starts to give
one comfort enough to start establishing a belief.
I think that if one applies the same rigors of critical thinking
that you would demand of someone who spouts, to your ears, mumbo-jumbo, then
you have to start questioning (as I do) the conclusion that the "vivid"
experiences of the vocal Waldorf Critics are the norm, rather than the
exception.
)
) I think you underestimate the problem of ... "shyness" ... of
) people who
) have had problems.
That is certainly a possible explanation of why there have not been
more people who have come forward with horror stories. So the statistics of
the number of people who have been "victimized" by a Waldorf experience
could theoretically be skewed under-reporting caused by shyness. But even
though I recognize that some people may be somewhat hesitant to come
forward, I question how much of a factor that would be, particularly in
light of the fact that PLANS could be viewed by such people as a readily
accessible "support group" and safe haven, much as many women's support
groups have been viewed by rape victims.
) None of this invalidates critics' experiences as illustrative
) of general
) problems with Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposohical religion and
) education,
) particularly in public or state-funded schools. The critics'
) problems are
) related to the fundmental character, dogma and history of
) these things, not
) just to the admittedly narrow sample of specific schools
) critics represent.
I can't argue with you that the experiences perhaps are illustrative
of general and potential problems, but I'm pretty much convinced by my own
limited personal experience as a Waldorf parent, and by the very open
discussion by Waldorf teachers who participate in this list, that the
general and potential problems which the Waldorf Critics decry are not the
general rule. And, to the extent that these problems are in specific
circumstances quite actual rather than merely potential, those problems are
neither intractable nor insolvable.
This is not to say that I believe that Waldorf belongs in the public
schools. I think it would be wonderful if those who do desire a
Waldorf-type education for their children but who cannot afford a private
school could avail themselves of that option. But I can also quite readily
see complaints from two opposing sides. To make Waldorf methods palatable
to the general public (not to mention to satisfy constitutional limitations)
probably requires it to be stripped of all its arguably spiritual
components. The traditional Waldorf practitioner will then argue that it's
not Waldorf anymore, while the Waldorf Critic will argue that it's not
possible to separate the two.
)
) It is reasonable to extrapolate these problems to most SWA
) schools and the
) movement world-wide because the basic practices everywhere
) can be assumed
) to follow the fundamental character, dogma and history of SWA.
There we differ on the reasonableness of such an extrapolation.
)
) I have asked Tarjei, particularly, and others, to specify
) where there are
) exceptions to this expectable standard, and all I get is SWA
) apologists'
) "belief" that there is variation and that the problems are
) confined to a
) few schools.
But you admit that the Waldorf Critics' experience is based on a
pretty limited sample. You start from the premise that your extrapolation
from the specific to the general is reasonable and then ask others to
disprove your extrapolation. I submit for your consideration that your
confidence in that extrapolation is nothing more than a "belief." You are
challenging the "apologists" to disprove your belief, as if it had greater
weight than the "belief" which the "apologists" might hold based on an
extrapolation from their own personal experiences. There's something wrong
with this picture.
)
) I think it rather more likely that the vociferousness of the
) critics on
) this list masks -- or perhaps speaks for -- a larger number
) of people who
) have had similar problems but do not feel it necessary to
) expose themselves
) since the critics have. They would be the "lurkers" who DO,
) occasionally,
) step forward and relate similar experiences.
And I'm sure you recognize that precisely the same thing could be
said of lurkers who do not agree with the Waldorf Critics.
)
) (I am in the process of creation of an "anonymizing" Web site
) where people
) can leave specific information for me, as a journalist, about
) any number of
) my interests.
That's an interesting idea, and I appreciate the technical
difficulties you outlined. I think it's better suited to providing you with
"tips" to follow up, rather than evidence which you can report on. Though I
don't know a heck of a lot about journalistic ethics and procedures, I
suspect that you wouldn't publish a story on such reports without the
ability to follow up and verify.
) It may
) turn up lots more such cases of SWA problems. Of course, it's
) likely that
) critic-critics like Robert Tolz and Robert Flannery would
) discount such
) information on the basis that _I_ could be inventing it, if
) not others who
) wish to promote anti-SWA agendas.
There certainly is a verification problem with anonymous reports,
isn't there? It's almost like the verification problem with Tarjei's story
about Darwin's writings on the spiritual aspects of natural selection theory
being destroyed by the church.
I don't for a minute believe that you would ever manufacture or
invent anything. However, you have never claimed objectivity in these
issues, and, if memory serves me well, you have even disclaimed the need to
be objective. So, frankly, I wouldn't put it past you to sift through
whatever you received with a view to producing only that which supported
your arguments while ignoring that which detracted.
It makes me think of Dan Dugan asking for copies of main lesson
books. I have a mental image of him culling through them, looking for
religious symbols that he can bring with him for show and tell at the
depositions in the PLANS lawsuit.
Bob Tolz (not Robert Flannery, and not Bob Jones)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1226.5 ---------------
From: BruceyJ aol.com
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Inf...
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 10:46:16 EDT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In einer eMail vom 14.04.99 03:26:11 (MEZ) - Mitteleurop. Sommerzeit schreibt
hirsch mathcs.emory.edu:
)
) I think any scientist who tries to grapple with reincarnation has to
) figure out where the new spirits come from. There are many more
) humans live in the 20th century than in all previous centuries
) combined, I believe. Where did the new spirits come from?
)
)
Logistically there are two possible answers.
1. The time between incarnations is much shorter now than it used to be.
2. There are souls who are only now starting to incarnate.
I believe the answer combines both these extremes
It mustn't be forgotten that the population was greater at times in
prehistory, when the great civilisations were in full swing. I am unaware of
any figures, even from Steiner.
Bruce
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1226.6 ---------------
From: BruceyJ aol.com
Subject: Re: Roy Wilkinson and the "How-To" Books
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 10:46:20 EDT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In einer eMail vom 14.04.99 11:29:48 (MEZ) - Mitteleurop. Sommerzeit schreibt
dan dandugan.com:
)
) Teachers on the list keep claiming that -their- classes don't have any
) Anthroposophy in them, but when I ask for lesson books that prove it, I get
) no response. How about it?
)
) How about a 'snapshot.' Ship me one exemplary lesson book from each block
) taught in your whole school this year. I'll pay the freight and return them
) in 30 days.
)
Dan
If you really believe that there are so many ex-pupils and parents who are so
dead against waldorf that PLANS will win its case then WHERE are THEIR
main-lesson books??
I have nothing to hide, but I am certainly not going to try and obtain
main-lesson books from my pupils simply to send them to someone who is doing
his damndest to destroy my livlihood! You might think that we can't think
(ans Michael Hirsch apparently thinks that waldorf graduates are incapable of
original thought) but I am not that bloody naive.
Bruce
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1226.7 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 17:23:05 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (96001594 toto.iv) (34338927 toto.iv)
(199904101605.JAA16177 lists1.best.com)
(199904121924.MAA28609 lists1.best.com)
(199904131353.GAA15841 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904140116.SAA23373 lists1.best.com)
Michael Hirsch wrote:
)
)I think any scientist who tries to grapple with reincarnation has to
)figure out where the new spirits come from. There are many more
)humans live in the 20th century than in all previous centuries
)combined, I believe. Where did the new spirits come from?
I have been pondering that riddle for many years, and it has also been
discussed and explored on several anthroposophical lists. It is a question
not only for anthroposophists, but also for hindus, Buddhists,
theosophists, and New Age. The number of people who are convinced of the
truthfulness of reincarnation is on the increase in the West, so the
question will undoubtedly be explored a lot further in the years to come.
Many anthropophists have a ready answer to your question. I don't.
)
)) )To say "Haeckel could only grasp evolution only in the the
)) )physical-material sense" is to say Haeckel could grasp Evolution. If
)) )Steiner finds spirituality in evolution it is because he doesn't grasp
)) )it.
))
)) So only materialists understand evolution, and atheists have a monolopy on
)) the science of cosmogenesis.
)
)No no. I said evolution is a material theory.
If that is your only definition of evolution, we are in disagreement just
like on the definition of science. Evolution involves all of existence and
all of nature. If it were confined to matter, there would be no spiritual
growth or metamorphosis.
)I have always assumed that spiritual people could understand it, but only
)if )they are also able to think materially. I've been assuming that you
))spiritualists are _more_ capable than us materialists.
I'm sure there are spiritual people who don't understand the material
aspect of esxistence and natural science. Spiritualists subscribe to a
dualistic, not monistic, world view, and they are practitioners of
mediumship and the like, Anthroposophists are not, and have never been,
spiritualists, but some theosophists have incorporated elements of
spiritualism, which originated in the 1840's.
After all, I may deny the spiritual world for lack of evidence (or I may
not--I ain't telling) but surely you don't deny the material world! Or do
you (like, say, Bishop Berkeley)?
I am not familiar with Bishop Berkely. Anthroposophists have never denied
the material world. Denial of the material world can be found in
traditional Hinduism, where it is maya, illusion. From an anthroposophical
perspective, there is a half-truth in this. The world of the senses is
illusory, but we need these illusions. We need to treat them as real in the
full consciousness of their deceptive character. Hence the expression
"clairvoyance," which means seeing clearly the real world behind the
material.
)
)) )) Darwinism has in many ways stagnated in the hands of his followers,
))waiting
)) )) to be awakened like a sleeping wolf.
)) )
)) )Examples, please?
))
)) Your inability to appreciate that because man is body soul, and spirit, the
)) latter permeates all of nature and is the active force behind its coming
)) into existence, - is a classic example of what I was getting at.
)
)But what does that have to do with the theory evolution stagnating?
I have the impression that the theory of evolution in its stagnated,
materialistic form concurs with your views.
)
)) The last couple decades have seen great growth and
)) )changes in our understanding of evolution.
))
)) Evolutionary theory is still very much confined by the chains of
))materialism.
)
)and always has been, so I don't think you can call that stagnation.
)To say it has stagnated implies, I think, that it once was different.
Semantics, semantics. When I have to check the dictionary for a word I have
already used in a post, it is always due to nit-picking like this. My old
1976 Webster says:
stagnant: not flowing in a current of stream, motionless
What I mean by stagnation here is like getting stuck in a rut or a ditch
with a vehicle, the wheels spinning without moving it any further. It's the
ditch of materialism.
I'm checking my Collins Thesaurus for synonyms to "stagnate": decay,
decline, deteriorate, fester, go to seed, idle, languish, lie fallow, rot,
rust, stand still, vegetate.
The limitations imposed by materialist-fundamentalist Darwinism has also
been discussed lately. The concept of natural selection and survival of the
fittest, for instance, may have been inspired in part by the competitive
capitalist society Darwin knew, and the ill treatment of natives on the
Western hemisphere by the Europeans that he witnessed. But Charles Darwin
was a genius and probably the most influential scientist of all. He was a
progressive, self-critical thinker, and "Origin of the Species" is a very
well written book.
)Good golly,
Miss Molly
)I said evolution was a material science. I never said history was.
History is the outcome of evolution and the expression of evolutionary
forces. A materialistic approach to evolution entalis an equally
materialistic approach to history.
)And I certainly didn't say that you couldn't grasp evolution.
Michael, you wrote:
"To say "Haeckel could only grasp evolution only in the the
physical-material sense" is to say Haeckel could grasp Evolution. If
Steiner finds spirituality in evolution it is because he doesn't grasp it."
Because I also find spirituality in evolution, I don't grasp evolution
according to you.
Cheers
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism, Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality, death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1226.8 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: PRIVATE -- SUGGESTION Re: my introduction
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 09:07:24 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
References: (199904132355.QAA14671 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904140306.UAA28968 lists1.best.com)
On 14 Apr 99, at 14:36, Michael Kopp wrote:
) But the "dialogue" between opposing viewpoints has led nowhere. It does
) not serve the practical purpose of the list of _critical thought_ about
) Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy, and the goal of removing from public
) education and exposing its true nature, but descends to opposing
) diatribes.
It has been very valuable to me in several ways. First, without the
Anthroposophists on the list, I would have no way of ascertaining
the accuracy of representations made by critics about the nature of
anthroposophy. If something specific is posted about, say,
Steiner's view of history, and anthroposophists respond to the
effect that it does not do justice to the big picture without asserting
that it is substantively inaccurate, that tells me that the post is
probably substantively accurate (although it may not be complete).
Second, in evaluating the claim that Waldorf education fails to
instill critical thinking skills in students, it has been helpful to me to
read the posts of the several Waldorf graduates who have posted to
this list. Sure, it's a small sample, but it's all I've got. And this
was an important issue to me while my son was in Waldorf. More
important, really, than the issue of Waldorf in public education,
because it affected me personally.
) SP:
) )Yep. On both sides there are those who engage in name-calling
) )and expressions of bigotry against the spiritual paths of others.
) )We all need to remember not to take criticism of one's ideas
) )personally, and to refrain from insulting one another.
)
) KOPP:
) Steve, I think you've gone a bit too far with the "bigotry" claim. . . .
)
) I really part company with your usually-astute comments when you say that
) there have been expressions of "bigotry against the spiritual paths of
) others" on the critics' side. . . .
)
) The operant word in the definition of "bigotry" is "intolerant". . . .
)
) I would ask that you name names and cite specific quotes to back up your
) assertion that critics are guilty of bigotry in the strict sense of
) wishing the oppression or suppression of that which they criticize.
I have never seen bigotry in that sense, but I don't define "bigotry"
so narrowly. When one is prejudiced against a particular religious
group, so that one becomes likely to believe bad things about
those groups without adequate evidence, I consider that bigotry.
I've seen two instances where I suspect that bigotry was involved
on the part of certain critics. One was in the discussions
concerning the murder of a cop by a Denver kid who was a racist
skinhead. Some on the list seemed to believe that this kid's white
supremacist beliefs stemmed from his upbringing in an
anthroposophical household, with the implication that kids who are
raised by anthroposophists are more likely to join white
supremacist groups. I thought that assumption was more likely to
be an expression of bigotry than a reasonable conclusion.
The other instance is the claim, on *very* slim evidence, that
anthroposophy contributed to the rise of the Nazis in Germany.
Again, I think this is more a product of a willingness to believe bad
things about anthroposophy than a product of reason.
I don't think that the people involved made these assertions out of
ill-will or a desire to hurt or oppress anyone, and I don't think less
of the people who made the assertions. We all have prejudices,
and need to be on guard against making assertions based on
those prejudices rather than on reason.
I'm not going to search the archives for these discussions in order
to quote particular posts or name the folks who posted these
views, because I don't think the issue of whether these concepts
are products of bigotry is particularly important. The important
thing is to try to avoid crossing the line between logical criticism
and prejudice in the future.
) I would not mind seeing a moderator decide which posts are on topic to the
) list charter -- given the excesses of the anti-charter *lobby* on the
) list.
)
) Reasonable, Steve, or what?
It's not unreasonable, although it's a lot of work for the moderator.
But I would not be interested in participating in a moderated list. It
takes too long for the posts to show up.
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1226.9 ---------------
From: BruceyJ aol.com
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influen...
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 12:28:44 EDT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Michael Kopp asks (of Tarjei, then Stephen)
) But, please, can you tell me where the alternative sects of the
) Anthroposphical Society are located? What are there names? Who are their
) leaders?
I have also no idea what you are referring to
Bruce
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1226.10 ---------------
From: BruceyJ aol.com
Subject: Re: Projective Geometry
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 12:28:42 EDT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In einer eMail vom 14.04.99 11:27:08 (MEZ) - Mitteleurop. Sommerzeit schreibt
dan dandugan.com:
)
) )If that doesn't qualify one to be called a scientist, Dan, then I would be
) )interested to hear what you think DOES!?
)
) Having an eduation in science. Working in science. Publishing in scientific
) journals, especially. Steiner did none of these. He was not a scientist.
)
)
Pray then, in what subjects DID he have an education? Or do WCs consider
biology, chemistry and physics non-sciences? I love the way WCs define
everything they want to attack - it makes the whole act like a game!
I would love to know if any WC would have been capable of working through the
Goethe works. And Steiner did write one or two books and give around 6000
lectures. Some of them were not science, but a great many were. Just because
what he researched was original and you don't agree with it doesn't mean you
can determine that it falls outside science.
Bruce
PS If Steiner had been around today I think he would have sussed you guys in
less time than it took me to type this mail
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1226 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1227 --------------
001 - Michael Hirsch (hirsch ma - Re: PRIVATE -- SUGGESTION Re: my introduction
002 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
003 - Michael Hirsch (hirsch ma - Re: Roy Wilkinson and the "How-To" Books
004 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: PRIVATE -- SUGGESTION Re: my introduction
005 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: my introduction
006 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: Defining Religion; Including Anthroposophy
007 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - Propaganda and Demagoguery
008 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: PRIVATE -- SUGGESTION Re: my introduction
009 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - Re: Addendum: Re: Apology for misdirected private corresponden
010 - "Luke Schelly" (lschelly - RE:Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is Anthroposo
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1227.1 ---------------
From: Michael Hirsch (hirsch mathcs.emory.edu)
Subject: Re: PRIVATE -- SUGGESTION Re: my introduction
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 12:54:40 -0400 (EDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: (104646888 toto.iv)
BruceyJ aol.com writes:
) In einer eMail vom 14.04.99 02:26:23 (MEZ) - Mitteleurop. Sommerzeit schreibt
) litvas icu.com:
)
) )
) ) I will make the first pledge to stay out of your thread, should you
) ) initiate a CRITICS ONLY experiment.
) )
)
) and I will join you
I'm a little confused as to whether I'd be allowed to play. My last
three arguments were with Tarjei, Kopp, and Tonkin.
I think I fall under the "critic critic" category and by definition I
am allowed to contribute to the CRITICS ONLY thread. :)
But I'd probably not contribute either. Being critical is not useful
without opposing viewpoints.
--Michael
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1227.2 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 18:56:59 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (199904131253.FAA20923 lists1.best.com)
(199904130811.BAA22656 lists1.best.com)
(199904130647.XAA06359 lists1.best.com)
(199904120153.SAA00786 lists1.best.com)
(199904112103.OAA11017 lists1.best.com)
(199904101605.JAA16177 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904132313.QAA02293 lists1.best.com)
I wrote:
))If your nonsense about uniform anthroposophical conformity is the result of
))eight years of research, your lack of objectivity must have interfered with
))your work.
Michael Kopp wrote:
)This "if...then" syllogism is illogical. In the first place, you haven't
)provided any evidence that my conclusion is "nonsense".
If it was not nonsense, all anthroposophists would think alike and hold the
same opinions about Steiner and and anthroposophy and WE. They dont. The
only thing they have in common is the recogniton of Steiner as a bona fide
clairvoyant spiritual researcher, of anthroposophically oriented spiritual
science as a legitimate science.
(snip)
)And who are you to tell such rejecters (or questioners) of Steiner's
)teachings that they are excommunicated? When did you become "Anthro-pope"?
I have not proposed "excommunication" of anyone from anything. My point was
that if someone starts an organization that by definition is not
anthroposophical, they would probably call it something other than
anthroposophy. Again, it boils down to semantics and definitions. You have
your own definitions of anthroposophy and excommunication and sects and so
on. That's fine with me, but when I explain something, I use my own frames
of reference.
(snip)
)))Can you tell me where there is a Waldorf school that has, for instance,
)))eschewed -- nay, banned -- Goethean phenomenology and the "four elements"
)))in the teaching of science? That might have been a school to which I could
)))have sent my children, because it would have indicated a certain
)))rationality which is missing in every other
))
))Ask the teachers. I know very little about schools.
)
)KOPP:
)No, I asked you.
But I cannot tell you where there is a school that fits your above
description. (That answers your question, doesn't it?)
)Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical schools are a primary activity of SWA
))practice world-wide. As an Anthroposophical apologist, you _should_ know
)the )answer. Your answer is typical of SWA apologists: "I dunno; go ask
)Joe".
If I asked you a question about a subject where your knowledge was limited,
wouldn't you suggest that I asked someone more knowledgeable? Is this a
"typical SWA apologist" response? Bullshit.
)No, I'm trying to get you, or any other SWA apologist, to tell me why
)critics shouldn't think you've all proved the critical point of view: no
)sects, no visible, organised schisms, equals solidarity and uniformity of
)dogma and action, if not the "monolithic" edifice SWA apologists are always
)accusing critics of positing.
I have no intention of telling critics what to think, or to try to persuade
them to think differently. But you have not answered another question of
mine, Michael: You said I should look over my shoulder to guard myself
against some threat from the Goethanum in Dornach, which is somehow more
dangerous than the Penagon. I asked you how the Goethanum could be
dangerous to me, and I would also like to know in what manner. You are not
responding to this.
)
)MK:
)))Sure, you Anthropops _love_ internecine warfare among yourselves, and some
)))even become apostates. But none of the apostates has formed an alternative
)))sect, that I'm aware of. You'd think that such an event would be big
)))enough
)))news to be made known on a discussion list like this one, in the 3-1/2
)))years I've been here. Can you point me at one, please, Tarjei?
)
)TS:
))Schisms can exist within a movement or an organization without forming all
))kinds of separate sects. But all the internal disputes would be mumbo jumbo
))to you anyway, so there is no wonder that your conclusions were so
))uninformed.
)
)KOPP:
)But at least I could scientifically, rationally discuss those differrent
)brands of mumbo jumbo.
What you mean by "scientific" and "rational" is tantamount to a
materialistic, atheistic frame of reference. Unless you are able and/or
willing to discuss spiritual-scientific issues on their own terms, your
cannot contribute to a discussion of them, except among those who share
your world view and your lack of comprehension.
(snip)
)Well, help me out here, Tarjei. Say something about it that is
)comprehensible to the ordinary layman and either explains the mumbo jumbo,
)or translates it into ordinary experience, or is at least not paradoxical
)or self-contradictory, as much of your writing about it (it not the thing
)itself) has been.
We've been through this before, Michael. Anthroposophical literature IS
comprehensible to the ordinary layman, provided that he or she is prepared
to make the necessary effort in reading comprehension. But if this layman
insists upon a frame of reference void of spirit and refuses to understand
an approach to science that includes spirit, it will always remain
incomprehensible mumbo jumbo to him or her.
)
)MK:
)))I was not popular at the few study group meetings I attended at our former
))))Steiner school (but then, I'm not popular with a lot of people of whom I
)))ask )blunt questions, such as the Anthroposophists and their apologists on
)))this )list).
)
)TS:
))An anthroposophical study group consists of people who are genuinely drawn
))to anthroposophy and who wish to learn from it. If someone in such a group
))keeps attacking and scorning it, he or she is slowing down those who desire
))to learn and grow.
)
)MK:
)No, I didn't attack or scorn anything when I was in the discussion groups.
)All I did was ask questions based on my previous 40 years of understanding
)of the Universe. But part of learning is critical, skeptical challenging of
)the thing one is trying to understand.
)
)You are saying that one can only be a part of such a "circle" if one is not
)there to learn by challenge, but to "*desire* to learn and grow".
That is not what I am saying. The condition for participating in any study
group is determined by the group itself. The anthropopsophical study group
I once participated in consisted of anthroposophists.
)To me that is a perfect example of what I see as cult mentality: "don't
))question, just accept;
That was not true of the group I was a part of. There was a lot of
questioning going on. This does not mean that questioning must include your
kind of questions to be called questioning.
)go out into the wilderness and examine yourself, and you will come to the
))answer; you will know you have arrived at the answer because you will
)then see )the light that we have seen".
Nonsense. You are describing something from a circle I have never met. It's
New Age all right, but it's not anthroposophy.
(snip)
))I agree in theory, but the bitter venom that taints every word you write
))about Anthroposophy makes it very difficult for the objective reader to
))discern that idea.
)
)KOPP:
)Bitter venom? I've admitted I'm angry about my and my kids' experiences
)with a duplicitous, weird school.
My point exactly. It's an anger you're taking out on all of anthroposophy
world wide and on everyone associated with it. Unless you can detach
yourself from such feelings, or suspend them for a while, your descriptions
and your judgements are never objective.
)And what has MY attitude got to do with YOUR and other apologists' ability
)to explain the nature of SWA? You are saying that my criticism and very
)pointed questioning is "bitter venom", and it interferes with the
)understanding you would otherwise be able to give to the rest of the
)readers who are more "objective" than I am, who would otherwise be able to
)see your points?
I did not say that your feelings interfere with the understanding I would
otherwise be able to give to the rest of the readers for the simple reason
that I cannot give understanding to anyone. If I could, people from all
over the world would line up to see me. But I appreciate that you regard me
as a guru and a saint in my own right. Come to Uncle Taz and let him grant
you the gift of understanding. I kinda like that.
Those who are able to see any given point are those capable of silencing
their inner selves and their critical attitudes while reading or listening.
In order to exercise critical thinking, we must first be able to listen
uncritically, then analyze the information received, and then exercising
judgement. There is a tendency on a list like this to pre-judge posts from
people we are in disagreement with, or to form our critical opinions while
the content is being absorbed.
)But you are involved in other threads of discussion with people who could
)not remotely be considered to have my "bitter, venomous" attitude, and you
)don't seem to be able to get any further with them than with me. How do I
)cause that? Do you really mean I upset your equanimity so much that you
)can't discourse with others, even though I'm not involved in those other
)discussions?
I have not said that you have caused irreconcilable differences of opinion
that occur in other threads between myself and other people
)That sounds like what you said about Anthroposophical study groups: unless
)one is totally humble and self-abnegating, one cannot come to the truth. I
)think you expect the same thing on this list -- and when you don't get it,
)you can't cope.
I have not said that one has to be totally humble and self-negating to come
to the truth or to participate in anthroposophical study groups. That is
Michael Kopp speaking.
(snip)
)But I think that almost everything you (and the other Anthroposophical
)apologists, as with Robert Flannery's characterization of me as a "bully")
)write about critics and their criticism, is tainted (not "spiced") with
)polemics.
I also used the word "tainted" earlier. The spice does not necessarily
penetrate the substance or change it¯ it merely suppresses the original
flavor, or some of it.
Which reminds me of a story about Albert Einstein. He once invited a lot of
people to dinner. They were all candidates to be his co-workers and
assistents in scientific research. He picked the men who tasted their food
before salting it. Those who salted their food before tasting it, had
pre-judged it.
Cheers
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism, Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality, death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1227.3 ---------------
From: Michael Hirsch (hirsch mathcs.emory.edu)
Subject: Re: Roy Wilkinson and the "How-To" Books
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 13:17:40 -0400 (EDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: (111175710 toto.iv)
BruceyJ aol.com writes:
) (ans Michael Hirsch apparently thinks that waldorf graduates are incapable of
) original thought) but I am not that bloody naive.
Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't save my exact words, but I know
I didn't say that. I said that I was not convinced Waldorf did a good
job teaching them to think.
--Michael
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1227.4 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: PRIVATE -- SUGGESTION Re: my introduction
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 11:00:46 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
) -----Original Message-----
) From: Robert Flannery [mailto:litvas icu.com]
)
) So, Michael, I would appreciate it greatly if you could
) provide examples of
) where I have ever "been extremely defensive and unforthcoming
) about [my]
) own teaching and the inner realm of Waldorf education."
)
) I doubt you'll be able to find any such instances, so feel
) free to ask me
) those questions now.
)
It's a spiritual and ascetic exercise to maintain reserve while
responding to Kopp. You are doing an excellent job.
Bob
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1227.5 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: my introduction
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 11:05:40 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
) -----Original Message-----