return to WCA Archive Index
-- Topica Digest --
Re: van Emmichoven about race in America
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: van Emmichoven about race in America
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: oops
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Steiner's anti-racism
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
Re: van Emmichoven about race in America
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: van Emmichoven about race in America
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Steiner's anti-racism
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Steiner's anti-racism
By asf peakpeak.com
Re: " four elements" was: another old discussion
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
Re: Steiner's anti-racism
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
RE: " four elements" was: another old discussion
By tylee crosswinds.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 23:46:08 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: van Emmichoven about race in America
I wrote:
))Then what was the point, Tarjei? What do you think his point was?
))Why would there be any interest in these particular individuals'
))level of intelligence or depth of their spirituality, etc.? His
))point was, they were black, yet they were intelligent.
Tarjei:
)That is _your_ point, Diana, _not_ van Emmichoven's. He did not say
)that the student were intelligent because of, or in spite of, their
)ethnicity.
I notice you didn't answer my question. You don't tell us what the point is
then. If there were one, I think you'd be explaining it to us now.
I remember sitting next to a very pretty young black girl on an airplane
once. When she got up to go to the bathroom, the third person (a white
woman) in our aisle said to me, "She's really beautiful for a black girl,
isn't she?" The statement was a compliment, right? The statement was also
racist because the implication was that she was pretty *despite* being
black. I'm sure this person thought she was being very open-minded, sharing
her view that even a black girl could be beautiful. Especially since some
people don't think so. This person was very progressive in her views about
black people, don't you think, Tarjei? (sarcasm!)
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 23:49:01 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: van Emmichoven about race in America
Debra wrote:
))In one sentence, Tarjei, what do *you* think Emmichoven's point was?
Tarjei:
)That he succeeded in making himself understood in America across
)cultural barriers. This becones crystal clear when one also reads his
)comments about conversations with other students at other
)universities and colleges.
Just noting, in my pesky way, that you have never actually answered the
question both Debra and I put to you, about what the guy's point was in
waxing eloquent about the wonderful black people he met. He succeeded in
making himself understood *about what*? That he met some nice people on his
trip to America?
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 23:51:30 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: oops
)Sorry about getting Diana and Sharon mixed up here.
Oh that's all right Tarjei, I guess anthroposophists can't tell individuals
apart either (didn't you accuse me of that a couple of weeks ago?)
Usually people mix up me and Debra, woman's name starting with "D,"
whatever.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 16:48:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's anti-racism
--- Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com) wrote:
)
) What is absorbed between incarnations is the
) innermost experiences of
) the last physical experiences. The experiences of
) trial and error,
) success and failure, sympathy and antipathy,
) attraction and
) repulsion, love and hate, intimate relationships,
) etc. This is how
) the 'entelechy' of the human being progresses and
) matures from one
) life to another. There is nothing 'racist' about
) that.
)
) A good understanding of the working out of karma
) between incarnations
) may be extracted from Shakespeare's last play, "The
) Tempest."
)
) )It seems from this that Steiners spiritual
) evolution
) )might be racist.It follow from his other ideas
) about
) )race and spirituallity that the only reason that an
) )advanced spirit would inacanate as a bushman is to
) )make up for some lost experience that should have
) )happened at an earlier stage or as an act of
) sacrifice
) )to help the bushmen. As I said I am skating on thin
) )ice here so correct me if I am wrong but this is
) how I
) )read it.
)
) In the first place, I wish to emphasize that it is
) the _outline_ of
) evolution proposed by Blavatsky and Steiner that is
) positively not
) racist.
Michael C:
Ok what we are talking about here Tarjei is the
outline not being racist. So now you are like me on
the border of being a heretic. I am very inspired by
the writting of Steiner but I always remember even
though he is a genius of the occult that he hasn't
outgrown his Austrian Culture. The other alternative
is that he wanted to write to his audience which was
mostly composed off early 20th century Notheren
European occultists with leftist political
tendencies. I opt for the former.
By the way I don't claim to have outgrown my American
middle class culture. I still have some racial
prejudice, but less than most people that claim they
are not racists. Here is a little joke for all of you
that are free from prejudice. If it offends anyone
then I am sorry but the joke makes a point.
A large African American man enters his apartment and
is greeted by his wife who notices his sweating and
shaking. She says "Honey whats wrong you look so
nervous" He replies, "I just rode up on the elevator
with a couple of white liberals"
One more thing. If we take the fundementalist version
of Steiners spiritual evolution it is racist correct?
Now here is the difficulty how do we extract the
essence of Anthroposophy without killing it. There are
many other problems with it besides the racism. This
needs to be done in order to save it. I for one think
it is worth saving but this is a daunting task. I do
not believe that it is my personal destiny to do
anything toward this goal other than little things
like writting this letter.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 04:04:43 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: van Emmichoven about race in America
Diana wrote:
)Just noting, in my pesky way, that you have never actually answered
)the question both Debra and I put to you, about what the guy's point
)was in waxing eloquent about the wonderful black people he met. He
)succeeded in making himself understood *about what*? That he met
)some nice people on his trip to America?
That, and various impressions through meeting all kinds of people
throughout the country. If that doesn't nswer your wuestion, I
suggest you buy the book and read it.
Tarjei
http://home.no.net/tastraum/
It is impossible to understand a human being completely if
one takes the concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment.
- Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 04:05:41 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: van Emmichoven about race in America
Diana wrote:
)I notice you didn't answer my question. You don't tell us what the=20
)point is then. If there were one, I think you'd be explaining it to=20
)us now.
)
)I remember sitting next to a very pretty young black girl on an=20
)airplane once. When she got up to go to the bathroom, the third=20
)person (a white woman) in our aisle said to me, "She's really=20
)beautiful for a black girl, isn't she?" The statement was a=20
)compliment, right? The statement was also racist because the=20
)implication was that she was pretty *despite* being black. I'm sure=20
)this person thought she was being very open-minded, sharing her view=20
)that even a black girl could be beautiful. Especially since some=20
)people don't think so. This person was very progressive in her views=20
)about black people, don't you think, Tarjei? (sarcasm!)
=46or the nth time, F.W. Zeylmans van Emmichoven did not say the=20
students were intelligent for blacks to be or anything like that.
Secondly, I lived with a beautiful black girl for a few years in Los=20
Angeles. And yes, I have heard remarks and comments that have hurt.=20
This was also the case ten years earlier when I was living with a=20
beautiful American Jewish girl in London. It is patronizing to assume=20
that I am not deeply aware of such things, or that I have not=20
experienced them.
Thirdly, I have stated repeatedly what I think F.W. Zeylmans van=20
Emmichoven=E6s point was, and what was my point in quoting him.
Tarjei
http://home.no.net/tastraum/
It is impossible to understand a human being completely if
one takes the concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment.
=20 - Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 04:05:52 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's anti-racism
)--- Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com) wrote:
)
) ) In the first place, I wish to emphasize that it is
) ) the _outline_ of
) ) evolution proposed by Blavatsky and Steiner that is
) ) positively not
) ) racist.
)
)Michael C:
)
)Ok what we are talking about here Tarjei is the
)outline not being racist. So now you are like me on
)the border of being a heretic. I am very inspired by
)the writting of Steiner but I always remember even
)though he is a genius of the occult that he hasn't
)outgrown his Austrian Culture.
What the theosophical-anthroposophical outline of evolution is
concerned, the cultural-personal aspects of Steiner and Blavatsky has
nothing to do with it, especially not with Steiner. One has to make a
distinction between the _inspired_ Steiner, i.e. when he speaks or
writes under the direct influence of higher powers, and the
conversational, speculating, smalltalking Steiner. It is a grave
error to ascribe his cultural and personal idiosyncrasies to his most
exalted work, just like it is an error to regard all utterances from
Steiner or Blavatsky or, say, some of the Biblical authors
(especially Paul!) as divinely inspired.
)The other alternative
)is that he wanted to write to his audience which was
)mostly composed off early 20th century Notheren
)European occultists with leftist political
)tendencies. I opt for the former.
Politics were of no importance or signicicance to Steiner's choice of
audience. The major requirement was that they had an open ear and a
capacity to comprehend for what he had to say. The Theosophists were
prepared for this with their background in Blavatsky's works. This
was why Steiner initially used the Sanskrit terminology they were
accustomed to.
Tarjei
http://home.no.net/tastraum/
It is impossible to understand a human being completely if
one takes the concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment.
- Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 22:41:01 -0600
From: "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf peakpeak.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's anti-racism
----- Original Message -----
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
) One more thing. If we take the fundementalist version
) of Steiners spiritual evolution it is racist correct?
) Now here is the difficulty how do we extract the
) essence of Anthroposophy without killing it. There are
) many other problems with it besides the racism. This
) needs to be done in order to save it. I for one think
) it is worth saving but this is a daunting task. I do
) not believe that it is my personal destiny to do
) anything toward this goal other than little things
) like writting this letter.
I for one am inspired by this letter of yours. If there were more people in
Anthroposophy like you, it would be a far better movement. I am curious,
what other problems do you see beside the racism?
Alan Fine
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 07:16:21 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: " four elements" was: another old discussion
) . But in theory I think that the idea
) behind a waldorf education will leave a child more
) open to new experiences. Whether this is true or not I
) don't know.
michael c
I have kids who went through steiner (2) and kids who didnt, and I cant see
this distinction at all, I was expecting to because I beleived what I was
told by school propaganda, but no...unfortunately not.They are all in their
20's so I still see a huge academic difference which has cause problems, and
also a diffent attitude at work, the steiner kids have a real problem
accepting what the boss says, my other one says: "look, if he's your boss
just do it and smile"
How do you think they should be more open to new experinces?
have you been involved in any of the schools?
bea
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 07:19:35 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: Steiner's anti-racism
) michael
) It seems from this that Steiners spiritual evolution
) might be racist.It follow from his other ideas about
) race and spirituallity that the only reason that an
) advanced spirit would inacanate as a bushman is to
) make up for some lost experience that should have
) happened at an earlier stage or as an act of sacrifice
) to help the bushmen. As I said I am skating on thin
) ice here so correct me if I am wrong but this is how I
) read it.
its an odd assertion to think that present day people are more spiritually
advanced than bushmen, IMO the bushment would have been much more in touch
with the spiritual side of life than we are now.
bea
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1-Jun-2001 07:33:21 GMT
From: Marty Tylee (tylee crosswinds.net)
Subject: RE: " four elements" was: another old discussion
michael C wrote:
It'll have to be a short answer because I am quite busy.
) Tell me Marty what do you remember being taught about
) gravity in a Waldorf School? What did your husband
I don't remember since I was out of the classroom on remedial teaching.
) tell you it was? What do you think it is? How do you
The textbook explanation.
) experience it in your body?
Probably about the same as you.
-marty
---
All true wisdom is found in e-mail signatures.
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 326
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Steiner's anti-racism
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: " four elements" was: another old discussion
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
RE: " four elements" was: another old discussion
By lizanderrol home.com
Re: van Emmichoven about race in America
By snell netshel.net
Re: Steiner's anti-racism
By dan dandugan.com
Re: van Emmichoven about race in America
By earlyfire earthlink.net
RE: " four elements" was: another old discussion
By winters_diana hotmail.com
RE: " four elements" was: another old discussion
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
Re: Steiner's anti-racism
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
RE: " four elements" was: another old discussion
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: van Emmichoven about race in America
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Steiner's anti-racism
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: van Emmichoven about race in America
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: van Emmichoven about race in America
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Steiner's anti-racism
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Steiner's anti-racism
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
Re: Steiner's anti-racism
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Steiner's anti-racism
By canndw netzero.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 15:54:50 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's anti-racism
Michael C wrote:
)One more thing. If we take the fundementalist version
)of Steiners spiritual evolution it is racist correct?
What is the "fundamentalist version of Steiner's spiritual
evolution," and what is the non-fundamentalist version? If it's the
choice of words like "root-races" and "sub-races," in the sense
"epochs" which originate from Blavatsky's terminology, they can cause
confusion and misunderstanding, but this does not make them racist.
And if the entire outline of evolution that we find in Theosophy and
Anthroposophy is to be labelled racist, we are then attributing
racism to the gods. We are calling our creators racists in that case.
I only call them anarchists.
Tarjei
http://home.no.net/tastraum/
It is impossible to understand a human being completely if
one takes the concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment.
- Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 07:53:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: " four elements" was: another old discussion
MIchael C:
Is it Bea
The type of situation that you are describing once led
me to think that science was almost useless or at
least should stick to very limited area of study such
as physics where a high degree of certainty can be
found. Although I don't feel this way now let me
explain to you why I used to feel this way.
Suppose some one I love very much has cancer. Ok now
next suppose that it is possible to get accurate
studies on the effectiveness of this or that method of
treatment. Fine so far. Lets say that that all of
these studies are done on persons with the same
diagnoses as the person that I love that. Lets say it
is a squamous cell carcinoma (I am just making this up
, I am not an oncologist nor do any of the many people
that I love have cancer that I know about at this
time)
Next we pick the treatment that is most effective on a
statistical basis. The treatment is given and it
doesn't work at all. You see the problem is that the
study dosen't really tell me what the chances are for
success for my loved one. It would likely be accurate
for a large group of people. If the study showed 30%
no remission after 5 years then that would likely
predict approximately the same level of effectiveness
for 1000 person diagnosed with the same type of cancer
and treated with the same treatment. But the study
doesn't say all that much about the individual person.
Now on top of this there are other problems. First off
statistics can be very misleading and/or intentionally
skewed in other ways. This is true for quack science
and real science what ever these 2 terms mean.They
often mean what I believe is real science and what I
don't believe is quack science.
Here is an illustration of one why statistics can be
skewed. There are hospitals that boast an extremely
high rate of success for persons with let's say
cardiovascular disease. Now in some cases the
statistic are skewed because the hospital and team of
surgeons may refuse to take difficult cases. They like
being number one and all of the benefits that this
brings. There are many other way that all of these
things can be subtly or not so subtly manipulated.
Cavat empor (Go ahead attack my poor spelling, better
still correct and correct any faults you find in my
case. I am somewhat open minded)
--- "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
wrote:
)
)
) ) . But in theory I think that the idea
) ) behind a waldorf education will leave a child more
) ) open to new experiences. Whether this is true or
) not I
) ) don't know.
) michael c
) I have kids who went through steiner (2) and kids
) who didnt,
Michael C:
Why did you send 2 children to Waldorf and the rest
elswhere? Also this is not a statistically
significant sample.
) and I cant see
) this distinction at all, I was expecting to because
) I beleived what I was
) told by school propaganda,
Michael
cavat empor, I agree that it is propoganda.
) but no...unfortunately
) not.They are all in their
) 20's so I still see a huge academic difference which
) has cause problems, and
) also a diffent attitude at work, the steiner kids
) have a real problem
) accepting what the boss says, my other one says:
) "look, if he's your boss
) just do it and smile"
MIchael C:
I could jump on this and say that "do it and smile
kids would have made good workers in a concentration
camp but I know this is rediculous, sometimes "do it
and smilling" is the right thing to do, it depends on
what you are being asked to do I suppose.
) How do you think they should be more open to new
) experinces?
) have you been involved in any of the schools?
I think the idea of educting the senses and developing
a scientific outlook from what you actually experience
is a good idea. Sometime if you get a chance read
Einsteins autobiographical notes. You may find what he
say about his life from birth through the University
very intersting.
) bea
)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 08:30:20 -0700
From: "Liz Reid&Errol Strelnikoff" (lizanderrol home.com)
Subject: RE: " four elements" was: another old discussion
) Michael C.
)
) This is a theory that I am enteraining at the moment.
) One thing is for sure the educataion of the senses
) does not get enough serious attention.
Not to debate whether this is true or not, but just to look at the how.
When *educating* the senses, do you think that this is something that a
*school* can do? Just roll the teacher in and get busy educating the
senses? Perhaps do some paintings or line the kids up and take them for
walks to the stream..."No! Don't throw rocks Johnny, just look for
tadpoles!", "Melissa, put your shoes back on!", "Look at the tadpoles
everyone!", "Everyone pack up it's time to go back to the classroom!"
What aspect of the senses needs *educating*? Which bits don't? Will
two years at a Steiner College or a sensory education college qualify
someone to educate the senses of others?
)From what anthroposophists have told me, it is possible to understand
the concepts of *soul* and *spirit* by reading Steiner. Is this also
true of the senses? Does this understanding mean that the ability to
*educate* the senses of others is a given?
) Michael C
) So you suggest that we just explain away all the
) mystery so that they can stop looking up at he stars
) in awe and with wonderment at polywogs turning into
) frogs. Once the mystery of the "real" world is gone
) then they can get down to more important things like
) pokemon.
But the "real world" is even more amazing and mysterious than any
fiction I could come up with. The more I read and think about the
universe or any aspect of science or human study from physics to biology
to psychology the more the mystery deepens.
I think that Steiner seemed to believe that science would come up with
some kind of definate answer regarding the universe. He was therefore
reluctant to look through the microscope at the beauty of a flower, as
though this would rob him of his ability to wonder. I think this shows
an unwillingness to take risks, a fear that his senses would convince
him of the opposite of his beliefs.
If he lived today he would have thought very differently as we now know
that science is relative and knowledge of it only increases the wonder
and amazement of the universe and the human spirit. We don't have to
teach children about gnomes for them to feel the mystery. In fact just
the opposite, the gnomes seem to imply that we have to resort to make
believe (and very Germanic make believe at that) as scientific study
will remove the mystery. Is this what we want children to think?
Liz
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 08:35:40 -0700
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: van Emmichoven about race in America
)Debra wrote:
)
)))In one sentence, Tarjei, what do *you* think Emmichoven's point was?
)
)Tarjei:
))That he succeeded in making himself understood in America across
))cultural barriers. This becones crystal clear when one also reads his
))comments about conversations with other students at other
))universities and colleges.
)
)Just noting, in my pesky way, that you have never actually answered the
)question both Debra and I put to you, about what the guy's point was in
)waxing eloquent about the wonderful black people he met. He succeeded in
)making himself understood *about what*? That he met some nice people on his
)trip to America?
)D
Debra:
Tarjei, this is important. You have spent so much time attacking Diana
about *her* interpretation of Emmichoven's quote, but you avoid sharing
with us *your* interpretation. What's up with that? Where can this
conversation go without this important piece?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 10:55:16 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's anti-racism
This is beautiful, Tarjei,
)And if the entire outline of evolution that we find in Theosophy and
)Anthroposophy is to be labelled racist, we are then attributing
)racism to the gods. We are calling our creators racists in that case.
This racial theory of history is handed down from the gods, so we
aren't responsible, it's just the facts, sorry if the truth makes you
uncomfortable. What a convenient excuse. People justified slavery
from the Bible the same way.
-Dan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 11:29:28 -0700
From: Harvey Bornfield (earlyfire earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: van Emmichoven about race in America
We'll let intuition reconstruct two vastly different scenarios on this visit,
both of which are plausible, and constructive, the first for the for the pure
in heart the other for the clever and sophisticated.
The Background:
Van Emmichoven comes to America, which is a bastion of racial and ethnic
counterpoint, and here encounters what he, and many Europeans have long since
known: a longstanding, seethingly ferocious jaded American prejudice against
Blacks, powered up by a residual 'righteous malice' implicit in every
manifestation of overt/subtle arrogance and condemnation which issue out of
prejudice. He already knows and lives what many others, American and otherwise
have yet to learn, that virtues and talents and capacities are turfless,
universal gifts from God, completely race-neutral:
So
Alternative number one: being an altogether noble and generous and wholly
unprejudiced person that he is, , vE makes a statement which openly celebrates
racial diversity with a redemptively wondrous confirmation of what he knew all
along, that intelligence requires no passport. Again it is a radient and
innocent and triumphant moment of revelation which overcomes the poisonous
momentum of a collective prejudice which always imposes unjust limitations upon
others. It is not wise to presume yourself immune to this disease. (JFK - the
price of liberty is eternal vigilance), and of course (Let him who is without
sin.....) In this context, vE is rejoicing. (For those who consider such an
interpretation patently absurd, remember, that the script "Guilty until proven
Innocent", is also known as "Living by the sword".)
Now
Alternative number two: vE is sophisticated, a champion of justice, a warrior:
particularly outraged by the poisonous momentum of an overwhelming collective
prejudice which seeks to encapsulate others within limitations, he decides to
fight fire with fire; wishing to blowtorch these southern yahoos with whom he
is travelling with a particularly powerful counterattack, he phrases a
compliment in a way which will guarantee maximizing the offense to those around
him. In this way sarcasm becomes the wake-up call.
(and off the record, for those who have ears to hear, forgiving those who have
inflicted metaphysical harm upon you is a two-day-journey, requiring first an
overnight oasis in wisdom)
Harvey Bornfield
Debra Snell wrote:
) )Debra wrote:
) )
) )))In one sentence, Tarjei, what do *you* think Emmichoven's point was?
) )
) )Tarjei:
) ))That he succeeded in making himself understood in America across
) ))cultural barriers. This becones crystal clear when one also reads his
) ))comments about conversations with other students at other
) ))universities and colleges.
) )
) )Just noting, in my pesky way, that you have never actually answered the
) )question both Debra and I put to you, about what the guy's point was in
) )waxing eloquent about the wonderful black people he met. He succeeded in
) )making himself understood *about what*? That he met some nice people on his
) )trip to America?
) )D
)
) Debra:
)
) Tarjei, this is important. You have spent so much time attacking Diana
) about *her* interpretation of Emmichoven's quote, but you avoid sharing
) with us *your* interpretation. What's up with that? Where can this
) conversation go without this important piece?
)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 18:43:11 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: " four elements" was: another old discussion
Liz wrote:
)But the "real world" is even more amazing and mysterious than any
)fiction I could come up with.
and
)[Steiner] was therefore reluctant to look through the microscope at )the
)beauty of a flower, as though this would rob him of his ability to )wonder.
)We don't have to teach children about gnomes for them to feel the )mystery.
) In fact just the opposite, the gnomes seem to imply that we )have to
)resort to make believe (and very Germanic make believe at )that) as
)scientific study will remove the mystery
Exactly! (another bravo to Liz)
For all the fretting in Waldorf about protecting and nurturing the
children's imaginations, it does seem anthroposophists' own imaginations are
somewhat limited. I agree with Liz (and Steve who said something like this
recently too) that a person's capacity for wonder and appreciation of
mystery is not destroyed by science, only enhanced.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 12:03:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: " four elements" was: another old discussion
--- Liz Reid&Errol Strelnikoff (lizanderrol home.com)
wrote:
) ) Michael C.
) )
) ) This is a theory that I am enteraining at the
) moment.
) ) One thing is for sure the educataion of the senses
) ) does not get enough serious attention.
)
) Not to debate whether this is true or not, but just
) to look at the how.
) When *educating* the senses, do you think that this
) is something that a
) *school* can do? Just roll the teacher in and get
) busy educating the
) senses? Perhaps do some paintings or line the kids
) up and take them for
) walks to the stream..."No! Don't throw rocks
) Johnny, just look for
) tadpoles!", "Melissa, put your shoes back on!",
) "Look at the tadpoles
Michael C:
I am not an educator of children (except of course all
adults have an influence on the children that they
come into contact with) My answers here are simple. I
think that your questions are mostly very good.
Of course it may difficult to direct childrens
attention to have them "look at the tadpoles" in the
middle of a very busy chaotic natural environment,
especially young children. To have them observe
tadpoles morphing into frogs, and artificail tank in
the class room may be a good idea. Of course when I
used this phrase above it was only a figure of speech.
But when you explain to young children DNA and all
that with a plastic model they are not observing the
wonders of the natural but flying off into the realm
of ideas. Unless of course they are saying to
themselves "That is a funny looking twisted spiraling
multicolored plastic model. What has thet got to do
with life. For me life begins at recess when I can
throw stones in the pond and try for a triple skip"
And when trying for the triple skip our young student
needs to use his senses to find stones with the right
qualitites.
One of the keys to teaching is to help the person have
the experience that you are trying to convey. This is
true whether you are trying to demonstrate and
abstract concept like numbers by teaching children to
count or notice a more purely sensual phenomenon such
as the suble variations in hue of different colors.
Now as what is appropriate for each child, I don't
know and I certainly think that it is all too easy to
resort to Waldorf education by the numbers which I
imagine happens very often. But public schools do the
same thing. The child is fit into the program for the
most part.
I think that some people have good intuitions about
children and how to help each one individually while
maintaining a program for all. These rare individuals
can be found in both public and private schools of all
types. I would venture to guess that they are more
likely to love the students and their job than most of
the others. On top of this you can bet that they
observe, observe, observe, .... Additionally they may
have not done all that well in their teachers college,
whether it was for Montessori, Waldorf or
conventional.
In this regard I am reminded of Ulyses S. Grant who I
think graduated at the bottom of his class from the
U.S. Military Academy at West Point. He was arguably
the best tactician and strategest in the civil war
because his mind was't clogged with outdated methods
that had no value do to the advances in weaponry.
Now I ask you something which system of education is
more outdated when one looks at it's essence (the
shells of both need reform) Waldorf or conventional?
The essence of waldorf is really intended to bring the
student's conceptual understanding up to about the
early 20th century (whether it works or not is another
matter). The conventional approach which may prepare
student to memorize and utilize all scientific
formulas only brings the world view up to about the
begining of the industrial age. They are both dated
but the Waldorf essence is more in line with the needs
of many, but not all children of today.
) everyone!", "Everyone pack up it's time to go back
) to the classroom!"
)
) What aspect of the senses needs *educating*?
Michael C:
Probably all of them. But of course some area need it
more than others in some persons.
) Which
) bits don't? Will
) two years at a Steiner College or a sensory
) education college qualify
) someone to educate the senses of others?
Michael C:
I took the first year of training a number of years
ago and decided that I did not want to continue at
that time. I think that I did get a significant start
in improving my observational skills. How much any
individual needs to be ready to start as an effective
Waldorf Teacher, I don't know. I am sure it varies
from person to person.
)
) From what anthroposophists have told me, it is
) possible to understand
) the concepts of *soul* and *spirit* by reading
) Steiner. Is this also
) true of the senses? Does this understanding mean
) that the ability to
) *educate* the senses of others is a given?
Michael C:
Very point good point. Teaching is a whole other
skill. I didn't take the second year that focused on
how to educate children in the Waldorf way. This would
include educating the senses. I must say this though,
when it come to what I consider an education, the
saying "those that can't do teach" cannot be true. In
fact I believe that those that can do but had to work
very hard to get the skill are often the best
teachers. Also I believe that the student can
definately surpase the teacher and yet still be guided
by the teacher long after going beyond the teachers
level.
)
)
) ) Michael C
) ) So you suggest that we just explain away all the
) ) mystery so that they can stop looking up at he
) stars
) ) in awe and with wonderment at polywogs turning
) into
) ) frogs. Once the mystery of the "real" world is
) gone
) ) then they can get down to more important things
) like
) ) pokemon.
)
) But the "real world" is even more amazing and
) mysterious than any
) fiction I could come up with. The more I read and
) think about the
) universe or any aspect of science or human study
) from physics to biology
) to psychology the more the mystery deepens.
Yes this is can be true, but sometime read how
Einstein spent his college years. In fact read about
his life from his autobiographical notes. One thing
though don't think that I am saying that what was good
of Einstein would be good for all.
)
) I think that Steiner seemed to believe that science
) would come up with
) some kind of definate answer regarding the universe.
) He was therefore
) reluctant to look through the microscope at the
) beauty of a flower, as
) though this would rob him of his ability to wonder.
I think this story sounds like it could be true of
Steiner, but I would like to see the source. Also
Steiner maybe looked at flower through a microscope
many times and balked on this occasion. Of course I
never met Steiner so for all I know he may have never
existed but one thing that I remeber being told or
read was that Steiner said things like looking through
a microscope or telescope while extending the senses
distorts them. This is because you are looking at
matter through matter (glass). Also in Goethe's color
theory you must take into account that white light
doesn't just split into colors on it's own. It must
interact with matter (a glass prism/ a rain drop).
On the other hand the sterotype of the absent minded
scientist came about for a reason. There go the great
professors so far removed from the sense realm as to
not notice it.
) I think this shows
) an unwillingness to take risks, a fear that his
) senses would convince
) him of the opposite of his beliefs.
Possibly true but we have no way of knowing.
)
) If he lived today he would have thought very
) differently as we now know
) that science is relative and knowledge of it only
) increases the wonder
) and amazement of the universe and the human spirit.
Michael C:
Then why is science taught so dogmatically in most
schools? (after paying inital lip service to how it
doesn't have final answers) Why do many people think
that they know so much after watching the discovery
channel?
) We don't have to
) teach children about gnomes for them to feel the
) mystery.
Michael C:
I never said that we do
In fact just
) the opposite, the gnomes seem to imply that we have
) to resort to make
) believe (and very Germanic make believe at that) as
) scientific study
) will remove the mystery. Is this what we want
) children to think?
Because I don't think that the teaching about gnomes
is an area that I can talk about meaningfully, I will
leave this one alone. I have no direct sense percetion
of gnomes. But I do you think that may exist and that
teaching that they don't is equally ridiculous.For me
this is a red herring non issue although I suppose if
I had children attending a Waldorf School then this
might be an issue for me.
)
) Liz
)
)
)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 12:49:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's anti-racism
--- Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com) wrote:
) This is beautiful, Tarjei,
)
) )And if the entire outline of evolution that we find
) in Theosophy and
) )Anthroposophy is to be labelled racist, we are then
) attributing
) )racism to the gods. We are calling our creators
) racists in that case.
)
) This racial theory of history is handed down from
) the gods, so we
) aren't responsible, it's just the facts, sorry if
) the truth makes you
) uncomfortable. What a convenient excuse. People
) justified slavery
) from the Bible the same way.
)
) -Dan
)
Michael C:
Dan I couldn't agree with you more. Tarjei having read
several letters of yours on the this site I admire and
respect you intellegence and often agree with you
especially when you state your case that Steiner and
Hitler are worlds apart. I also agree with you that
the racial theory of history is not one that comes
from true human being but from the gods or nature or
whatever. But doesn't Anthroposophy claim that we must
take it upon ourselves to continue the evolution, that
it is no longer the work of the gods/nature?
)
)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 20:38:55 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: " four elements" was: another old discussion
Michael C. wrote:
)But when you explain to young children DNA and all
)that with a plastic model they are not observing the
)wonders of the natural but flying off into the realm
)of ideas. Unless of course they are saying to
)themselves "That is a funny looking twisted spiraling
)multicolored plastic model. What has thet got to do
)with life. For me life begins at recess when I can
)throw stones in the pond and try for a triple skip"
Well, my child would be fascinated by the funny looking twisted spiraling
multicolored plastic model.
Afterwards he would very much enjoy throwing stones in the pond too.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 20:51:01 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: van Emmichoven about race in America
Harvey has two clever scenarios explaining this van Emmichoven fellow's
visit to America, but I think Ockham's razor (favor the simplest explanation
over something more complicated) applies here: The guy was sharing his
impressions of blacks in America. He was pleasantly surprised to find they
were not as stupid as he'd heard. (And he found traveling by rail very
comfortable because the black railway workers were so helpful.)
Tarjei, of course, has backed off muttering that none of it had anything to
do with race at all, though if not, it's a mystery why Tarjei posted it here
and why we were even discussing it.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 23:35:53 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's anti-racism
I wrote:
))And if the entire outline of evolution that we find in Theosophy
))and Anthroposophy is to be labelled racist, we are then attributing
))racism to the gods. We are calling our creators racists in that
))case.
Dan wrote:
)This racial theory of history is handed down from the gods,
Gods don't theorize about evolution. They direct it.
)so we aren't responsible,
That's not true. We are all active participants in this evolution,
which makes us responsible.
)it's just the facts, sorry if the truth makes you uncomfortable.
Correct.
)What a convenient excuse. People justified slavery from the Bible
)the same way.
Does that make the Bible a big lie, and the believers in the Bible
proponents of slavery?
Has Rudolf Steiner promoted slavery or any other kind of social injustice?
Or have I used any of the above as "a convenient excuse" to justify
the suppression or mistreatment of any living creatures?
Tarjei
http://home.no.net/tastraum/
It is impossible to understand a human being completely if
one takes the concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment.
- Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 23:37:26 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: van Emmichoven about race in America
Diana wrote:
)Harvey has two clever scenarios explaining this van Emmichoven
)fellow's visit to America, but I think Ockham's razor (favor the
)simplest explanation over something more complicated) applies here:
)The guy was sharing his impressions of blacks in America. He was
)pleasantly surprised to find they were not as stupid as he'd heard.
Really? Where did van Emmochoven say or write that he had heard
blacks were stupid ?
)(And he found traveling by rail very comfortable because the black
)railway workers were so helpful.)
)
)Tarjei, of course, has backed off muttering
I have not backed off, and I have not muttered anything, Diana.
)that none of it had anything to do with race at all,
From van Emmichoven's point of view, it did not have anything to do
with racial differences.
)though if not, it's a mystery why Tarjei posted it here
That was pretty obvious in my initial post, where I spelled it out.
It was to show how van Emmichoven appreciated the meeting of
Americans on both sides of the existing "color line." I quoted the
part about lecturing to and talking with black students to refute the
notion that anthroposophists are racists, and I believe van
Emmichoven was a good example of how non-racist he was at a time when
America was still seething with racism, especially against blacks.
)and why we were even discussing it.
As one of the most active participants in this thread, you should be
able to answer that yourself.
Tarjei
http://home.no.net/tastraum/
It is impossible to understand a human being completely if
one takes the concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment.
- Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 23:37:45 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: van Emmichoven about race in America
)Debra:
)
)Tarjei, this is important. You have spent so much time attacking Diana
)about *her* interpretation of Emmichoven's quote,
I have not attacked Diana; I have responded to her various
patronizing insults, such as:
"you are embarrassing yourself."
"I guess you aren't embarrassed because you really don't understand
what you are saying."
"Tarjei, of course, has backed off muttering...."
I have received similar treatment from other critics without
responding in kind. I don't use that kind of language with critics.
Please don't hurl bricks from a glass house any of you by saying that
I attack people.
) but you avoid sharing with us *your* interpretation.
Really ? For the second time - pasted from previous post:
"That he succeeded in making himself understood in America across
cultural barriers. This becones crystal clear when one also reads his
comments about conversations with other students at other
universities and colleges."
)What's up with that? Where can this conversation go without this
)important piece?
If you're still looking for your piece, I suggest you read the book
instead of pre-judging it.
Tarjei
http://home.no.net/tastraum/
It is impossible to understand a human being completely if
one takes the concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment.
- Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 23:41:17 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's anti-racism
)Michael C:
)
)Dan I couldn't agree with you more. Tarjei having read
)several letters of yours on the this site I admire and
)respect you intellegence and often agree with you
)especially when you state your case that Steiner and
)Hitler are worlds apart. I also agree with you that
)the racial theory of history is not one that comes
)from true human being but from the gods or nature or
)whatever.
To be specific here: The gods don't make theories; neither does
nature in the above sense. And to be even more specific: The
theosophical-anthroposophcal outline of evolution is not a theory per
se, but spiritual-scientific facts based upon the results of trained
seership.
)But doesn't Anthroposophy claim that we must
)take it upon ourselves to continue the evolution, that
)it is no longer the work of the gods/nature?
Only to the extent that each one of us is reponsible for our own,
personal evolution of character and spirit.
Tarjei
http://home.no.net/tastraum/
It is impossible to understand a human being completely if
one takes the concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment.
- Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 15:45:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's anti-racism
--- "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf peakpeak.com) wrote:
)
)
) ----- Original Message -----
) From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
) ) One more thing. If we take the fundementalist
) version
) ) of Steiners spiritual evolution it is racist
) correct?
) ) Now here is the difficulty how do we extract the
) ) essence of Anthroposophy without killing it. There
) are
) ) many other problems with it besides the racism.
) This
) ) needs to be done in order to save it. I for one
) think
) ) it is worth saving but this is a daunting task. I
) do
) ) not believe that it is my personal destiny to do
) ) anything toward this goal other than little things
) ) like writting this letter.
)
) I for one am inspired by this letter of yours. If
) there were more people in
) Anthroposophy like you, it would be a far better
) movement. I am curious,
) what other problems do you see beside the racism?
)
) Alan Fine
Michael C:
Alan this is not the place to do the dirty laundry of
the Anthroposophical Society and in addition this is
big and complex question, and I am only one person.
But I will say a little something about this anyway.
Let's for a moment take Anthroposophy out of the realm
of a science and out of the realm of a religion and
say it is a school of art. Let's compare it then to
the Martha Graham school of dance or the Cheng Man
Ching School of Tai Chi Chuan.
What happens when the master dies. In the first case
we will have to kill Martha at a much younger age when
she can still unquestionalbly dance the pants off all
of her students. In the second case Cheng could still
take any one of his students until the day he died.
This included a student that tied in the US Judo
championship.
Now several things can happen and I will describe
three. One is that the master is placed on such a high
pedastill that people hang on every word that he ever
said. Another is that the students do their own thing
and loose the core of what was passed to them. A third
is that the students and respect their deceased
master but don't deify him/her instead they work hard
to extract the essence of what the teacher was trying
to transmit so that the can take the teaching into a
new generation with changes that they deem
appropriate. You see an art as I define it is the
objective clothed in the subjective.
The first scenario seems to be more or less the case
with Anthroposophy. When Steiner died, or at least
slightly before he died he was considered to be well
advanced of all of his students as an occultist and
they for the most part diefied him and mummyfied his
teachings. But enough of what he passed to his
students survied in a living form that the art is not
dead.
With Waldorf Education we face an additional problem,
rapid expansion in the last decade or so. Trying to
fill the need for teachers has possibly caused many
people that were not qualified to fill these posts. I
think this is true because it is my understanding that
an old Waldorf School like the Rudolf Stiener School
in New York City gets good results both accademically
and from the point of veiw of moral development.
)
)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 02:33:09 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's anti-racism
Michael C wrote:
)With Waldorf Education we face an additional problem,
)rapid expansion in the last decade or so. Trying to
)fill the need for teachers has possibly caused many
)people that were not qualified to fill these posts.
This is an interesting idea, but I would have thought it was just the
opposite. It seemed to me the people trying to breathe a little life into
things at our Waldorf school were the people who *weren't* qualified, i.e.,
Waldorf trained; or who, even if Waldorf trained, at least had a life
outside of anthroposophy. Everyone else was walking around muttering
"Steiner said" and they were shocked, shocked at suggestions anything
change, ever. Yes, the schools are so desperate they hire "unqualified"
people. They ought to let these people help them clean up their act a bit.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 23:28:53 -0400
From: "David Cann" (canndw netzero.net)
Subject: Re: Steiner's anti-racism
) Michael C wrote:
) )With Waldorf Education we face an additional problem,
) )rapid expansion in the last decade or so. Trying to
) )fill the need for teachers has possibly caused many
) )people that were not qualified to fill these posts.
)
and Diana responded:
) This is an interesting idea, but I would have thought it was just the
) opposite. It seemed to me the people trying to breathe a little life into
) things at our Waldorf school were the people who *weren't* qualified,
i.e.,
) Waldorf trained; or who, even if Waldorf trained, at least had a life
) outside of anthroposophy. Everyone else was walking around muttering
) "Steiner said" and they were shocked, shocked at suggestions anything
) change, ever. Yes, the schools are so desperate they hire "unqualified"
) people. They ought to let these people help them clean up their act a bit.
Perhaps there's a bit of truth in both viewpoints. Our school has been
built on teachers who learned about waldorf education first as 'engaged
parents', often with teaching experience -- or, as Diana describes, people
who "had a life outside of anthroposophy." On the other hand, the pressure
for schools to add that grade every year, to replace that teacher who didn't
work out, to offer that new special subject or that additional kindergarten,
could easily lead to the hiring of unqualified teachers (in all ways; not
just un-trained, but illl-prepared or even incompetent).
In other words, both an opportunity and a reason for caution.
For example, one member of this list told me privately once that the waldorf
school they were associated with had had a few first grade teachers replaced
in mid-year, which in my experience would be quite an extreme step to take.
David
NetZero Platinum
No Banner Ads and Unlimited Access
Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month!
http://www.netzero.net
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 327
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Steiner's anti-racism
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Steiner's anti-racism
By dan dandugan.com
Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism
By michael_j.sieber t-online.de
RE: " four elements" was: another old discussion
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
Re: Steiner's anti-racism
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Steiner's anti-racism
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Steiner's anti-racism
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
Re: Steiner's anti-racism
By snell netshel.net
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_WE_mirrowing_Humanity=B4s_body_of_knowledge/was_=22_fo?=
=?i
By paixs yahoo.com.br
Re: learning from experience/ was " four elements" was: another old discussion
By paixs yahoo.com.br
Re: Steiner's anti-racism
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: "children should stick to what they experience"/ was " four elements" was: a
By paixs yahoo.com.br
Re: oh the mystery.../ was " four elements" was: another old discussion
By paixs yahoo.com.br
Re: " four elements" was: another old discussion
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism
By winters_diana hotmail.com
RE: " four elements" was: another old discussion
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: "children should stick to what they experience"/ was " four elements" was: a
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Steiner's anti-racism
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism
By michael_j.sieber t-online.de
Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Steiner's anti-racism
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Anthroposophy and dogma (was: Steiner's anti-racism)
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Anthroposophy and dogma (was: Steiner's anti-racism)
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism
By michael_j.sieber t-online.de
By raymon_ford email.com
Re: Anthroposophy and dogma
By paixs yahoo.com.br
Steiner's Anti-Racism
By raymon_ford email.com
Anthroposophy and Dogma
By raymon_ford email.com
Re:_WE_mirrowing_Humanity¥s_body_of_knowledge/was_"_fo =?i
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 00:34:45 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's anti-racism
)The theosophical-anthroposophcal outline of evolution is not a
)theory per se, but spiritual-scientific facts based upon the results
)of trained seership.
Thanks, Tarjei, you couldn't be more clear. You say, Anthroposophy
has no dogma?
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 00:52:03 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's anti-racism
Tarjei, you wrote,
)What the theosophical-anthroposophical outline of evolution is
)concerned, the cultural-personal aspects of Steiner and Blavatsky
)has nothing to do with it, especially not with Steiner. One has to
)make a distinction between the _inspired_ Steiner, i.e. when he
)speaks or writes under the direct influence of higher powers, and
)the conversational, speculating, smalltalking Steiner. It is a grave
)error to ascribe his cultural and personal idiosyncrasies to his
)most exalted work, just like it is an error to regard all utterances
)from Steiner or Blavatsky or, say, some of the Biblical authors
)(especially Paul!) as divinely inspired.
A sensible approach, given that you believe some of the text is
divinely inspired; but how do you tell the difference?
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 18:48:00 +0200
From: michael_j.sieber t-online.de (Michael J. Sieber)
Subject: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism
Dear Combatantes,
I do not know whether in the endless circles of the WC discussions
also the connection of the idea of reincarnation and karma with
Steiner's antiracism was covered.
If yes I wonder why there are no traces to be seen..., if no a crucial
and simple point is missing:
In short:
A philosophy which includes the idea of reincarnation and karma can
not be racist.
Why?
Because R&K (as understood by Steiner and many others) implies
that I will go through the different cultures and places of the world in
my different incarnations. How can I look down at any other people
knowing that I was or will be incarnated in their community in a
former or later life?
Why didn't Steiner point out this crucial fact?
He did, and as you will see in the following citation he was very much
aware of the fact, that there is no possibility to speak and understand
about the difference of cultures or nations without taking into account
this crucial point of R&K.
So have a look at this, which I took from Sunes site:
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/Steiner/Folkspirits/Folkspirits-5.htm
Rudolf Steiner, Kristiana, 11. June 1910:
"It will be seen from the last lecture that if we wish to make an
impartial study of the facts underlying our present investigation we
must transcend those prejudices which might easily arise on matters
which I must now describe objectively. So long as one has the
slightest tendency to take personally an objective description of a
particular race or people, it will be difficult to reach an unprejudiced
understanding of the facts presented in this lecturecourse. For this
reason these matters can only be discussed in the light of Spiritual
Science. For however deeply one may be involved emotionally in a
particular people or race, as Anthroposophists we have an adequate
counterpoise in the teaching of karma and reincarnation, when rightly
understood.
This teaching opens a vista into the future and reveals that our
integral Self is incarnated in successive ages in different races and
peoples. When we contemplate the destiny of our integral Self we
may be sure that we shall share not only the positive or perhaps also
the negative aspects of all races and peoples; but we may be sure
that in our inmost being we shall also receive the countless
blessings of all races and all peoples since we are incarnated in
different races at different times.
Our consciousness, our horizon, is enlarged through these ideas of
karma and reincarnation. Only through these teachings therefore do
we learn to accept what is revealed to us at the present time
concerning the mysterious relations of race and nation. If we rightly
understand the theme of these lectures we shall harbour no regrets
at having incarnated in a particular people or race. But an objective
survey of national and racial characteristics may, nonetheless,
provoke dissension and disharmony unless it is accepted in the spirit
1 have already suggested. The aspirant for spiritual knowledge will
learn through the teachings of karma and reincarnation how every
nation, even the smallest nation, has to contribute its share towards
the total evolution of humanity."
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 10:55:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: " four elements" was: another old discussion
--- Diana Winters (winters_diana hotmail.com) wrote:
) Michael C. wrote:
) )But when you explain to young children DNA and all
) )that with a plastic model they are not observing
) the
) )wonders of the natural but flying off into the
) realm
) )of ideas. Unless of course they are saying to
) )themselves "That is a funny looking twisted
) spiraling
) )multicolored plastic model. What has thet got to do
) )with life. For me life begins at recess when I can
) )throw stones in the pond and try for a triple skip"
)
) Well, my child would be fascinated by the funny
) looking twisted spiraling
) multicolored plastic model.
)
) Afterwards he would very much enjoy throwing stones
) in the pond too.
) Diana
Michael C:
I think you missed my point Liz. I don't think I
stated it all that clearly and I also threw in a lttle
humor that may have obscured what I was trying to say.
What I was trying to say is that perhaps the child
should be observing many living things to try to get a
phenomenological basis of what life is first. Save all
of the biochemical reductionist theories until a bit
later. The reason for this is that I believe the child
will be more likely to think that the theories are
grand and practical but while not making idols out of
them.
Can a person that has really observed life easily
believe that it is nothing more than the theories of
biochemistry? If we want science to continue to grow
the scientist must believe that all of the theories
are provisional, after all science does clain to be of
human rather than divine origin (although I feel
otherwise and think that quality science comes from
the dive spark in a human being. That doesn't however,
make it flawless)
Perhaps it is even more important from a moral point
of veiw that the child believe that life is beyound
their complete comprension and therefore somehow
sacred. Unfortunately there are people that see their
life's mission to explain life and conciousness purely
in mechanistic/materialistic terms. While I think this
is great up to a point I have very good reason to
believe that it can never be done. How ever what can
be done is that people buy into this as the truth (the
brain= the mind, the brain is made out of matter,
matter is subject to mechanistic deterministic laws,
therefore the human beings are not responsible for any
of their actions).
Now this may actually be the case that we have no free
will. But suppose we have manged to outwit the
gods/nature and gain this free will. What do we want
to do, replace one set of excuses for not taking
responsibilty for at least some of our choices and
replace it with another set of excuses (I am this way
because of my genetics).
A reasonable approach to biopsychology does not claim
that all of the answers to the questions of human
behavior can be found within biopsychology. On the
other hand what often filters down to the public is
very different our at least is taken in such a ways as
to leave persons feeling less responsible for their
actions.
I for one believe that human beings have a modicum of
free will which can easily be reduced or used poorly.
Any explantions of how things work whether it is from
Anthroposophy or Science can do this when the
explanation is worshiped like an idol. On the other
hand to increase this precious comodity (free will) is
not so easily accomplished
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 20:28:00 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's anti-racism
I wrote:
))What the theosophical-anthroposophical outline of evolution is
))concerned, the cultural-personal aspects of Steiner and Blavatsky
))has nothing to do with it, especially not with Steiner. One has to
))make a distinction between the _inspired_ Steiner, i.e. when he
))speaks or writes under the direct influence of higher powers, and
))the conversational, speculating, smalltalking Steiner. It is a
))grave error to ascribe his cultural and personal idiosyncrasies to
))his most exalted work, just like it is an error to regard all
))utterances from Steiner or Blavatsky or, say, some of the Biblical
))authors (especially Paul!) as divinely inspired.
Dan Dugan wrote:
)A sensible approach, given that you believe some of the text is
)divinely inspired; but how do you tell the difference?
In the final analysis, each individual reader/listener is on his/her
own. This distinction must be discerned through spiritually active
reading or listening and by applying one's own critical judgement and
common sense. It's important that we liberate ourselves from the
communications of others
The Lutheran theologian Friedrich Rittelmeyer was a good example of a
critical, skeptical thinker who was not afraid to ask naive, but
honest, questions of Steiner. In "Rudolf Steiner Enters my Life" [p
138] he writes:
"For if the new impulse is true, it contains the seed of a new divine
worship, a new communion, a new Christ impulse, a new Gospel of
Christ. Hitherto I have not spoken of this to anyone, not even to my
closest friends in the priesthood. For after all, the point is not
what I myself have experiences, but what is actually there, and can
be recognized more or less clearly by each and all in their own way.
From that moment onwards it was clear to me that I must give myself
to the service of the reality which had been revealed to me, without
the hindrance of other ties. So I came to the new _Christian
Community_ from the very innermost core of things. And I am glad I
can say this. The final word was spoken, not by Dr. Steiner but by
One higher than he."
Tarjei
http://home.no.net/tastraum/
It is impossible to understand a human being completely if
one takes the concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment.
- Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 20:28:21 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's anti-racism
I wrote:
))The theosophical-anthroposophcal outline of evolution is not a
))theory per se, but spiritual-scientific facts based upon the
))results of trained seership.
Dan Dugan wrote:
)Thanks, Tarjei, you couldn't be more clear. You say, Anthroposophy
)has no dogma?
Many people have a dogmatic approach to Anthroposophy. I am not one
of them. Anthroposophy was not intended to be dogmatic, but this is a
complicated and controversial subject that _should_ be explored and
debated.
From my point of view, Anthroposophy doesn't fit the definition of
dogma, unless you define it as pure theology, which it is not. Dogma,
like in the Roman Catholic Church, cannot be questioned or revised
because it is based upon unquestioned authority. Science is not
authority; neither is spiritual science.
The Lutheran theologian Friedrich Rittelmeyer writes in "Rudolf
Steiner Enters my Life" [p 61]:
"It would never be in line with true spiritual research if, in the
place of a dogmatically accepted New Testament, an equally
dogmatically accepted _Akashic Record_ were to arise which would
primarily depend on the gift of a single individual. Here, too,
foresight has seen to it that with all the faculties at their
disposal men [German: 'Menschen,' i.e. men and women] can freely test
what is communicated from higher sources. The only thing that is
expected of them is that they do not reject it out of prejudice,
self-satisfaction, fear or convenience. Today they still defend
themselves with the primitive method of ignoring or denying what has
been given. Many things in this spiritual research may be left
undecided for a long time, or forever - but others that help and
enlighten will assuredly be found."
I also raised this topic in my article about anthroposophy and
anarchism in 1996, which I recently translated into English - a
translation that is not yet polished
(http://home.no.net/tastraum/anarchant.html):
*************************************************************
Anthroposophical literature originating from the period 1900-1925
requires a spiritual orientation, or cast of mind, where every
concept of faith in the traditional sense is sacrificed in favor of
results yielded by scientific research, while at the same time powers
of cognition with religious characteristics beyond the intellect are
applied. It is very difficult for someone who does not possess this
cast of mind to accept Rudolf Steiner's anthroposophically oriented
spiritual science. Steiner encourages trust in terms of an open and
at the same time critical mind, but he cautions very strongly against
regarding his person as an authority or his communications as
authoritative. The cultivation of Rudolf Steiner as an authority
among super-bourgeois and subservient anthroposophists is, ipso
facto, in viloation of the principles of freedom inherent in
Anthroposophy.
We are here in touch with the most vulnerable paradox for
anthroposophists with regard to critical objections. The whole thing
is about an enormously rich body of knowledge which is the result of
Rudolf Steiner's occult research. Steiner emphasizes expressly on
repeated occasions that nothing must be accepted on authority alone
in our time. Everything must be scrutinized and verified empirically.
How is this possible, we must ask, when the research itself requires
supersensory organs, powers, and abilities that Rudolf Steiner alone
and nobody else did or does possess?
This objection is so weighty and sensible that most bourgeois
anthroposophists get cold feet when they are confronted with a
problem of this nature. They either explain it all away by denying
the paradox completely, or they renounce any identification with
Steiner's representation, especially in the religious field.
Anthroposophy leads not only to anarchism, but also to esoteric
Christianity and to Buddhism. Because of this, the tragicomical
situation arises when in public debates, one frequently gets clearer
and more accurate descriptions of Anthroposophy from atheist or
Christian opponents than from the anthroposophists themselves, who do
everything in their power to explain away and befog the whole thing.
With the fact in mind that the undersigned considers himself an
anarcho-anthroposophist, an approximate response to the objection
mentioned above may be in order. In the first place, it should be
pointed out that although Steiner did not want to be regarded as an
authority, he did accept that many viewed him as a guide or light
bearer. Immediately following the turn of the century, he published
his observations from the so-called Akasha Chronicle in a magazine of
his own that he called Luzifer-Gnosis, or The Light Bearer's Wisdom.
He pointed out that the prostrate propensity among most people to
submit themselves to authorities of all kinds represents a serious
obstacle to the development of freedom in our time. It is
understandable, therefore, that many anthroposophists don't
understand the difference between a guide and a source of information
on the one hand, and an authority on the other.
One question arising here is to what extent anarchists should permit
themselves to have guides at all. We are living in a complex
entanglement of mutually dependent relationships, and as long as each
individual evaluates freely the credibility and sensibility of every
single source, there is no question of authority. For an anarchist,
therefore, Steiner can be as relevant as Bakunin, Proudhon, Stirner,
or Tolstoy.
As guide, Steiner claimed that anybody could expand the abilities he
or she already possessed. To this end, he published a series of books
with detailed exercises and advice.There are yet many reasons to
believe that Steiner may have overestimated his contemporaries in
several fields.
Steiner thought the claims he presented as occult facts could be
followed up and tested to a certain extent without advanced
claivoyance, or "initiation." Inner experiences cultivated with
sharpened powers of thought, observations of external phenomena that
most people overlook, historical documents, etc. - all this could be
used to affirm or invalidate Steiner's communications. When one
developed real occult abilities later, e.g. by working with the
guide's communications, one could do one's own research as well, also
in unknown territories."
****************************************************************
Tarjei
http://home.no.net/tastraum/
It is impossible to understand a human being completely if
one takes the concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment.
- Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 12:34:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's anti-racism
) )
) and Diana responded:
) ) This is an interesting idea, but I would have
) thought it was just the
) ) opposite. It seemed to me the people trying to
) breathe a little life into
) ) things at our Waldorf school were the people who
) *weren't* qualified,
) i.e.,
) ) Waldorf trained; or who, even if Waldorf trained,
) at least had a life
) ) outside of anthroposophy. Everyone else was
) walking around muttering
) ) "Steiner said"
Michael C:
In my mind a person that always does what Steiner says
must be reducing reality to fit the dogma and is
definately not qualified. Please re read what I wrote
in the letter that you replied to Diana and you might
understand what I am talking about. I will try to
explain this again at the end.
) and they were shocked, shocked at
) suggestions anything
) ) change, ever. Yes, the schools are so desperate
) they hire "unqualified"
) ) people. They ought to let these people help them
) clean up their act a bit.
)
) Perhaps there's a bit of truth in both viewpoints.
) Our school has been
) built on teachers who learned about waldorf
) education first as 'engaged
) parents', often with teaching experience -- or, as
) Diana describes, people
) who "had a life outside of anthroposophy." On the
) other hand, the pressure
) for schools to add that grade every year, to replace
) that teacher who didn't
) work out, to offer that new special subject or that
) additional kindergarten,
) could easily lead to the hiring of unqualified
) teachers (in all ways; not
) just un-trained, but illl-prepared or even
) incompetent).
Michael C:
Thank you David,
I did not say untrained and this is not synonymous
with unqualified.
)
) In other words, both an opportunity and a reason for
) caution.
)
) For example, one member of this list told me
) privately once that the waldorf
) school they were associated with had had a few first
) grade teachers replaced
) in mid-year, which in my experience would be quite
) an extreme step to take.
)
)
) David
)
Michael C:
Let me give another example similar to the ones about
the dance school and the tai chi chuan school. Ok
suppose that you grew up never having heard music,
infact music was unkown to the culture in which you
lived. One day a skilled saxaphone player from the
other side of the world finds his way to the local
park and starts playing up a storm. Now this player is
really not an artist, just a technician. He plays as
exactly as he can what he was taught. Some of the
people that hear him play think it is nothing but
noise. Others like it although never having been
exposed to music before haven't a clue as to what it
is all about. The rythyms and melodies move them but
they have never even sung a song let alone played an
instrument.
One of your friends gets bold and asks if she can try
to play the saxaphone and is given permission and a
very basic idea of what to do (put you mouth here and
exhale, put your fingers here and move them.) Several
possibilities are open to us and I will decsribe 2 of
these.
1. The person is some kind of amazing natural genius
and immeadiatly makes some new original music that
would be appreciated by the musicians on the other
side of the world that our sax player comes from but
is not appreciated by him because he is realy not a
musician.
2. Your friend makes a bunch of noise that would be
appreciated by no one.
For Waldorf Education this example above is too
extreme because we have all interected with people
before. How ever we must look at occult ideas and
therories as something that many people have had
little or no exposure to.
The idea that people can concioulsy take part in human
eveolution is an idea that I believe to be heretical
to the mainstream religion that until recently
dominated the civilized world and prevented meaningful
discusion on such subjects. To the "natuaral man" of
the time before big religion, the idea of taking human
evoltion into human hands would not likely even occur.
When hidden streams of thought surface as happened
with Theosophy and Anthroposophy near the end the 19th
and beginning of the 20th centuries, all kinds of
misunderstandings are bound to occur. To add to the
confusion there is all kinds of muck mixed in with the
precious essence. I took the following qoute off Peter
Ralston's Web site. He is a very serious student and
master of martail arts.
"A warrior is measured according to this:
That he learns from the dregs of the ancients
and extracts clear liquid from them."
Chosan Shissai, 18th Century Japanese Swordsmaster
Peter wrote in one of his books that his material will
also be no more than the dregs of the ancients for
someone wishing to master real martail arts.
Many people have attempted to bypass this learning
from the dregs of the ancients. I don't know of any
one going this route that has developed true mastery
in any art form.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 17:18:33 -0700
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Steiner's anti-racism
)Tarjei, you wrote,
)
))What the theosophical-anthroposophical outline of evolution is
))concerned, the cultural-personal aspects of Steiner and Blavatsky
))has nothing to do with it, especially not with Steiner. One has to
))make a distinction between the _inspired_ Steiner, i.e. when he
))speaks or writes under the direct influence of higher powers, and
))the conversational, speculating, smalltalking Steiner. It is a grave
))error to ascribe his cultural and personal idiosyncrasies to his
))most exalted work, just like it is an error to regard all utterances
))from Steiner or Blavatsky or, say, some of the Biblical authors
))(especially Paul!) as divinely inspired.
)
)A sensible approach, given that you believe some of the text is
)divinely inspired; but how do you tell the difference?
)
)-Dan Dugan
Debra:
So it's like this? If it's embarrassing, Tarjei attributes it to the
"smalltalking" Steiner. If it's not, then the "devinely inspired" Steiner
is talking. Tarjei's blinders appear to be implanted in his brain.
I'm reading 'The Occult Roots of Nazism - Secret Aryan Cults and Their
Infl;uence on Nazi Ideology.' On the back cover, Anthony Storr (author of
'Feet of Clay') says, "If anyone still questions the power which myth
exercises over the human mind, he should read 'The Occult Roots of Nazism.'
I hope you put this book on your reading list too, Tarjei.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 21:32:07 -0300
From: "CP" (paixs yahoo.com.br)
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_WE_mirrowing_Humanity=B4s_body_of_knowledge/was_=22_fo?=
=?iso-8859-1?Q?ur_elements=22_was:_another_old_discussion?=
Michael C. wrote (on the teaching of science at
WSs):
| I am pretty sure this is what they are trying to
do in
| Waldorf Education is build up the body of
knowledge in
| the child in the same way as it was built up in
| humanity.
Clara here:
In this case the building of knowledge had better
include ALL stages that ALL cultures had gone
through. Why isn¥t the body of knowledge of
Eastern peoples - Chinese, Indian...- included? Or
the Inca, the Maia, the Aztec body of knowledge?
Why not Native Amazonian peoples? Australian
Aborigens? The Swahili? The Bantu body of
knowledge?
If one is to accept the notion you forward above,
then the knowledge built by those cultures would
have to be included too. Otherwise, well, then the
concept of "Humanity" in your statement excludes
those cultures.
In my view the statement above simply doesn¥t
hold. It¥s illogic. It pressuposed that not
*every* stage of the building up of knowledge in
humanity *everywhere* will be contemplated by this
form of education.
Which only shows, doesn¥t it, yet again, the
limited/eurocentric character of the
pressupositions held by WE and mantained (even
nearly 100 years on) by its advocates.
Clara
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 21:53:36 -0300
From: "CP" (paixs yahoo.com.br)
Subject: Re: learning from experience/ was " four elements" was: another old discussion
Sune wrote: [on the teaching of science inWE]
| The basic difference is that WE stay with what
can be experienced by the pupils themselves in
teaching chemistry and developing the basic
concepts in chemistry as concepts that describe
the qualities of the phenomena, not by adding from
outsid something that the pupils simply have to
accept as valid because the teacher says it is.
|
Clara:
Have you ever been to a WS lesson, Sune?
This question crossed my mind when I read the
above. Nothing could be farther from describing
what goes on at those lessons than what you
say... It is *preciselly* the reverse. In WE
*none* of the teaching is based on what is
"experienced by the pupils themselves" (chemistry
or other); *everything* is taught "by adding from
outside something that the pupils simply have to
accept as valid because the teacher says it is".
In fact those words describe WE to perfection.
Teachers *dictate* the lessons, Sune. Or students
simply *copy* things from the board. The sequence
of what will be taught is pre-estabished to
minimum details. It never changes. It never takes
into account the different inclinations of
different groups, the ideas that the children
themselves might bring to class (I said *might* -
they become well conditioned *not* to bring any
ideas).
It suffices to say, for example, that all this
teaching is conducted via one media and this media
only: the teacher speaks, the pupils listen. No
research on books are conducted. Well - there
*are* no books. Homework consistes on revising and
*maybe* (at later grades), paraphrasing what the
teahcer said. Obviously the only way to "learn",
then, is to accept what the teacher says it¥s
true.
And the worst part is that what the teachers say
are irrational, medieval notions.
Clara
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 03:24:57 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's anti-racism
)Debra:
)
)So it's like this? If it's embarrassing, Tarjei attributes it to the
)"smalltalking" Steiner.
Most of Steiner's smalltalk is not "embarrassing" at all. For the
most part, it is in fact quite interesting and informative.
)If it's not, then the "devinely inspired" Steiner is talking.
)Tarjei's blinders appear to be implanted in his brain.
I had expected you to be above ad hominems, Debra, but I was
obviously wrong. I won't reciprocate by suggesting anything about
your bodily organs in return, but regard your remark about my brain
as a compliment instead, because it reveals a shortage of rational
arguments and viewpoints.
)I'm reading 'The Occult Roots of Nazism - Secret Aryan Cults and Their
)Infl;uence on Nazi Ideology.' On the back cover, Anthony Storr (author of
)'Feet of Clay') says, "If anyone still questions the power which myth
)exercises over the human mind, he should read 'The Occult Roots of Nazism.'
)I hope you put this book on your reading list too, Tarjei.
I have read "The Occult Roots of Nazism" by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke.
It was one of my sources when I wrote the article "Nazi-Occultism"
published in 1997 (not yet translated into English). This has already
been mentioned on more than one occasion on this list.
If you believe that my viewpoints are due to lack of historical
information, you are positively wrong.
Tarjei
http://home.no.net/tastraum/
It is impossible to understand a human being completely if
one takes the concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment.
- Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 22:20:44 -0300
From: "CP" (paixs yahoo.com.br)
Subject: Re: "children should stick to what they experience"/ was " four elements" was: another old discussion
| Michael C:
|
Waldorf education argues that young children are
| not yet ready for Copernicus. They should stick
with
| what they actually experience which is the sun
| circling the earth until they are a little
older.
Clara:
This shows how contradictory the arguments shown
by the anthroposophers on this list are... At one
point, it is argued that science in WSs is taught
in a way that is not super-imposed, that is, that
pupils learn from their own experinece, and not
accepting what the teacher says is true, etc. But
the statement above by M.C. shows clearly that WE
selects and imposes the way children *should*
learn.
If the system were really one in which the
knowledge comes from the child... then it would be
up to the child to decide when they are ready for
what, wouldn¥t it. Or at the very least, this
decision should be made as a product of
observation of the particular groups. It is not
what happens, though - how does WE *know*
"children are not ready for Copernicus"??!!
The argument, in the statement by M. C., seems to
lie the following snip (enphases added): "(...)
*what they actually experience* which is the sun
circling the earth (...)". Is that what they
actually experience? How do you know?
I mean - it is not *really* what happens,
objectivelly, is it. At least I suppose we all
know that by now. So how can it be stated that
this is what they experience?
The sun circling the earth is an abstract notion,
just as as the earth circling the sun. It is *not*
an experience. What we experience, what pure
observation shows, is that *the sun appears at one
side* in the morning, and *goes down at the other
side* at noon.
In order to think that it goes "round" the earth,
one first has got to know *that the earth is
round*, which would not be a concept immediatelly
accessible by pure observation by a small child
either (following your argument).
So in order to be logical, you would have to say
that small children are not ready for the notion
that the sun goes round the earth either (because
they do not "experience" the "roundness" of
earth). For all that matters, it could even be a
different sun everyday up there... So they are not
even ready for the concept of Sun, as One Entity.
So you see it goes on and on. There is no end to
this, logically.
The truth behind your statement is, it
*pre-selects* an abstract concept (roundness of
the earth) that, it is supposed, the children can
grasp. So "children are not ready for Copernicus"
is not besed on a system that favours experience
over abstraction at all. It is based on a system
that pre-select the abstract notions that "should"
be "disclosed" to children at every given stage.
And in this selection, European medieval concepts
are favoured.
Or would you say it would be just as valid to
teach the children that the earth swallows the sun
every evening because she is forever, madly in
love with him, - and then has to throw him up
every morning, because he cannot stand the
intensity of her love - as the Amazonian story
goes?
Clara
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 22:41:31 -0300
From: "CP" (paixs yahoo.com.br)
Subject: Re: oh the mystery.../ was " four elements" was: another old discussion
Steve wrote:
| On 31 May 2001, at 14:36, michael C wrote:
|
| ) So you suggest that we just explain away all
the
| ) mystery so that they can stop looking up at he
stars
| ) in awe and with wonderment at polywogs turning
into
| ) frogs.
|
| I am always baffled by the assertion that
understanding something
| scientifically takes away the wonderment of it.
To me, it is incredibly
| awe-inspiring to contemplate the number of stars
in the sky and the
| distances between them, and to think about the
number of galaxies that we | cannot see and all
the stars in them! The idea of a number of fixed
| glowing points in a firmament around the earth
is mundane by comparison.
| | And to think that a tiny amount of DNA can
contain the code for turning a | seed into a tree!
There are miracles all around us, and they are no
less | miraculous for being the product of natural
processes that we can begin to | understand.
| | Nature is elegant and beautiful. In my
experience, the better we
| understand natural processes, the more we can
appreciate that elegance and | beauty.
Clara:
I second Steve¥s point entirelly. I too never
cease to wonder at how people imply that *knowing*
about nature is somehow shallow or boring, when it
is so fascinating and beautiful. Thank you for
saying that Steve...
Not to mention that the example in debate was -
well, basic facts about nature. Isn¥t it
depressing that providing the opportunity for
children to getting to know those elementary facts
is described as "explaining away all the
mystery"?? I mean - ALL the mystery? C¥mon now, I
can think of deeper mysteries for a small child to
wonder at.
I honestly wouldn¥t like my children to ignore
basic things like the sun circling the earth for
the sake of "preserving the mystery", in the
beginning of the 3rd millenium... I believe there
are still plenty of mysteries to wonder at without
us having to resource to ignorance. And what is
more, I don¥t want to select what they "should" or
"shouldn ¥t" learn about nature... It¥s times like
that when I am so GLAD they are not in WS.
BTW when my 5 year-old son found out that the sun
goes round the earth earth, and we showed him how
it worked with a small lamp and a globe
(heresy!!!), and he concluded that the Japanese
sleep when we are awake and v.v. - it meant many
weeks of exquisite wonder for him... He played
Japanese all day; when we were having breakfast he
giggled that they were having supper, when he went
to bed he sayd Good Morning to his "little friend
in Japan"; he had HUGE fun and wonderment. I am so
glad he could have this experience and feel the
wonders of how nature really works... I don¥t
think this will make him a cynic at all - OTOH I
know that too much gnome talk can make children
unbelievable cynics at a very tender age.
Clara
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 02:06:46 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: " four elements" was: another old discussion
Michael C wrote:
)When we ask children to make the leap to Copernicus, we ask
)them to deny what they see and just take it on faith.
I'm sorry, but I don't see why this is traumatic, or some big educational
problem. One could learn very little about the world beyond one's own
backyard -- other cultures, history, geography -- if one refused to believe
anything not verifiable by one's own sense experiences. There would be
little point in reading a book.
Oh, I forgot - to Waldorf teachers, there *is* little point in children
reading books!
)By the way telling young children that the earth
)circles the sun explains nothing to them unless they
)have been looking up at the night sky and following
)the movements of the planets.
Yes, and that's a great thing to do with children, except I suppose Waldorf
teachers don't think so (a telescope would be just as bad as a microscope,
right? Looking at matter through matter?)
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 02:09:00 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism
Michael Sieber wrote:
)I do not know whether in the endless circles of the WC discussions
)also the connection of the idea of reincarnation and karma with
)Steiner's antiracism was covered.
Many times. I agree with you it is a crucial point. If karma is taken
seriously at all, of course a person's race is a result of karma.
*Everything* is explained by karma (and hence, IMO, nothing is explained by
karma).
)A philosophy which includes the idea of reincarnation and karma can
)not be racist.
I disagree completely. What makes a philosophy racist is ascribing
characteristics to different races that in fact have nothing to do with
race, such as intelligence or spirituality. Reincarnation and karma do not
get you off the hook for these characterizations, in fact they provide a
handy excuse, a "spiritual" justification for ideas that have no other
conceivable justification.
)Because R&K (as understood by Steiner and many others) implies
)that I will go through the different cultures and places of the world )in
)my different incarnations. How can I look down at any other people
)knowing that I was or will be incarnated in their community in a
)former or later life?
This is precisely what allows the person holding such views to make or agree
with any and all racial characterizations, negative or positive, with
supposed impunity.
Besides, Steiner didn't suggest anybody "look down" at any particular race.
It is all very benevolent, tolerant, inclusive, and meant to be spiritually
helpful; that doesn't make it not racist.
)Rudolf Steiner, Kristiana, 11. June 1910:
)"When we contemplate the destiny of our integral Self we
)may be sure that we shall share not only the positive or perhaps also
)the negative aspects of all races and peoples;
Michael, the tiny little problem with this is that the different races don't
*have* the positive or the negative aspects he ascribed to them.
)If we rightly understand the theme of these lectures we shall harbour )no
)regrets at having incarnated in a particular people or race.
Another one of those statements that anthroposophists apparently hear as
being very generous and open-minded. "You shouldn't mind being black." But
the question is, why *should* we have any regrets at "incarnating" in a
particular race? It is the underlying assumption that some races are
spiritually superior to others that is racist. (A person might regret being
born into a particular race if members of that race are disadvantaged
politically or economically, or discriminated against; but I don't think
those are the kind of regrets Steiner is talking about. After all, karma
means you have chosen this. You must have some *need* for those
disadvantages, why complain?)
)But an objective survey of national and racial characteristics may,
) )nonetheless, provoke dissension and disharmony unless it is accepted )in
)the spirit 1 have already suggested.
The tiny little problem, again, is that there is nothing "objective" about
his survey of national and racial characteristics; Steiner just reinforced
the prejudices of his listeners, and made up a few even weirder ones of his
own.
The "spiritual" justifications for these theories are the most dangerous of
all, because they allow adherents of these theories to believe that their
own motivations are completely benign.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 02:19:06 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: " four elements" was: another old discussion
Michael C. wrote:
)What I was trying to say is that perhaps the child
)should be observing many living things to try to get a
)phenomenological basis of what life is first.
Yes, good idea. My son and his dad are hiking the Appalachian Trail this
weekend - they just called to tell me all about the great many living things
they observed today. I don't see this as mutually exclusive with anybody
ever mentioning the biochemistry of anything, nor why biochemistry should
damage a child or make him susceptible to "dogma" later in life. Maybe if we
forced him to sit all day in a room looking at plastic models; the
stereotype Waldorf promotes of what goes on in all the other, BAD schools.
And what's with this fetish with the word "phenomenological" lately? I think
I'll start keeping track of how often this word is used. :)
)Save all of the biochemical reductionist theories until a bit
)later
I don't see why they're reductionist. Again do you envision the teachers (in
non-Waldorf) schools are saying, "Repeat after me, class, this is all there
is to life . . . life is nothing but biochemistry . . you are your DNA and
nothing more . . ."
)Can a person that has really observed life easily
)believe that it is nothing more than the theories of
)biochemistry?
Where does the "nothing more" part come in, except as a way of demonizing
any approach that isn't Waldorf? In what school do they teach that life is
"nothing more than" the theories of biochemistry?
)If we want science to continue to grow the scientist must believe that )all
)of the theories are provisional,
I think good science teachers are pretty clear on this. I had very good
science teachers in high school - two levels of both biology and chemistry
were offered (though none of this was really my cup of tea personally; I
didn't make it through physics). I didn't come away with the idea that any
of it was set in stone. All you have to do is read the newspaper to realize
that new findings and new theories are reported daily, revising the old
ones. (My son is pretty excited about the latest dinosaur find in Egypt.)
)Perhaps it is even more important from a moral point
)of veiw that the child believe that life is beyound
)their complete comprension and therefore somehow
)sacred.
Self-conscious, contrived attempts to impart to children that life is
"sacred" are nine-tenths of what is wrong with Waldorf.
I prefer teachers who love their subject, like working with children, and
are happy sharing their knowledge. These teachers are rare enough; the ones
who are on a spiritual mission are a real disaster in the classroom. Let the
kids figure out for themselves what is "sacred."
)mechanistic deterministic laws, therefore the human beings are not
) )responsible for any of their actions).
I have no fear that my son getting a decent grounding in science will make
him believe he is not responsible for his actions, and certainly my husband
and I are not teaching him that.
)(I am this way because of my genetics)
Knowing anything about genetics does not imply that genetics is an excuse,
or that we have no free will. That would surely be a very poor understanding
of genetics!
)what often filters down to the public is very different our at least )is
)taken in such a ways as to leave persons feeling less responsible )for
)their actions.
That would tell you something about that person, not about the information
they were given. However, I think this is just alarmism. I do not really
think most people who read or hear about genetics, the latest brain research
(or whatever you are talking about filtering down), finish the article and
feel less responsible for their actions that day.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 02:24:19 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: "children should stick to what they experience"/ was " four elements" was: a
Clara wrote:
)The sun circling the earth is an abstract notion,
)just as as the earth circling the sun.
Thanks, Clara, I was going to comment on that and forgot. I was going to
note that Michael C. said that the Copernican system is only sensible "if
you take the sun as the still point," implying that this does not give a
complete picture. But then why give the earth as the still point?
)Or would you say it would be just as valid to
)teach the children that the earth swallows the sun
)every evening because she is forever, madly in
)love with him, - and then has to throw him up
)every morning, because he cannot stand the
)intensity of her love - as the Amazonian story
)goes?
That's a great one. Especially if we are looking for stories that correspond
to sense experiences. :)
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 18:29:11 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's anti-racism
TARJEI STRAUME
)))The theosophical-anthroposophcal outline of evolution is not a
)))theory per se, but spiritual-scientific facts based upon the
)))results of trained seership.
DAN DUGAN
))Thanks, Tarjei, you couldn't be more clear. You say, Anthroposophy
))has no dogma?
TARJEI STRAUME
)Many people have a dogmatic approach to Anthroposophy. I am not one
)of them. Anthroposophy was not intended to be dogmatic, but this is
)a complicated and controversial subject that _should_ be explored
)and debated.
)
)From my point of view, Anthroposophy doesn't fit the definition of
)dogma, unless you define it as pure theology, which it is not.
)Dogma, like in the Roman Catholic Church, cannot be questioned or
)revised because it is based upon unquestioned authority. Science is
)not authority; neither is spiritual science.
You can't have it both ways. If Steiner's observations are "fact" and
not "theory," then they are "dogma."
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 18:57:15 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism
Michael J. Sieber, you wrote,
)A philosophy which includes the idea of reincarnation and karma can
)not be racist.
)
)Why?
)
)Because R&K (as understood by Steiner and many others) implies
)that I will go through the different cultures and places of the world in
)my different incarnations. How can I look down at any other people
)knowing that I was or will be incarnated in their community in a
)former or later life?
Steiner made it clear that different races were stages of development
through which the individual "evolved," a misuse of the word
"evolution" which was a hot buzzword in that time.
Furthermore he said that if it hadn't been for the meddling of evil
spirits, all of humanity would have developed together through the
various racial stages. Instead some races that should have died out
still exist.
This race-based theory of history was old-fashioned in Steiner's
time, and is a ridiculous anachronism today. One doesn't have to
harbor ill-will against other races to be called a racist; teaching
ignorance qualifies, too.
[Steiner]
)"So long as one has the
)slightest tendency to take personally an objective description of a
)particular race or people, it will be difficult to reach an unprejudiced
)understanding of the facts presented in this lecturecourse. For this
)reason these matters can only be discussed in the light of Spiritual
)Science."
He's saying that liberals and people from non-Aryan races are going
to be offended by the racial doctrines of Anthroposophy, doctrines
that Steiner calls "objective" and "facts," and Tarjei Straume also
calls "facts." He was right about that.
)"If we rightly
)understand the theme of these lectures we shall harbour no regrets
)at having incarnated in a particular people or race. But an objective
)survey of national and racial characteristics may, nonetheless,
)provoke dissension and disharmony unless it is accepted in the spirit
)1 have already suggested."
I.e. as dogma.
)The aspirant for spiritual knowledge will
)learn through the teachings of karma and reincarnation how every
)nation, even the smallest nation, has to contribute its share towards
)the total evolution of humanity."
And Steiner tells you what part each race plays. The Jews, for
example, had as their mission the creation of a physical body for The
Christ Spirit to incarnate into. Now that has happened they "no
longer have a right to exist."
"Older races only persist because there are men who cannot or will
not move forward to a higher racial form." [Steiner, 1908, ISBM pp.
134-135]
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 08:48:02 +0200
From: michael_j.sieber t-online.de (Michael J. Sieber)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism
Dear Diana and Dan,
thanks for your replies to my message.
Yes, they are replies of critics.
What kind of replies did I expect?
"Oh, yes - now we understand - sorry for any inconveniences caused
by misunderstanding..... " ??
No, not really. Maybe it was similar to these irrational expectations
one has when playing lottery: You do not really expect to win the big
prize - but nonetheless .....
Still I believe that understanding could be possible because I feel that
there is an almost continuous sequence between these different
attitudes or moods:
Fanatic Anthroposophist
Dogmatic Anthroposophist
Critical Anthroposophist
Anthroposophy Critic
Dogmatic Anthroposophy Critic
Fanatic Anthroposophy Critic
(You could exchange Anthr. and Waldorf, but in the current context
of "spiritual underpinnings" it is rather the A-topic.)
And I do think that the differences and causes for misunderstanding
and discussion between any two adjacent groups are of similar
extent or graveness.
But also the similarities and common values are there for
neighbouring groups.
So (cum grano salis) a discussion between CA and DA is as difficult
(or easy) as that one between AC and CA. But AC/CA is easier than
CA/FA.
So I feel that understanding between AC and CA should be possible
while there is no chance for an understanding between people who
find themselves temporarily (or longer) in dogmatic A or dogmatic AC
moods.
My observation is that there is little understanding on this list.
Does that mean that the dogmatic moods prevail on both sides?
What do you think?
Michael
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 11:35:06 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism
Michael S. wrote:
)Dear Diana and Dan,
)thanks for your replies to my message.
)Yes, they are replies of critics.
That's very interesting, but it might have been more interesting if you were
to answer the objections raised. You wrote many words but not a word of
reply to the issues Dan and I raised in our posts.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 11:23:22 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's anti-racism
Tarjei:
)The theosophical-anthroposophcal outline of evolution is not a
)theory per se, but spiritual-scientific facts
Dan:
)Thanks, Tarjei, you couldn't be more clear. You say, Anthroposophy
)has no dogma?
Tarjei:
)Many people have a dogmatic approach to Anthroposophy. I am not one
)of them
Dan:
)You can't have it both ways. If Steiner's observations are "fact" and not
)"theory," then they are "dogma."
Yes, this is so funny to read along with all the fretting that children not
learn scientific "dogma."
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 15:36:26 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Anthroposophy and dogma (was: Steiner's anti-racism)
Diana wrote:
)Yes, this is so funny to read along with all the fretting that
)children not learn scientific "dogma."
"Scientific dogma" is an oxymoron.
Tarjei
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 15:36:47 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Anthroposophy and dogma (was: Steiner's anti-racism)
)TARJEI STRAUME
))))The theosophical-anthroposophcal outline of evolution is not a
))))theory per se, but spiritual-scientific facts based upon the
))))results of trained seership.
)
)DAN DUGAN
)))Thanks, Tarjei, you couldn't be more clear. You say, Anthroposophy
)))has no dogma?
)
)TARJEI STRAUME
))Many people have a dogmatic approach to Anthroposophy. I am not one
))of them. Anthroposophy was not intended to be dogmatic, but this is
))a complicated and controversial subject that _should_ be explored
))and debated.
))
))From my point of view, Anthroposophy doesn't fit the definition of
))dogma, unless you define it as pure theology, which it is not.
))Dogma, like in the Roman Catholic Church, cannot be questioned or
))revised because it is based upon unquestioned authority. Science is
))not authority; neither is spiritual science.
Dan Dugan:
)You can't have it both ways. If Steiner's observations are "fact"
)and not "theory," then they are "dogma."
It isn't that simple, and it's not a question of having it two ways.
A few years ago - on talk.origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/ ) as a
matter of fact - I became involved in an exceptionally long
discussion with a Roman Catholic about dogma and its definition. I
don't know if they have old threads available in the archive, but
their search facility is currently unavailable due to technical
difficulties. Anyway, although our debate ended up in a draw of
sorts, I learned that a Catholic is on home turf when it comes to
defining what dogma is and what it isn't. My point of departure was a
more general definition, although not as simplified as yours.
I do maintain that "dogma" is not applicable to Anthroposophy, but on
the other hand, I have already mentioned that many people have a
dogmatic approach to it.
The reason for my claim is that dogma is not only a belief or a set
of beliefs imposed from the outside and asserted by an authority
stating that it cannot be questioned, but it is upheld by religious
faith alone. Because Anthroposophy has endeavored from the beginning
to replace faith and religion with the certainty of knowledge derived
from the discipline of science, it is an error to call Anthroposophy
dogmatic if its epistemological point of departure is apprehended.
Because human epistemology is subject to evolution and change, there
are many things we all regard with absolute certanty today that may
be regarded as superstition in a millennium from now. But whether or
not it is appropriate to call present-day knowledge, that may be
superstitions in the future, "dogma," depends upon how we define the
latter.
Tarjei
http://home.no.net/tastraum/
It is impossible to understand a human being completely if
one takes the concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment.
- Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 16:05:48 +0200
From: michael_j.sieber t-online.de (Michael J. Sieber)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism
On 3 Jun 2001, at 11:35, Diana Winters wrote:
)
) That's very interesting, but it might have been more interesting if you were
) to answer the objections raised. You wrote many words but not a word of
) reply to the issues Dan and I raised in our posts.
) Diana
Yes, Diana, I know. But while trying to answer in detail I was too
much frustrated by the prospect of further mutual nonunderstanding...
so I first tried to contemplate some aspects regarding understanding
and nonund. in this group.
While I try to give a more specific answer you might try to tell me
about your feelings in regard to the level of (and reasons for) (non-
)understanding here?
Aren't you also frustrated sometimes about this?
Michael
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 10:06:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: Raymon Ford (raymon_ford email.com)
)TARJEI STRAUME
The theosophical-anthroposophcal outline of evolution is not a
theory per se, but spiritual-scientific facts based upon the
results of trained seership.
Dan:
)You can't have it both ways. If Steiner's observations are "fact" and not
"theory," then they are "dogma."
)TARJEI STRAUME
Because human epistemology is subject to evolution and change, there are
many things we all regard with absolute certanty today that may be regarded
as superstition in a millennium from now.
Dan, 'theory' and 'fact' are now, to many people, not as strictly separable
as was once thought. Current scientific outlook, as far as I understand it,
is that facts depend on the theory as much as theories depend on the facts.
Thus, facts can change - whereas you were using the word in the sense of
dogma, ie your usage of the word implies 'facts' cannot change.
Tarjei would presumably agree, from what he has said above re human
epistemology being subject to change, that the 'spiritual-scientific facts'
he was talking about (ie the 'theosophical-anthroposophcal outline of
evolution') will change, and in fact are changing. And that
Anthroposophists who say otherwise are indeed dogmatic.
Raymon
-----------------------------------------------
FREE! The World's Best Email Address email.com
Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 12:24:22 -0300
From: "CP" (paixs yahoo.com.br)
Subject: Re: Anthroposophy and dogma
| )TARJEI STRAUME
| The theosophical-anthroposophcal outline of
evolution is not a
| theory per se, but spiritual-scientific facts
based upon the
| results of trained seership.
|
| Dan:
| )You can't have it both ways. If Steiner's
observations are "fact" and not| "theory," then
they are "dogma."
|
| )TARJEI STRAUME
| Because human epistemology is subject to
evolution and change, there are| many things we
all regard with absolute certanty today that may
be regarded| as superstition in a millennium from
now.
[Raymond:]
| Dan, 'theory' and 'fact' are now, to many
people, not as strictly separable| as was once
thought. Current scientific outlook, as far as I
understand it,| is that facts depend on the theory
as much as theories depend on the facts.
| Thus, facts can change - whereas you were using
the word in the sense of| dogma, ie your usage of
the word implies 'facts' cannot change.|
| Tarjei would presumably agree, from what he has
said above re human
| epistemology being subject to change, that the
'spiritual-scientific facts'| he was talking about
(ie the 'theosophical-anthroposophcal outline of|
evolution') will change, and in fact are changing.
And that
| Anthroposophists who say otherwise are indeed
dogmatic.
|
Clara:
The elementary difference between scientific
knowledge and other kinds of knowledge is that the
former is *verifyable*, while the latter are not -
if I may add my 2c.
By verifyable I mean, in a very elementary sense,
that scientific facts, concepts, or theories are
those who are publicized along with the steps
taken to reach the conclusions. I.e., in such a
way that they can be *verifyed* by others. So if a
natural scientist publicizes the results of an
experiment, he does so by including all the steps
he followed, so that another scientist can repeat
them, and verify the conclusions drawn. If a
historian presents his interpretation about an
episode in history, he presents all the sources
he¥s read, primary data or research on other
historians¥ works, so that his interlocutors have
a chance to read all that too and verify the
pertinence of the interpretation.
This procedure is a simple elementary way to
define what is scientific knowledge, what is not.
If the facts brought out by scientific work end up
to be overcome by other findings, this does not
make the original findings less scientific. It is
a matter of metodology.
Some may take a dogmatic approach to facts brought
up by science, when they deny that those can be
reinterpreted. This does not mean *science* can be
dogmatic; but that *its interpreters* can. Science
is opposed to dogma by definition; if its
dogmatic, its not science.
That is also why you cannot speak of occultist
science. If it is occultist, it is not scientific;
if only initiates can grasp the concepts, it is
not scientific. What happens with anthroposophy is
preciselly this. The self-proclaimed initiates
argue, they "know" things we others cannot know.
It is claimed that one cannot argue the postulates
of anthroposophy, because they are the result of
spiritual research into the spititual world, and
since we do not all have access to the spiritual
records... there you have: unscientific.
So the following words (enphasis added) by Tarjei
represents an oximoron:
"The theosophical-anthroposophcal outline of
evolution is not a
theory per se, but *spiritual-scientific facts
based upon the
results of trained seership*".
... Because if the facts are based on results of
"trained seership", then they are *not
scientific*. Scientific facts must be
*verifyable*.
So, it is not a matter of wether the facts (the
object of the theory) are changing or not. It is a
matter of the approach in which the theory is
built.
********
In the example of the teaching of science in WSs,
the point is actually, that WSs do not teach
science, they teach contents from a certain
notional system. It does not empower students to
draw their own conclusions. It does not open the
young people¥s mind to scientific ways in building
knowledge. It pre-selects the contents to be
passed on to students and closes the door to other
contents.
No matter what the contents in point are - this
*method* is *unscientific*.
When one defends that schools should teach
science, this does not mean simply pushing
"scientific facts" down student¥s throats, as I
feel is sometimes implyed by anthroposophers on
this list.
Teaching science at school means encouraging
curiosity, being open to students questions,
valuing the student¥s own conclusions, allowing
for a great variety of sources of knowledge (from
talking to adults to books, and -yikes! - yes,
even eletronic media). What contents this include,
is secondary. The contents will necessarily change
depending on the historical moment in which the
learning happens. But when the teaching is
conducted in a scientific way, this is expected.
It also means not restricting the contents of what
they are allowed to learn, and certanly, not
restricting them to European, medieval,
pre-rationalist notions.
Clara
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 11:20:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Raymon Ford (raymon_ford email.com)
Subject: Steiner's Anti-Racism
)Diana:
What makes a philosophy racist is ascribing characteristics to different
races that in fact have nothing to do with race, such as intelligence or
spirituality.
Diana,
My understanding of 'racism' is that it is not in the actual ascribing of
the characteristics, as you state above, but it is in the categorization or
judgment of those characteristics as being superior to those of another
race.
(The other definition of racism, whereby one judges an individual according
to some stereotype held of the individual's race, is I understand not the
issue here?)
)Steiner:
)"When we contemplate the destiny of our integral Self we
)may be sure that we shall share not only the positive or perhaps also the
negative aspects of all races and peoples;
)Diana
Michael, the tiny little problem with this is that the different races don't
*have* the positive or the negative aspects he ascribed to them.
Diana,
Your point of view presumably is that by saying a given race has some
positive aspect, one is therefore saying that this race is in this respect
superior to others. Am I correct?
)Steiner
)If we rightly understand the theme of these lectures we shall harbour no
regrets at having incarnated in a particular people or race.
)Diana:
Another one of those statements that anthroposophists apparently hear as
being very generous and open-minded. "You shouldn't mind being black." But
the question is, why *should* we have any regrets at "incarnating" in a
particular race?
Diana,
Quite right. Some of his audience, however, possibly would have had such
regrets, which is possibly why he made the statement. How should he,
instead, have addressed those regrets?
)Diana:
It is the underlying assumption that some races are spiritually superior to
others that is racist.
Diana,
By definition, to state such superiority is indeed racism. The existence of
this 'underlying assumption' - is it your suspicion that this is so, or has
it been established earlier?
Steiner
)But an objective survey of national and racial characteristics may,
nonetheless, provoke dissension and disharmony unless it is accepted in the
spirit 1 have already suggested.
Diana:
The tiny little problem, again, is that there is nothing "objective" about
his survey of national and racial characteristics; Steiner just reinforced
the prejudices of his listeners, and made up a few even weirder ones of his
own.
Diana,
It seems to me Steiner is attempting to tread a fine line between the
description of certain characteristics, and the attribution of superiority
or inferiority to these same characteristics with respect to some other
race. He largely succeeded I believe. The plain describing of
characteristics can be categorized as objective, in contrast to the
subjective ascribing of superior or inferior qualities to these
characteristics - it is in this sense I believe he used the word
'objective'.
Regards, Raymon
-----------------------------------------------
FREE! The World's Best Email Address email.com
Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 12:33:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Raymon Ford (raymon_ford email.com)
Subject: Anthroposophy and Dogma
)CLARA:
The elementary difference between scientific
knowledge and other kinds of knowledge is that the
former is *verifyable*, while the latter are not -
if I may add my 2c.
Clara,
Are you here, by 'knowledge', talking about 'scientific facts' as opposed t=
o
'scientific theory'? Scientific facts, ie experimental results, are by and
large verifiable yes. We do have whole schools of knowledge though, such a=
s
psychology and architecture, which are considered more or less respectable
sciences, but which perhaps fail your definition. As long as the approach
used is rational, seems to be the main yardstick, thather than that there
are 'verifiable results'.
)CLARA:
That is also why you cannot speak of occultist
science. If it is occultist, it is not scientific;
if only initiates can grasp the concepts, it is
not scientific.
Clara,
By 'concepts' you now seem to mean 'theory'? Three or four people in the
world today, perhaps, understand fully current theories of physics, and
these theories anyway are not considered fully verified. They seem,
furthermore, to depend on the presence of the observer-cum-experimental
apparatus in a manner which affects the very verifiablilty itself.
In any case, many on this list, judging by their ability to criticise or
condone Steiner's 'occult science', clearly do believe they understand at
least some of the concepts. This is not the same thing as being able to
prove these concepts, as you say. And this is indeed a serious weakness.=
=20
However I would repeat that the essence of science to me lies in the
applying of a rational approach rather than in being able to independently
verify the various arcane statements made by Steiner.
)CLARA:
So, it is not a matter of wether the facts (the
object of the theory) are changing or not. It is a
matter of the approach in which the theory is
built.
Clara,
The approach in which the theory is built is certainly not that of
theoretical physics. But it has much in common with for example psychology=
,
where a Freud will make certain pronouncements which are then considered
rationally, applied in practice, then the results considered again
rationally. Can not Anthroposophy proceed in a similar manner?
)CLARA:
In the example of the teaching of science in WSs,
the point is actually, that WSs do not teach
science, they teach contents from a certain
notional system. It does not empower students to
draw their own conclusions. It does not open the
young people=B4s mind to scientific ways in building
knowledge. It pre-selects the contents to be
passed on to students and closes the door to other
contents.
Clara,
My understanding was that WS students do in fact leave at the age of 18 or
whatever having been taught essentially the same content of orthodox scienc=
e
as pupils in other schools, this being in order that they should not be
behind should they pursue college studies. Am I wrong here?
)CLARA:
Teaching science at school means encouraging
curiosity, being open to students questions,
valuing the student=B4s own conclusions, allowing
for a great variety of sources of knowledge (from
talking to adults to books, and -yikes! - yes,
even eletronic media). What contents this include,
is secondary. The contents will necessarily change
depending on the historical moment in which the
learning happens. But when the teaching is
conducted in a scientific way, this is expected.
It also means not restricting the contents of what
they are allowed to learn, and certanly, not
restricting them to European, medieval,
pre-rationalist notions.
Clara,
I agree that the contents of what they are allowed to learn should not be
restricted, and was not aware this was so. I would like to know where WS
students anywhere are restricted to European medieval pre-rationalist
notions as you suggest above. This should certainly not happen nowadays.
As an aside, re the teaching of the 'four elements'. If done as an adjunct
to the teaching of orthodox science, there is one example benefit so far no=
t
yet mentioned. It is not solely a European notion. The Chinese for exampl=
e
have something similar though eg they include the qualities 'wood' and
'