return to WCA Archive Index
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Does anyone have any evidence of anything?
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 01 May 2004 00:35:59 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Does anyone have any evidence of anything?
Hi Galway,
Thanks for your response. A few points jumped at me but I don't want to
inundate you with more questions - I'll comment on a couple of your
thoughts...
You wrote:
"First of all, mission statements are generally worthless political
garbage. A much better understanding of the goals of an organization can
be found by reading its publications, investigating the subject matter
it endorses, and discussing the issues with its members. I have already
discussed some of the impressions I obtained by doing this. Secondly,
you were right. The first point of the mission statement might as well
say, "we don't care about the betterment of your children, and we do
simply seek to destroy Waldorf." It says PLANS will provide views of
Waldorf from "outside the cult of Rudolph Steiner." Clearly, the
pejorative diction clues me in to what "views" I'll be receiving. How
silly of me to assume PLANS was trying to do something constructive like
improve education in this country."
Your first post - to which I took exception - involved comments and claims I
found to be unfounded. Your points seemed disjointed and coming from a
place of misunderstanding. It seemed like an emotional response as opposed
to one stemming from any real study of the PLANS web site. I see now that
you did not, in fact, read much at the site and picked and chose your points
like a Waldorf teacher picking Steiner quotes for parents. Yes, I
understand your Waldorf experience was not the same as ours. This should
not, however, blind you to the fact that there are some very real problems
within the movement dealing mainly with disingenuous public relations. As
for your sarcastic comment (above), the way I see it, PLANS has never made a
claim or tried to undertake "something constructive like improve education
in this country."
I applaud those who see a serious problem and try to fix it. In doing so,
though, I would not expect such people to fix other problems at the same
time. Years ago, Galway, I was very involved in the anti-nuke movement.
Every once in a while during my travels someone would approach me to tell me
that I *should* be working to save trees or water instead. I would usually
engage them in conversation and suggest *they* get involved in the tree or
water saving movement. Usually, these people had environmental concerns but
were attached in some way to the nuclear industry. It hurt them to see
their industry under a microscope and they wanted me to "fix something
else."
In the case of PLANS and education, however, I think the organization *has*
helped to improve education by sharing views and knowledge with Mrs. and Mr.
Joe Public. The Critics and Survivors lists have helped many, many people
understand their Waldorf experiences because the sad reality is that many
Waldorf schools seem unable or unwilling to help people understand what they
are all about. Metaphysics might label the PLANS - Waldorf phenomena as
"karma" while the physicist would see action - reaction. People feel
confused... people feel hurt... people react. PLANS, as I see it, is about
reaction. Now, in the Land of the Free those who read the web site are able
to guffaw and continue with their Waldorf education (or live with fond
memories) or they can sit back and dig deeper for a better understanding of
the subject. In either case, Waldorf might work very well for some and not
for others. We all have the freedom to choose our paths based on the best
information available to us at any given point in time. PLANS helped spark
the flame that now shines light on a movement that has a very hard time
shining light on itself... Waldorf.
"After having read some of the discussions on here, I think it's
perfectly appropriate and even desirable to investigate the role of
Steiner philosophy in Waldorf classrooms."
We agree. Steiner philosophy *is* the classroom - from the color of the
walls to the morning prayers to the main lesson books to eurythmy. Each of
these elements are steeped in occultism a la Steiner and should be clearly
explained to parents *before* they send their kids to the schools.
"But the fact that Waldorf teachers study
Steiner is irrelevant. I don't care what teachers at any school do in
their free time, as long as it's not a felony."
When what the teachers study in their free time becomes a large part of my
child's life without my knowledge I sure as hell *do* care. Parents have a
right to know what the teachers studied during their Waldorf teacher
training, what goes on at faculty meetings and what *child meditations*
might be happening and how *exactly* the teacher sees their child - as a
beautiful little boy or an incarnating soul, etc.
Example: When those who deny the holocaust begin teaching such ideas as
"history" in schools, they must be questioned and perhaps removed from such
a position of authority, IMO. When a Waldorf teacher begins teaching about
4 elements, the reality of gnomes and the existence of Atlantis, she or he
must be questioned... UNLESS such vital information about the education was
shared with the parents before the child was enrolled, IMO.
I was watching a fascinating PBS documentary with my 13 year old son a while
back. My son has been out of Waldorf for over 3 years now and is doing very
well, but....at one point during the program (about the origin of humans) my
son looked at me and asked, "when will he talk about Atlantis?"
Some aspects of Waldorf I remember with great fondness. Other areas make me
feel very uneasy. Look beyond the Rainbow Bridge and the silk curtains.
The truth is out there....
-Walden
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1332
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Does anyone have any evidence of anything?
By nmfoss hotmail.com
RE: Does anyone have any evidence of anything?
By tomas_masviken hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 May 2004 08:23:58 -0400
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Does anyone have any evidence of anything?
Galway wrote: I understand that these articles are not written by the
PLANS people, but at the beginning of the article Dan Dugan inserts a
comment: "The Waldorf schools will tell you about their famous and
successful graduates. We hear about the disasters. See the following
anonymous posting from 'Rosie'." Clearly this is an endorsement of the
claims, but I think it also implicitly suggests that many Waldorf
schools tolerate abusive teachers (as if there are two groups in every
school, the graduating and the abused).
Nicole: In my opinion, our local Waldorf school was prepared to tolerate the intolerable. I used to think our school was an aberration, but I have since heard extremely similar stories from others all over the world and now consider it a systemic problem. I am not saying that all Waldorf school are like this by any means (I believe you when you say your Waldorf experience was beneficial for instance), but it would appear that enough of them are for the issue to be aired publicly.
A large percentage of the parent body at our school collectively related incidents of poor behaviour by one teacher to the college of teachers. This list of incidents included such things as threatening to bash the heads of a group of children against the wall if they didn't get into their classroom immediately, throwing a chair in class, shouting at other teachers in front of children and shoving a child up against a wall and shouting in his face. There were many other incidents as well. These were investigated by a board member and a majority substantiated.
The parents were promised, at a community meeting, that his activities (particularly those involving supervision of children) at the school would be curtailed. However, at the beginning of the new school year he was once again undertaking these activities. When concerned parents questioned this, they received a letter saying that the college and the board had reconsidered over the summer and now saw no need to place restrictions upon him. In other words, they unilaterally repudiated their promises without even notifying the parents who had brought legitimate concerns to their attention. In my opinion, governance at the school was pathological and there was an entrenched aversion to accountability.
This teacher referred to parents as 'the enemy' long before the parents tried to hold him accountable for his behaviour. I can only describe the reaction of the college of teachers as a siege mentality. These teachers knew exactly what this man was like, yet they chose to defend him against parents with legitimate concerns. The wagons circled round. Most of the parents who raised these issues, many of whom were among the school's most dedicated volunteers, have now left in disgust. We tried to bring about constructive change for the good of the school and were met with a brick wall.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 May 2004 13:18:39 +0000
From: Tomas Måsviken (tomas_masviken hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Does anyone have any evidence of anything?
walden wrote:
)
) Tomas wrote:
)
) ) I have tried to tell how
) )positive my experience with waldorf have been, but it´s hard to express
) )since english is not my mother language.
)
) Hi Tomas,
)
) I appreciate your participation here - especially the fact that you are
) taking the time to express yourself in English.
) And you do this very well, in my opinion.
)
) -Walden
)
Thank you!
Tomas Måsviken
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1333
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Does anyone have any evidence of anything?
By dan dandugan.com
RE: Does anyone have any evidence of anything?
By dan dandugan.com
RE: Anthroposophy in the classroom (was RE: Angry)
By dan dandugan.com
RE: Anthroposophy in the classroom
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 19:32:38 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Does anyone have any evidence of anything?
Galway O'Mahoney, you wrote (in part),
)...everything I've
)found on the site comes well short of laying out a solid argument with
)evidence. Instead, the authors appear to place their arguments on a
)basis of negative personal experience
Since you're basing your comments on your personal experience, that
can't be a bad thing...
)or Steiner's writing itself.
Which is the stated foundation of Waldorf education. Understanding
the foundation is...fundamental.
)I
)have yet to come across an examination of the education provided to
)students and its long-term effects. Such a study could be especially
)informative if used in conjunction with similar studies examining other
)types of educational environments, such as public school, other private
)school systems, and home schooling. If such a report exists, please
)point me to it. If not, please wait to ask for my sympathy until you
)have actual evidence that the Waldorf system is wrong for children in
)general.
You and me both. I'd love to see such a study. Unfortunately, the
people who do Waldorf education aren't interested in science (real
science), and they aren't likely to do a valid study. The problem
then becomes, who on the outside cares enough to invest in finding
the truth?
)In my own experience, involving both the Waldorf and public systems, I
)found the Waldorf system to be much more conducive to healthy learning
)and emotional development. I have read a number of horror stories about
)different Waldorf schools and teachers. But what seems to be missing is
)an acknowledgement of the fact that horror stories also occur in every
)type of environment. Yes, there are some insane people who shouldn't be
)trusted with children in the Waldorf school system. But in my personal
)experience, I found that there were far more of those people in the
)public school system.
Of course (sadly) people who shouldn't be teachers are teaching in
all kinds of schools. We've heard many opinions that Waldorf has a
higher proportion of incompetent or dangerous teachers, but there are
no statistics, just opinions. Looking the the low standards for
acceptance of people into Waldorf teacher training, and for the
hiring of semi-trained or untrained teachers by the schools, I'm
inclined to believe the opinions that there are more problems in
Waldorf, rather than yours.
)Yes, there were hierarchies formed in the Waldorf
)school that led to bullying, but nothing compared to the unmoderated,
)vicious harrassment that occurs in a public middle school. No, Waldorf
)does not spend as much time on standard science or math as public
)school. But unlike public school, which focused on memorization and
)multiple-choice tests, at least Waldorf emphasized the conceptual skills
)needed to understand science and math.
I haven't studied math teaching much, but I really question whether
Goethean Science gives you the skills needed to understand science.
(snip)
)I also noticed several articles/posts criticizing Steiner's writing,
)claiming it's racist among other things (this is mostly in reference to
)the "Featured Quotes" on the site). It is utterly ridiculous to me to
)claim that the Waldorf system inherently passes this on to people.
I don't think anyone does claim that, but I felt very uncomfortable
being a parent at a school that was selling books advocating typical
1920's German racism.
)The
)people teaching at these schools ARE human beings, and CAN make
)decisions about which parts of the writing to adopt. Yes, if the person
)is racist before becoming a Waldorf teacher, perhaps they choose to
)adopt some of Steiner's less interesting passages. But the fact that
)Steiner held views that would be considered racist by today's standards
)in no way implies that Waldorf teachers are feeding your children racist
)sentiments.
No, but how they react when you ask them about those views speaks volumes.
)The man was Austrian and grew up in the late 19th century!
)You can probably dig up racist sentiment in the writing of any European
)writer of the time. It would be incredibly foolish to discredit all the
)work of a person simply because they held some views that are
)unacceptable now. While we're at it, let's throw out the work of Newton,
)Galileo, Euclid, Aristotle, Thomas Jefferson, and pretty much every
)other founder of Western society.
I would agree with you if Anthroposophy took a rational position
towards those parts of Steiner's teachings. If they said "Steiner
believed these racist theories about the evolution of humanity, past,
present, and future, but we know he was wrong. We deplore those
theories and we ignore them." But unfortunately, they don't. When I
asked the teachers at my school about disturbing passages I'd seen in
books for sale at the school, all they would say was "some of Steiner
is difficult." Unfortunately, the race-based Theosophical theory of
evolution is fundamental to Anthroposophy, so they're between a rock
and a hard place.
)I find it very ironic that the author of the site criticizes Waldorf's
)relationship with the public. He writes, "Waldorf's deceptive public
)relations and marketing techniques often involve publishing comments by
)leading mainstream educational experts and organizations to 'normalize'
)the Waldorf pedogogy." The quote portrays the Waldorf organization as an
)extremely biased inveigler.
That's the truth, as I see it. We can discuss it.
)The evidence for this claim comes in the
)form of a quote by Howard Gardner which Waldorf takes out of context for
)PR uses. But in the very next section, the author gives in the to
)temptation to do the exact same thing. He takes racist comments from
)Steiner and uses them completely out of the historical and cultural
)context in which they were written. I think this is very telling of the
)type of thought that is driving this organization, and strongly calls
)into question its motivation.
Every quote is technically out of context, but what is meant by
calling a quotation "out of context" is that it is inconsistent, when
isolated, with the meaning of the whole text. But Steiner's racist
quotes are consistent with his teachings; he says the same thing in
many different ways. His statements were racist even in the context
of his time, and this is why sometimes, after making a particularly
objectionable point, he will follow up with generic liberal
sentiments to smooth things over. I suspect these spins were in
reaction to some shocked looks in his lecture audience.
)Is PLANS interested in improving education
)for the betterment of our children, or simply destroying an institution
)that seems to be working quite well?
PLANS mission includes neither of the above. The assumption that
Waldorf "seems to be working quite well" should be examined.
Thanks for joining the discussion.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 19:29:12 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: Does anyone have any evidence of anything?
Galway O'Mahony, you wrote,
)I do have
)most of my main lesson books handy, if there's anything in there you're
)interested in.
Sure, do you have your "Man and Animal"?
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 19:19:26 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: Anthroposophy in the classroom (was RE: Angry)
TOMAS:
) ) )I didn*t mean that the education in my school didn¥t contain any
)) )Anthroposophy. I meant that it¥s not as prominent as in the schools you
) ) )are referring to.
DAN DUGAN:
) ) Well, then, it just might be that your school was
) ) no different from the ones others have been
)) describing; it's just a matter of how different
) ) people react to what is there.
TOMAS:
)If you honestly believe that I¥m just more receptive than others....
)) )Since i haven*t saved many lesson books at all, I
) ) )cannot give you any "evinence".
DAN DUGAN:
) ) With all due respect, your opinion doesn't carry much weight without it.
TOMAS:
)Well, since I can¥t give you any evidence, perhaps we should just face
)the facts: I like waldorf, and you don¥t, and since you wont accept that
)there are good waldorf schools, I can¥t do anything else.
I didn't say that. I've allowed as how it might
be possible that your school is quite different
from most Waldorf schools; but then I also know
that the Waldorf movement in Sweden is very
Anthroposophical, so that makes your claims
harder to believe. My son's Waldorf teacher was a
very good teacher, and I had little to disagree
with with her. I know from personal experience
that there can be good Waldorf teachers, and I
don't deny that there are good Waldorf schools
either.
) ) ) ) I presume that you studied ancient history in
)) )) fifth and sixth grades. Was the sequence ancient
)) )) India, Persia, Egypt, Greece and Rome?
)) ) ) Anthroposophy plays a big role in these lessons.
)) )
)) )I think we did, but since my knowledges about history is comparable to
)) )any others, I dont think they where very Anthroposophic.
))
)) Again, we need evidence to carry this discussion
)) any further. You may not be aware what was
) ) Anthroposophic and what was real history.
)
)So... I was thaught false history... I haven¥t noticed any fake parts.
)By the way, I was discussing history with a public history teacher, and
)he thought that I was very good at history. And what would be concidered
)as Anthroposophic history?
Most of the ancient history lesson books I've
seen have concentrated on mythical and religious
themes. The ancient India period is completely
mythical, drawn from the Vedas. The ancient
Persia period is all about Ahura Mazda and
Ahriman. Ancient Egypt is about pharaohs being
initiated into mystery religion; stories not from
history but from 18th and 19th-century fiction.
Study of Rome will cover the mythical "seven
kings." And so on. I suppose it's pointless to
ask to see your lesson books on these.
) ) (snip)
)) )What are your plans after 12th grade?
)) )
)) )I*m studying civil engineering/industrial design at KTH (The Royal
)) )University of Technology) in Stockholm. But im going to travel and work
)) )first.
))
) ) I'd like to hear more about where you plan to go and what you will do.
)
)I don¥t know where, but I would like to "know" a city and maybe learn a
)language.
Hmm, not quite the same thing as planning to go
to KTH. Have you actually been accepted there?
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 19:26:29 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: Anthroposophy in the classroom
TOMAS:
) ) )The four elements and chemistry doesn*t really fit together. We had a
) ) )chemistry block in seventh grade (13/14) and we burned different
)) )materials and studied the oxidation and reaction. The four elements was
) ) )never mentioned though.
DAN DUGAN:
) ) Sounds like it might have been a better-taught
)) block, but I'd like to know more about "studied
)) the oxidation." Sorry to sound like a broken
) ) record, but do you have that lesson book?
TOMAS:
)No I don¥t have the lesson book... I -think- we studied the oxidation
)and how different materials react with fire. We talked about how and why
)they melt, burn and explode. And don¥t even think think that we used any
)Goethian Science, because we didn¥t.
Did you actually talk about the oxidation
chemical reactions? My son's combustion lessons
didn't mention real chemistry at all. The "why"
was completely missing, it was all observation.
Your description does sound like Goethean
Science, so far.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1334
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Anthroposophy in the classroom (was RE: Angry)
By tomas_masviken hotmail.com
RE: Anthroposophy in the classroom
By tomas_masviken hotmail.com
Man and Animal
By galway420 hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 20:27:24 +0000
From: Tomas Måsviken (tomas_masviken hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Anthroposophy in the classroom (was RE: Angry)
Dan Dugan wrote:
)
) TOMAS:
) ) ) )I didn*t mean that the education in my school didn¥t contain any
) )) )Anthroposophy. I meant that it¥s not as prominent as in the schools you
) ) ) )are referring to.
)
) DAN DUGAN:
) ) ) Well, then, it just might be that your school was
) ) ) no different from the ones others have been
) )) describing; it's just a matter of how different
) ) ) people react to what is there.
)
) TOMAS:
) )If you honestly believe that I¥m just more receptive than others....
) )) )Since i haven*t saved many lesson books at all, I
) ) ) )cannot give you any "evinence".
)
) DAN DUGAN:
) ) ) With all due respect, your opinion doesn't carry much weight without it.
)
) TOMAS:
) )Well, since I can¥t give you any evidence, perhaps we should just face
) )the facts: I like waldorf, and you don¥t, and since you wont accept that
) )there are good waldorf schools, I can¥t do anything else.
)
) I didn't say that. I've allowed as how it might
) be possible that your school is quite different
) from most Waldorf schools; but then I also know
) that the Waldorf movement in Sweden is very
) Anthroposophical, so that makes your claims
) harder to believe. My son's Waldorf teacher was a
) very good teacher, and I had little to disagree
) with with her. I know from personal experience
) that there can be good Waldorf teachers, and I
) don't deny that there are good Waldorf schools
) either.
I give up.
) ) ) ) ) I presume that you studied ancient history in
) )) )) fifth and sixth grades. Was the sequence ancient
) )) )) India, Persia, Egypt, Greece and Rome?
) )) ) ) Anthroposophy plays a big role in these lessons.
) )) )
) )) )I think we did, but since my knowledges about history is comparable to
) )) )any others, I dont think they where very Anthroposophic.
) ))
) )) Again, we need evidence to carry this discussion
) )) any further. You may not be aware what was
) ) ) Anthroposophic and what was real history.
) )
) )So... I was thaught false history... I haven¥t noticed any fake parts.
) )By the way, I was discussing history with a public history teacher, and
) )he thought that I was very good at history. And what would be concidered
) )as Anthroposophic history?
)
) Most of the ancient history lesson books I've
) seen have concentrated on mythical and religious
) themes. The ancient India period is completely
) mythical, drawn from the Vedas. The ancient
) Persia period is all about Ahura Mazda and
) Ahriman. Ancient Egypt is about pharaohs being
) initiated into mystery religion; stories not from
) history but from 18th and 19th-century fiction.
) Study of Rome will cover the mythical "seven
) kings." And so on. I suppose it's pointless to
) ask to see your lesson books on these.
Thats right. And since when do you speak swedish?
) ) ) (snip)
) )) )What are your plans after 12th grade?
) )) )
) )) )I*m studying civil engineering/industrial design at KTH (The Royal
) )) )University of Technology) in Stockholm. But im going to travel and work
) )) )first.
) ))
) ) ) I'd like to hear more about where you plan to go and what you will do.
) )
) )I don¥t know where, but I would like to "know" a city and maybe learn a
) )language.
)
) Hmm, not quite the same thing as planning to go
) to KTH. Have you actually been accepted there?
Thats right, dont believe a word of what I´m saying. I´m just a stupid
waldorf student. KTH i my dreams. I´m going to travel and work FIRST.
And no, I have not yet been accepted, I haven´t even graduated! I´m not
even going to try to explain!
Totally irrelevant!
Tomas Måsviken
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 20:30:27 +0000
From: Tomas Måsviken (tomas_masviken hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Anthroposophy in the classroom
Dan Dugan wrote:
)
) TOMAS:
) ) ) )The four elements and chemistry doesn*t really fit together. We had a
) ) ) )chemistry block in seventh grade (13/14) and we burned different
) )) )materials and studied the oxidation and reaction. The four elements was
) ) ) )never mentioned though.
)
) DAN DUGAN:
) ) ) Sounds like it might have been a better-taught
) )) block, but I'd like to know more about "studied
) )) the oxidation." Sorry to sound like a broken
) ) ) record, but do you have that lesson book?
)
) TOMAS:
) )No I don¥t have the lesson book... I -think- we studied the oxidation
) )and how different materials react with fire. We talked about how and why
) )they melt, burn and explode. And don¥t even think think that we used any
) )Goethian Science, because we didn¥t.
)
) Did you actually talk about the oxidation
) chemical reactions? My son's combustion lessons
) didn't mention real chemistry at all. The "why"
) was completely missing, it was all observation.
) Your description does sound like Goethean
) Science, so far.
)
) -Dan Dugan
If you don´t believe me, fine. You don´t know anything about the swedish
educational system, and I don´t understand how this discussion could
favour any of us.
Tomas Måsviken
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 08:39:20 +0000
From: Galway O'Mahony (galway420 hotmail.com)
Subject: Man and Animal
I've seen a lot of references to the "Man and Animal" main lesson book
on here, and since I have mine I thought it might be useful to post.
Below is the entire text of my "Man and Animal" main lesson book. The
only thing in there that could possibly be construed as religious is the
division of the body into head, trunk, and limbs. But there's no
question that this division can also be viewed as a simple metaphor for
the different functions of the body. If you're really searching for
something to get worked up about, you might also claim that referring to
our ears, eyes, nostrils, and mouth as "windows" is religious. Anyway,
here it is; I left grammar/spelling errors intact, and noted them at
points.
** Man and Animal **
"Noble be Man - helpful and good. For this alone distinguishes him from
all other beings unto us known." - Goethe
Three-Fold Man:
In the human form, we see three main parts: head, trunk, and limbs.
- Head: The head is round and sits on the body. It's hardest part is
outside and the soft part is inside. It is the organ of Thinking. It
also contains 7 windows through which we perceive the world.
- Trunk: The trunk holds the balance with its curving ribs, alternating
hard bone and soft space. Our life of feeling is present through the
harmonious rhythm of heart and lungs.
- Limbs: Our limbs are straight with the hardest part within and the
softest part without. Our limbs are active and doing many things.
Because humans have arms and hands free of the ground, we can serve and
work.
The Four Kingdoms of Nature:
Though it is not living, the Mineral Kingdom gives form and structure
to the earth and all living things.
The Plant Kingdom is imbued with life. Plants take nourishment from the
earth and sun.
The Animal Kingdom has the ability to move from one place to another.
Through the sounds of animals, we can perceive their feelings. An animal
is led to act in a particular way through its instincts.
Man alone has the ability to stand upright. His hands are free to serve
and work and he can think and act out of free will. He can create
artistically and communicate through writing and speech. He cares for
the earth and all living things.
The Octopus:
The octopus is an animal without any bones. It lives in the sea. It has
a soft, bag-like head and eight arms (tentacles) which come together at
the mouth. The mouth has a hard, bird-like beak used for cracking
shell-fish. The arms each have two rows of suction cups used for holding
and drawing the prey into its mouth. When an octopus is in danger, it
shoots a black liquid behind it so it can escape. The octopus senses his
world through his body of arms. The human senses of sight, hearing,
taste, etc. are in are [sic] head so we can see the octopus as a big
swimming head.
The Mouse:
The mouse is a small, furry animal with a pointed snout, bright eyes,
and a long tail. It has special front teeth that he uses to gnaw, and
they replace themselves as many times as needed. When we look at a
mouse, we see that he is mostly trunk; with a head that is just an
extension of the body, and feet that are tiny by comparison.
The Spider Monkey:
The Spider monkey is a tree dwelling monkey that lives in Central and
South America. Its limbs are very long. Its forelegs are arm-like and
its tail is longer than its body. This "fifth leg" can be used hanging,
swinging, and even picking up small objects. They can leap up to 30 feet
from one tree to another. They feed on nuts and fruits.
The Eagle:
The eagle is a bird of prey with strong tallons [sic] and beak for
tearing flesh. The eagle possesses a power of sight far keener our own.
His wings carry him almost as fast as our thoughts can fly. The eagle
builds its nest on rocky ledges or on tall trees and can have a wing
span up to nine feet.
The Lion:
The lion has a great roar. He can run and leap thirty-five feet. Many
legends tell of his courage. The lion's favorite food is zebra and the
lionesses do most of the hunting. A full grown male lion weighs 520
pounds and is 7 to 10 feet long. The lion is the color of the golden
sun. He loves the warmth-filled air and because of his courage and
dignity is called the King of Beasts.
The Deer:
The deer is a plant-eating animal that is the prey of meat-eating
animals. The deer is mostly legs so it can bound away from danger. It
runs lightly on hooves that are actually toenails - its ankles and knees
are nearer the top of its legs.
The Shark:
The shark senses are all over its body. This makes it like the octopus
(cuttlefish). It seems all mouth and trunk like the mouse. Its long body
propells [sic] it through the sea with great power and so its whole form
is like the limb animals (ie) the deer or monkey. Sharks shed their
teeth every eight to ten days. The Lemon shark has live births, all
others lay eggs. They are known as "predators of the sea."
The Giant Panda:
The giant panda is unclassified. It may be a bear or a racoon [sic], or
or it may require its own classification. They are endangered because
they are killed for fur, money and for the land of their natural
habitat. Pandas eat 85 lbs. of bamboo shoots per day. They like honey
and dead animals especially because they are themselves poor hunters. A
panda's front paws like a human hand and can "grasp." Panda babies weigh
3-4 oz. at birth and many die before they're grown. A mother panda
successfully raises only 1 baby every 3-4 years.
A Day as a Stag (Note: we each had to write a short story from the POV
of an animal):
I'm a stag. One day I woke up and I was very thirsty so I went down to
my favorite stream. But when I got there I heard a giant rumbling and I
saw a huge garbage truck driving away and there was garbage all over the
stream. Very sad I ran away to find another stream. On my way back I
came across a campsite and there were two kids. When they saw me they
chased me away and when I was running my antlers got stuck in some tree
branches and right when the kids were behind me the branches broke and I
got away. After that I was very hungry and tired so I ate some leaves
and berries and went to bed. The End.
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1335
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Man and Animal
By feetapparel hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 22:31:07 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Man and Animal
G'day Galway,
thanks for posting your man and animal main lesson. I am sure I am not the
only one who appreciates the effort you took to post it. Thanks also for the
background on your PhD. Good luck with it. There are some excellent people
in the department there. You should do well.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Impossible is not a fact, it's an opinion. Have your say! Check out the
inspiring stories at http://www.adidas.com.au/impossible We dare you.
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1336
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Man and Animal
By nmfoss hotmail.com
[NNA] Final shortlist for Anthroposophical Society in America
general secretary
By dan dandugan.com
Christine??
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Man and Animal
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 11:16:23 -0400
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Man and Animal
Dan (or anyone else who knows), could you place the Man and Animal lesson in its anthroposophical context for us please? I remember some snippets, but not enough to really understand how this lessons fits into the Waldorf curriculum.
Nicole
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 10:42:53 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: [NNA] Final shortlist for Anthroposophical Society in America
general secretary
Copyright 2004 News Network Anthroposophy Limited (NNA). All rights reserved.
NNA content on this website or distributed by NNA by any other means
may not be republished or redistributed without the prior consent of
News Network Anthroposophy. Users may use and print extracts of NNA
content without permission for their own personal and non-commercial
use only.
For republication or redistribution please contact NNA at:
(mailto:admin nna-news.org)admin nna-news.org.
+ + + + +
NNA-N E W S
Final shortlist for Anthroposophical Society in America general secretary
ANN ARBOR, MI (NNA) - At the end of a 5-month nomination process, a
final shortlist of four candidates has been drawn up for the post of
general secretary of the Anthroposophical Society in America.
According to a statement from the society, the Nominating Committee
whittled down a list of 20 nominations to propose Joan Almon, of
Maryland; Gary Lamb, of New York; Douglas Miller of Michigan and
MariJo Rogers of California.
The society's General Council will now invite the nominees to attend
its meeting in June in Ann Arbor, MI. The Council then hopes to make
its decision at that time or shortly thereafter.
The nominations and selection procedure was itself developed with the
extensive input of members and grew out of a desire from many members
for a more transparent and participatory process for general
secretary selection.
The Nominating Committee was formed in September 2003 and included
members from each region of the country in order to maximize contact
with the membership.
Of twenty individuals nominated, eight expressed an interest in being
considered for the position. The committee then met in April and
recommended four names to the General Council for consideration.
The candidates
Joan Almon, is co-founded of the Waldorf School in Baltimore and the
Waldorf Early Childhood Association. She was on the advisory circle
of the International Waldorf Kindergarten Association and has served
on the Pedagogical Section. She founded the Alliance for Childhood.
She has been a member of the General Council for the past 12 years
and is the current general secretary.
Gary Lamb, is the former production manager at Weleda in the USA. He
is the founder and executive director of the Hope Through Education
privately funded voucher program and co-founded Margaret Fuller
Corporation, he is also managing editor and essayist for The
Threefold Review. A Waldorf economics teacher, he is a member of
Social Science Section. Writings include "Social Mission of Waldorf
Education" (in press).
Douglas Miller is professor of German and art at the University of
Michigan. He has served on board of Rudolf Steiner Institute of the
Great Lakes Area and on Central Regional Council. He is editor of
News for Members and American correspondent for the journal "Das
Goetheanum".
MariJo Rogers is a former English teacher, at Sacramento Waldorf High
School. She served on the coordinating committee of the Faust Branch,
Fair Oaks, CA and on the Western Regional Council. She currently
manages a world wide program of training and awareness for
Hewlett-Packard out of its Social Responsibility group.
END/cva
The entire selection process and relevant documents are posted in the
"Governance" section of the Society's web site:
(http://www.anthroposophy.org/)http://www.anthroposophy.org.
+ + + + +
040505-01EN
5 May 2004
More NNA reports at: http://www.nna-news.org/content/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 23:31:08 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Christine??
Christine,
I really hope you are still on this list as you seem to have disappeared
before our project began. We were going to work on the Waldorf FAQs and you
mentioned mid-March. Spring has Sprung and I am still interested in working
with you on this important project. It was so nice to find common ground
and I hope to keep the connection happening.
A re-write of the famous FAQ's is really needed - a Waldorf teacher and
ex-Waldorf parent (turned researcher) would seem to be the ideal mix to
accomplish this task. I hope all is well with you.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 00:17:08 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Man and Animal
Hi Nicole,
You wrote:
)Dan (or anyone else who knows), could you place the Man and Animal lesson
in its anthroposophical context for us please? I remember some snippets, but
not )enough to really understand how this lessons fits into the Waldorf
curriculum.
I remember the first time I saw this lesson book. I thought my little guy
had made a mistake and I assumed it was supposed to say "Man *the* Animal."
Nope. Looking through the book I thought that despite the nice artwork and
printing - it was a little odd but relatively innocent. Years later I
realize the reality behind Man and Animal. Pretty important
anthroposophical principle is the distinction between "Man" and "Animal."
Steiner's "The Study of Man" is a good read that touches on the topic.
The following might shed some light, as well:
'Anatomy and physiology a la Steiner are unrecognizable by modern
scientists: the heart does not pump blood; there are 12 senses ("touch,
life, movement, equilibrium, warmth, smell," etc.) corresponding to signs of
the zodiac; there is a "rhythmic" system that mediates between the
"nerve-sense" and "metabolic-muscular" systems. Physics and chemistry are
just as bad: the "elements" are earth, air, fire, and water. The four
"kingdoms of nature" are mineral, plant, animal and man. Color is said to be
the result of the conflict of light and darkness. Typical geological stages
are Post-Atlantis, Atlantis, Mid-Lemuria, and Lemuria.
Waldorf teachers are supposed to teach Steinerian evolution. In this view,
species were specially created, rather than evolving from one another, and
"spiritual beings were the creators." "Let us start from the point that the
gods, or the divine spiritual beings, decided to create the world and man.
For this we have a good authority in the first chapter of the first book of
the Bible." (all quotes from a teachers' training manual by Roy Wilkinson,
Man and Animal, The Robinswood Press, Stourbridge, England, 1990, p. 2-3,
provided courtesy of NCSE member Dan Dugan.)
The Waldorf version of evolution is especially concerned with the
relationship of humans to animals, but this relationship is quite different
from that of mainline evolutionists. "It becomes apparent that man is a
compendium of the animal kingdom; alternatively expressed, that the animal
kingdom is the human being spread out." The human "essence" passed through a
number of "spiritual states" on the way to becoming human, which was a
relatively recent event. "Dr. Steiner considers animals to be the
by-products of human development. Man has been involved from the beginning
but not in a physical form. Man existed spiritually and the animal forms
represent physically incarnated soul forces which the human being had to
dispense with in order to mature sufficiently to receive the ego. ... As in
life ... we are trying to overcome the lower passions to evolve to something
higher, so throughout evolution, the passions were separated out from man
and these were incorporated as animals."
"We see then that man is not the result of animal evolution but that he is
at the beginning of it and is central to it. Indeed he is the cause of it.
The animal world represents soul qualities which the human being has
discarded although he still retains remnants of them."'
From:
Waldorf Schools Teach Odd Science, Odd Evolution
(c) 1994 Eugenie C. Scott
National Center for Science Education
420 40th Street, Suite 2
Oakland, CA 94609-2509
http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/Eugenie_Scott_94.html
-Walden
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1337
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Man and Animal
By nmfoss hotmail.com
Re: www.WaldorfCritics.com Feedback
By dan dandugan.com
Waldorf Schools
By woden101 yahoo.com
RE: Waldorf Schools
By galway420 hotmail.com
Re: Waldorf Schools
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: Waldorf Schools
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Waldorf Schools
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Waldorf Schools
By carmine_s_lynch_jk seedfactory.be
Re: Waldorf Schools
By carmine_s_lynch_jk seedfactory.be
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 13:03:22 -0400
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Man and Animal
Thanks Walden,
I remember animals being classified as head, trunk or limb animals (a classification which no one uses outside of anthroposophy). The distinction was emphasized as if it had real biological significance in my son's class. I also vaguely remember something about (imperfect) animal forms imitating aspects of the (perfect) human form, and a great deal of spiritual significance being associated with the latter. No mention was ever made of any schema for the classification of animals which would be recognizable to biologists, even those of Steiner's era and earlier.
Does anyone have any more illuminating Steiner quotes on the subject?
Nicole
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 11:22:34 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Cc: wslep aol.com
Subject: Re: www.WaldorfCritics.com Feedback
wslep aol.com, you wrote to PLANS. I'm replying to your message on
our public discussion board, waldorf-critics, and I invite you to
subscribe to the list if you want to continue the discussion.
)Your posted letters have no content, they seem to allude to a
)problem with Waldorf but All I see is your ignorance and lack of
)ability to see a bigger picture,
I think you disrespect many people who have many years experience
with Waldorf by saying that their letters "have no content." I'd like
to hear more about the "bigger picture" that you refer to.
)If you were such Bible thumpers why did you put your kids in Waldorf
)in the first place?
Long before PLANS, Evangelical Christians were the first people to
recognize how Waldorf concealed its religious nature. See Thieves of
Innocence by Craig Branch.
I'm a Secular Humanist. I put my son in Waldorf because I loved the
integration of art into everything, and what I thought was a
classical curriculum. The board of PLANS includes Humanists, people
in main-stream religions, people with no professed religion, and a
representative of a Christian anti-cult organization.
)Whats next Montissori????
It doesn't appear that the Montessori movement needs to have a public
opposition; they don't conceal who they are and what they do. There
is, however, a chain of Montessori schools run by a religious cult,
Church Universal and Triumphant, that people should be aware of. For
more information on that, see Paolini's book
http://www.allbookstores.com/book/0966621301
)You people are just dumb.
Thanks for your opinion. What is your experience with Waldorf?
-Dan Dugan
Secretary, PLANS, Inc.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 02:07:35 +0000
From: Chris (woden101 yahoo.com)
Subject: Waldorf Schools
Greetings,
I would like to state first that, in many respects, I agree with the
philosophy pursued by organizations such as this. However, I believe
that I have some valuable perspective on this issue which deserves a
fair hearing. Although the stated purpose of this group is to be
critical of Steiner, waldorf schools, and anything anthroposophical I
hope that this does not mean that this group is composed of no-one but
extremely dogmatic detractors of Waldorf pedagogy.
I am currently entering college having from a public high school, but
this is mostly irrelevant. I attended a Steiner School from Kindergarten
through 8th Grade. Thus, I have had a substantial portion of my life in
a waldorf setting, but I do have some distance from it as well which
affords me more than enough "objectivity", as it were, to discuss the
issue of Waldorf schools.
Reading through your site would lead one to believe that Steiner schools
are composed of no-one but "the faithful" who are secretly conspiring to
push totally insane ideas upon impressionable youngsters. However, such
a picture, I believe, leaves something to be desired as I look back over
my memories and as I assess where I am today. My story does not qualify
to disprove any given doubt about Waldorf pedagogy, but it does provide
a worthwhile anecdotal account.
But where to begin....Let's start with reading. Like everyone else in
Waldorf schools, I wasn't presented with reading drills in kindergarten
nor in first grade. We did begin learning the alphabet at that time,
however. My transition into reading, like the majority of my peers, was
effortless and joyful, coming in a sort of prototypical form in second
grade and then in full power by third grade. Waldorf schools emphasize,
in the early years, an essentially oral approach to language.
Story-telling was very common as a means of engaging our attention.
These were stories drawn from a wide variety of sources, an eclectic mix
of folk-tales, myths, and more modern stories. My language abilities are
very strong, and have always been so. I can remember feeling compelled,
without outside encouragement of any sort, to write down my own version
of the story of St. Christopher. This happened between 2nd and 3rd
grade, not too long after my reading ability had clicked in to gear. In
summary, I cannot conceive of how any other approach to reading would
have been any more beneficial to me. At my public high school, my
abilities were certainly far above average and I scored an 800 on the
verbal section of the SAT. The Steiner school left me with a deep
appreciation of great stories, and a love of the word. I think that a
lot of this may have had to do with the fact that I wasn't forced into
reading before it was appropriate. In addition, my parents read to me at
bed-time a lot, and this probably helped as well. Whatever happened to
me worked. I maintain contact with many of my former class-mates, and,
with a few exceptions, they are all "above average" in this respect as
well (it is important to note, in this regard, that many of the students
who enrolled at the Steiner School were those struggling in the public
school system. In fact, of all of my class-mates who graduated 8th grade
with me who had been there from the beginning, about 12, none have any
difficulties with language abilities.
Ok, now to math. I'll keep these remarks briefer. We were all learning
math from first grade onwards. I remember drilling my times table,
something which served me quite well in higher math pursuits, and
learning number values through managing accounts of various objects.
I learned, with about half of my class-mates (most of us, upon
reflection, the "originals") Algebra I in eigth grade. I pursued math
all the way through high school calculus, consistently earning A's
without too much difficulty (I scored 700 on the math section of the
SAT). Yet again, I seem to have only benefitted under the Waldorf system
as concerns mathematics.
Music, art, theatre, and crafts are all very strong at the Waldorf
schools. The Waldorf High Schoolers continually impress with exceptional
artistic talent. Our music program was also quite good (I had the
opportunity to learn and play piano, recorder, and the violin). Some of
this activity is directed in a way influenced by Steiner's ideas about
art and how it concerns "the spiritual world", this I admit. Looking
back, and now having actively read Steiner on my own, I can see his
influence. The thing is: regardless of how one reacts to his many ideas,
some have proven remarkably true, others, no doubt, are wrong. Only
recently has traditional pedagogy been realizing the value of art-work
and music at an early age, and this, only falteringly. Steiner clearly
saw it. Even dogmatic opponents should concede this point.
I'll conclude with science and history. The history at Steiner schools
is, on the whole, more extensive than that given at public schools.
Steiner's influence is present, but in a dissimulated form. In my
experience MYTHOLOGY WAS NEVER TAUGHT AS HISTORICAL FACT. The transition
from learning mythology in the 4th grade to studying ancient mesopotamia
and greece was delineated. I have an immense appreciation for the study
of history as well as mythology. In scientific education, we encounter
an area where I, too, have some reservations, looking back on what I
learned. Our education in chemistry and physics (in 7th and 8th grades)
was pretty good, although unconventional. Other aspects are more
tentative. I remember the "heart as pump" debate featuring in our
discussion of the circulatory system (by the way, we were taught that
muscle contraction is caused by nervous system, as far as I can
remember, and not that the only nerves are sensory nerves). The
presentation of the anatomy itself was accurate. However, I am slightly
distressed by how the teacher openned up the possibility that the heart
was somehow connected to "feeling" with the "heart as pump" debate. I
vigorously argued that the heart was "nothing but an organic pump". I
was not silenced or anything, but the teacher displayed reluctance in
acquiescing to my position. Make of this what you will. On the whole my
scientific mind emerged relatively undamaged, and I plan on studying
biology in college. Graduates from the Steiner High School also do well
in life; I have known several.
I will conclude by addressing an objection which some may raise. In the
case of an individual like myself it is possible that I would have
thrived under any condition. Indeed it is. However, nobody can deny that
intelligence and learning are built in a manner highly dependant upon
the environment. If all Steiner schools were places such as one might
imagine only reading a site like this, I doubt that my intellect would
have emerged as lively, critical, and active as it did. The brain does
not develop without adequate stimulation. One way or the other, I must
have recieved that in all those years between K and 8.
Chris Wilson
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 02:58:27 +0000
From: Galway O'Mahony (galway420 hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Waldorf Schools
Chris wrote:
"I hope that this does not mean that this group is composed of no-one
but extremely dogmatic detractors of Waldorf pedagogy."
Don't worry, some of the members of this list are, like you, former
Waldorf students who are very satisfied with the education they
received. Unfortunately, the members of this list who ARE critical of
Waldorf generally are "extremely dogmatic" and provide little if any
evidence of the claims they make about what goes on in Waldorf
classrooms. Just know that any discussion you have will contain a great
deal of circular logic and personal accusations, and not much substance.
Christ wrote:
"In my experience MYTHOLOGY WAS NEVER TAUGHT AS HISTORICAL FACT"
I couldn't agree with you more. In my Waldorf experience, mythology was
presented as just that, and there was a clear distinction between it and
the history lessons we had (Oregon state history in 5th grade).
Have fun,
Galway
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 23:33:41 -0400
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Schools
Galway, no offense, but the "evidence" that you provide of Waldorf education
being effective and of value is just as anecdotal as the "evidence" provided
by those of us whose own experiences or whose children's experiences
revealed the opposite!
You and Chris tell us that Waldorf worked well for you, and please believe
me when I say we are happy about that. I wish that I (and dozens of the
other Waldorf survivor families I know) could say the same; after all, we
enrolled our children in Waldorf schools because their pitch/what they
promised to do, appealed to us. The sad truth is that the reality, for us
(and again, for the 80+ families currently on our survivors' list from
around the world) was far, far different. If it had, we wouldn't be calling
ourselves "survivors."
Most of the critics on this list were, at one time, Waldorf supporters and
even promoters. We believed we had stumbled upon something wonderful for our
kids: a school system that would nurture our kids' creativity and
individuality while instilling in them a love of learning. We believed it
when they told us that Waldorf provided a non religious education in a
multicultural, arts-based environment. So imagine how sad, disappointed, and
yes, angry we were when we encountered, instead, a rigid, authoritarian,and
often anti intellectual environment where most everything revolved around an
esoteric religion many of us had never heard of or been told about.
Because Waldorf schools refuse to conduct actual studies of their retention
rates, standardized test scores, etc., no hard "evidence" of either
Waldorf's successes or failures is available. All we can do is talk about
what it was like for us. That is what you and Chris are doing: you are
offering your experiences to show Waldorf works. On the flip side, many of
us offer our or our children's experiences to show Waldorf does not work.
Lisa
) From: Galway O'Mahony (galway420 hotmail.com)
) Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 02:58:27 +0000
) To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Subject: RE: Waldorf Schools
)
) ===========================================================
) Empower your Team with Remote Access. GoToMyPC Pro
) provides your organization with instant remote access to
) email,files, applications and network resources in real
) time. FREE TRIAL:
) http://click.topica.com/caaccMSb1dkiGb1IpcOa/ ExpertCity
) ===========================================================
)
) Chris wrote:
) "I hope that this does not mean that this group is composed of no-one
) but extremely dogmatic detractors of Waldorf pedagogy."
)
) Don't worry, some of the members of this list are, like you, former
) Waldorf students who are very satisfied with the education they
) received. Unfortunately, the members of this list who ARE critical of
) Waldorf generally are "extremely dogmatic" and provide little if any
) evidence of the claims they make about what goes on in Waldorf
) classrooms. Just know that any discussion you have will contain a great
) deal of circular logic and personal accusations, and not much substance.
)
) Christ wrote:
) "In my experience MYTHOLOGY WAS NEVER TAUGHT AS HISTORICAL FACT"
)
) I couldn't agree with you more. In my Waldorf experience, mythology was
) presented as just that, and there was a clear distinction between it and
) the history lessons we had (Oregon state history in 5th grade).
)
) Have fun,
) Galway
)
) ===========================================================
) Sponsor a child today through Children International.
) Give a desperately poor child hope for a brighter future.
) For only $18 a month you can make a difference!
) http://click.topica.com/caaccM4b1dkiGb1IpcOf/ Children's Int'l
) ===========================================================
)
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New
) threads are always welcome.
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 23:59:02 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Schools
Hi Chris,
I'm pleased to know that Waldorf worked well for you and that you have
taken time now to share your opinions here.
Chris wrote:
"I hope that this does not mean that this group is composed of no-one
but extremely dogmatic detractors of Waldorf pedagogy."
And Galway replied:
)Don't worry, some of the members of this list are, like you, former
)Waldorf students who are very satisfied with the education they
)received. Unfortunately, the members of this list who ARE critical of
)Waldorf generally are "extremely dogmatic" and provide little if any
)evidence of the claims they make about what goes on in Waldorf
)classrooms. Just know that any discussion you have will contain a great
)deal of circular logic and personal accusations, and not much substance.
Speaking of "circular logic...." Ironic, n'est ce pas? And Galway can
predict the future, too!
Maybe it's a Waldorf grad thing to know about discussions before they
happen...? (g) Sorry to disappoint but I
enjoyed your post, Chris and I do believe that Waldorf worked for you - or
at least you have fond memories of your Waldorf experience.
I echo much of what Lisa wrote in response to your post and I suspect you
are correct when you mention that you might have become who you are
had you not attended a Waldorf school. Personally, I think too much
emphasis is placed on institutions like schools when it comes to pointing to
how an individual becomes later in life. I know plenty of home learners and
"un-schoolers" who are extremely bright, articulate, thinking individuals...
happy with their lot in life. Your parents read to you as a lad. I think
that's important. Eurythmy? Not quite as important, IMO. Unless you are
an anthroposophist.
I must add, however, that I know many families who have had very bad Waldorf
experiences. Our school had groups of people leave en masse on more than
one occasion. Incompetence and lack of accountability resulting in a
circling of the teacher's wagons are the common theme. My own kids will not
even consider going close to their old school. There are very real
emotional scars.
When I discovered the Internet and saw similar stories, it did not take the
akashic record to tell me there is a pattern. Are there problems in
non-Waldorf schools, too? No doubt. Waldorf is unique for a few reasons,
IMO. This is a clearly defined system of education based entirely on the
ideas of a turn of the century Austrian occultist. This fact is
indisputable yet most parents are kept in the dark by Waldorf PR.
My #1 concern has to do with the disingenuous nature of Waldorf public
relations. This is at the root of the Waldorf controversy. Until such time
as Waldorf shines a light on itself and trusts that parents will make the
right choice for the children in their care, people will continue to be
critical of the movement. Of course, when Waldorf teachers cling to every
word Steiner ever said and treat Him as One Not Be Questioned... the problem
is compounded. For example - to the first teachers:
"You will have to take over children for their education and instruction -
children who will have received already (as you must remember) the
education, or mis-education given them by their parents."
Steiner, The Study of Man, Lecture One
I don't begrudge you your fond memories of your particular Waldorf school,
Chris. I just wish I had known what it was all about prior to having taken
the bait some years ago. I know I am not alone in that regard.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 May 2004 00:21:50 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Schools
In the event that I be accused of taking Steiner out of context with my
previous post and a quote from The Study of Man, I will add a couple of
important bits to help place Steiner's thoughts *in context.* I was
alluding to the fact that Waldorf teachers, during their training, are
immersed in Steiner's occultism. I'm not passing judgment (now) on these
concepts of soul work and reincarnation but they are extremely important
with regards to how a Waldorf teacher is supposed to view the student in the
classroom.
Helping to put Steiner in context:
"If you regard with an open mind the child who has found his way into
earthly life, you will observe that here in the child, Soul-Spirit or
Spirit-Soul is as yet dis-united from the Life-Body. The task of education
conceived in the spiritual sense is to bring the Soul-Spirit into harmony
with the Life-Body. They must come into harmony with one another. They must
be attuned to one another; for when the child is born into the physical
world, they do not as yet fit one another. The task of the educator, and of
the teacher too, is the mutual attunement of these two members."
Steiner, The Study of Man, Lecture One
Again, this stuff is what makes Waldorf...Waldorf, yet parents are not privy
to such vital information until they might join *study groups* at the
school. Instead we are told that Steiner was an educator, a scientist, an
artist, etc. Why do you think this happens, Chris ...or Galway?
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 03:25:34 -0400
From: carmine_s_lynch_jk seedfactory.be
Subject: Re: Waldorf Schools
This is an autoresponder. I'll never see your message.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 03:00:47 -0400
From: carmine_s_lynch_jk seedfactory.be
Subject: Re: Waldorf Schools
This is an autoresponder. I'll never see your message.
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1338
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Waldorf Schools
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
Re: Waldorf Schools
By carmine_s_lynch_jk seedfactory.be
Some issues
By woden101 yahoo.com
Re: Some issues
By carmine_s_lynch_jk seedfactory.be
Re: Some issues
By Gary goodwinter.com
RE: Waldorf Schools
By galway420 hotmail.com
Re: Some issues
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 11:32:57 -0300
From: "Bruce Angus" (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Schools
Galway wrote: ".the members of this list who ARE critical of Waldorf generally are "extremely dogmatic" and provide little if any evidence of the claims. Just know that any discussion you have will contain a great deal of circular logic and personal accusations, and not much substance."
Circular logic implies looking at issues from all sides. I'd personally call it "back and forth" discussion. You're right, though, about the personal accusations: "extremely dogmatic" is about as personal and accusatory as it gets. Galway, take some advice from a used-to-be-a-Waldorf-teacher: the fighting part isn't worth it. Just state your truth, be kind, and when you're surrounded by people who drive you kooky, realize it's time to boogie. Because at that point it's your problem, and not theirs.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 10:37:00 -0400
From: carmine_s_lynch_jk seedfactory.be
Subject: Re: Waldorf Schools
This is an autoresponder. I'll never see your message.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 11:53:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Woden (woden101 yahoo.com)
Subject: Some issues
To address a couple of things.
First: I don't wish to take part in any flaming or
useless pontificating.
Second: Walden, you ask a very poignant question which
does, I agree, deserve an answer. It is very important
to preliminarily re-state, such that everyone is very
clear, that anthroposophy, per se, is not taught in
the class-room. Many of the activities which make
waldorf "waldorf" have, as you so correctly stated, a
basis in anthroposophy. However, I think that the most
important thing which you all need to think about is
whether or not that is a bad thing. It seems, and I
may be misreading your position, that because of some
of this influence you think that waldorf is therefore,
a priori, corrupt or inadequate...not appropriate as a
pedagogy. This is like saying that nutritional
approaches to preventing cancer are bad because the
Nazi's happened to have advocated them, perhaps on
shaky ground. That is flawed--argument by association.
After examining the differential between anthroposophy
and the content of waldorf schools one should only
then cast a value judgement on what Waldorf has to
offer. If you disagree, for good reason, with the
waldorf curriculum then fine, that's your call. I just
don't think you should dismiss it because you do not
agree with some/much/all of anthroposophy. To conclude
this broad commentary around your question I'd like to
offer that Waldorf schools, in fact, are not
particularly religious. Yes, verses are recited. Some
holidays celebrated. If one examines the content of
these events, they mostly are inter-denominational.
Their is some anthroposophical influence. If one finds
the particular content of any of these events
objectionable that's fine.
Your question was more specifically about evasiveness.
I suspect that their is, in fact, reluctance to
discuss anthroposophy with the layman. As to why this
is so, I do not really know. I can speculate that the
anthroposophist would be hard-pressed to formulate the
spiritual content in a way which wouldn't foster
misunderstanding...even to themselves! I also think
tha t a lot of this problem is highly contingent upon
the particular set of teachers you were exposed to.
The best book from an outsiders perspective about the
movement is Ahern's "Sun at Midnight". Perhaps the
cliche adage "don't throw the baby out with the
bath-water" is appropriate here.
Chris
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 14:54:42 -0400
From: carmine_s_lynch_jk seedfactory.be
Subject: Re: Some issues
This is an autoresponder. I'll never see your message.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 May 2004 17:01:29 -0400
From: Gary Bonhiver (Gary goodwinter.com)
Subject: Re: Some issues
I've just turned off carmine's subscription so we won't get his
autoresponder message after each post. He can ask to turn it back on when
he returns.
...Gary
on 5/7/04 2:54 PM, carmine_s_lynch_jk seedfactory.be at
carmine_s_lynch_jk seedfactory.be wrote:
) ===========================================================
) Empower your Team with Remote Access. GoToMyPC Pro
) provides your organization with instant remote access to
) email,files, applications and network resources in real
) time. FREE TRIAL:
) http://click.topica.com/caaccMSb1dkiGb1IpcHa/ ExpertCity
) ===========================================================
)
) This is an autoresponder. I'll never see your message.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 8 May 2004 03:38:04 +0000
From: Galway O'Mahony (galway420 hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Waldorf Schools
Lisa D. Ercolano wrote:
"Galway, no offense, but the "evidence" that you provide of Waldorf
education being effective and of value is just as anecdotal as the
"evidence" provided by those of us whose own experiences or whose
children's experiences revealed the opposite"
I have provided no evidence other than the text of my "Man and Animal"
book. In all my other posts, all of my information is provided with
qualifying statements to make it clear that it is my personal experience
or opinion and nothing more. I've approached this discussion list with
nothing but an open mind, politely requesting that people explain their
positions. Although the majority of the people contributing are quite
polite and respectful in their replies, I feel that there are people who
are less than civil.
Galway
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 08 May 2004 01:29:42 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Some issues
Hi Chris,
You wrote:
"Second: Walden, you ask a very poignant question which
does, I agree, deserve an answer. It is very important
to preliminarily re-state, such that everyone is very
clear, that anthroposophy, per se, is not taught in
the class-room."
As such - I would agree. I do not believe the curriculum includes mention
of racial or spiritual hierarchies, post Atlantean epochs or the future war
of all against all (anthro teachings) but I trust you would agree that
anthroposophy forms the basis of the curriculum as set forth by the
indications of Rudolf Steiner and that Waldorf teachers are expected to
participate in learning and meditating on these "indications?"
You wrote:
"Many of the activities which make
waldorf "waldorf" have, as you so correctly stated, a
basis in anthroposophy. However, I think that the most
important thing which you all need to think about is
whether or not that is a bad thing."
Not if the Waldorf folks completely and honestly inform parents as to the
reality behind that "basis in anthroposophy." That is "the most important
thing."
When I asked, I was told that this "philosophy" simply meant, "the wisdom of
man." Well, that sounded all well and fine - how can the "wisdom of man" be
a bad thing? Little did I know....
You wrote:
"It seems, and I may be misreading your position, that because of some
of this influence you think that waldorf is therefore,
a priori, corrupt or inadequate...not appropriate as a
pedagogy. This is like saying that nutritional
approaches to preventing cancer are bad because the
Nazi's happened to have advocated them, perhaps on
shaky ground. That is flawed--argument by association."
Slow down. Yes, you have misread my position. I might have voiced concern
regarding the weirdness of Waldorf pedagogy at some point but I cannot
expect any school to live by my expectations - thus my wariness of any
educational institution. I certainly do not have the answers to the
question of what constitutes a "good" education. There are no clear
answers.
My position is this: When Waldorf PR informs the public that Waldorf
education is based on anthroposophical concepts and goes on to explain those
concepts and includes a thorough explanation of why Waldorf teaches the
post-Atlantean epochs as history, the reality of Eurythmy, why the walls are
"lazured" certain colors, why the morning prayer is called a "verse," why
black crayons might be missing in the early grades. etc.... I'll get back to
spending much more time with activities that bring me more meaning and/or
laughs than hanging out here. For now... I accept this as my karma.
Something like that (g)
You wrote:
"After examining the differential between anthroposophy
and the content of waldorf schools one should only
then cast a value judgement on what Waldorf has to
offer. If you disagree, for good reason, with the
waldorf curriculum then fine, that's your call. I just
don't think you should dismiss it because you do not
agree with some/much/all of anthroposophy."
See my comments above regarding any value judgments.
"To conclude this broad commentary around your question I'd like to
offer that Waldorf schools, in fact, are not
particularly religious."
I disagree and so does ex-master Waldorf teacher, Eugene Schwartz. I
respectfully submit that he has been around more Waldorf schools than you.
See: http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/schwartz.html
You wrote:
"Yes, verses are recited."
The word "verse" really does sound innocent, doesn't it? I remember
standing outside my grade one child's classroom and hearing what I could
only understand as a "prayer" being chanted by the children. I felt very
confused and uncomfortable listening to the chanting. I was so enamored
with the lack of pop machines and pop (s'cuse the pun) culture of the school
that I was willing to accept that my child was simply reciting a "verse"
when it was explained to me later that day. I suppose the teacher did not
think I was ready to understand that which Steiner told the first teachers
many years ago:
"We will also talk about a prayer. But there is just one thing
I should like to ask you. You know, with these things the outer form is of
the utmost importance. Never call the verse a 'prayer' but a 'school opening
verse'. Do see to it that people do not hear the expression 'prayer' used by
a teacher. This will go a long way towards overcoming the prejudice that
this is an anthroposophical school."
Steiner, Rudolf. Conferences with the Teachers of the Waldorf School
in Stuttgart 1919 to 1920: Volume One: The First and Second Years of
the Waldorf School, Stuttgart. (1920) Forest Row, U.K.: Steiner
Schools Fellowship Publications, 1986, p. 45
You wrote:
"Some holidays celebrated. If one examines the content of
these events, they mostly are inter-denominational.
Their is some anthroposophical influence. If one finds
the particular content of any of these events
objectionable that's fine."
Is Michaelmas a "holiday" where you live? Which inter-denominational
holidays did your Waldorf school celebrate? Now you have me curious. How
many African or Chinese holidays were celebrated? Which celebrations
involved the local First Nations?
You wrote:
"Your question was more specifically about evasiveness."
Yes.
You wrote:
"I suspect that their is, in fact, reluctance to
discuss anthroposophy with the layman. As to why this
is so, I do not really know. I can speculate that the
anthroposophist would be hard-pressed to formulate the
spiritual content in a way which wouldn't foster
misunderstanding...even to themselves!"
I can't disagree with you there. Your suspicion is right. Seen it happen.
Pretty odd way to run a school movement, don't you think? "Sorry, we can't
explain it to you because we can't explain it to ourselves.... or we choose
not to."
You wrote:
"I also think that a lot of this problem is highly contingent upon the
particular set of teachers you were exposed to."
Clearly this is not the case as I explained in a previous post. The problem
is systemic, Chris. Thus, this international discussion, too many people on
the Waldorf Survivor's email list and a whole lot more who have simply put
their disturbing Waldorf experiences behind them. Again, I do not doubt
your personal experience. I can only hope to help to shed light on what I
see as your misunderstandings of the bigger picture.
-Walden
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1339
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Waldorf Schools
By diana.winters verizon.net
Re: Some issues
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
Re: Some issues
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 8 May 2004 07:36:56 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Waldorf Schools
I don't know who Galway considers "extremely dogmatic" here, but I don't
think the replies to Galway have been dogmatic. Frankly, they've all been
quite civil too. The critics seem to be accused of dogmatism if we don't
immediately declare we have been all wrong about Waldorf the moment someone
posts a story about their happy Waldorf experience. I certainly believe that
some kids have very positive experiences in Waldorf schools, there are good
teachers in Waldorf schools etc. Is it dogmatic to believe this (it would be
absurd to deny it), yet also think that there are serious systemic
deficiencies in the education, and that the education is permeated with
elements of esoteric doctrine that parents are not informed of in a
systematic way? I don't need more than "anecdotal" evidence to tell me that
this happens, as at our school, I was specifically requested not to discuss
anthroposophy with parents because it "puts them off".
Is it dogmatic to be skeptical, and ask for evidence, when told by a Waldorf
student that "no anthroposophy was taught"? We are skeptical because it
usually happens that the student or former student insists they never
learned any anthroposophy, yet when/if they post any of their lesson
material, it is a lesson derived straight from Steiner's esoteric
indications (as was Galway's "Man and Animal" lesson). Even the order of the
animals was straight from anthroposophic texts. The "four kingdoms of
nature" and "threefold man" have no basis in "biology" and don't belong in a
science lesson. (It's a shame they didn't mention man is an animal too.) The
thrust of the lesson is the separation between "man and animal" and the
various "head, trunk and limb" animals representing, respectively,
"thinking, feeling, and willing" a la "threefold man," and, as Walden
explained, anthroposophists believe these qualities are divided up among the
animal kingdom and finally united in man. That is Steiner dogma (and rather
pernicious dogma at that). The "Man and Animal" lesson is Steiner dogma and
very little more (though I liked the story you wrote, Galway). :)
Sorry if this post was dogmatic . . .
Diana
Galway wrote: ".the members of this list who ARE critical of Waldorf
generally are "extremely dogmatic" and provide little if any evidence of the
claims. Just know that any discussion you have will contain a great deal of
circular logic and personal accusations, and not much substance."
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 8 May 2004 17:24:49 -0300
From: "Bruce Angus" (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: Re: Some issues
Chris: "Waldorf schools, in fact, are not particularly religious."
Walden: "I disagree and so does ex-master Waldorf teacher, Eugene Schwartz."
Eugene Schwartz: "I would say we are religious schools. Religious schools plus; religious schools with a difference; religious schools light--whatever you want to call it. But we are, we are schools that inculcate religion in children. But it's a different kind of religion, because it leaves them free to find their own religious path or not."
People can discuss back and forth: Is Waldorf religious? Or a circular, spiraling type of dialogue can take place regarding the question: What is Eugene Schwartz referring to when he says "different kind of religion"?
That's the first time I've read the famous E.S. speech. You know, he isn't actually saying that Waldorf schools are religious. He's saying the term 'religious' as it's understood by most people, doesn't apply in the same way. In a roundabout way, he's really saying Waldorf schools are simply reverential (and non-denominational). And he's correct to a degree regarding the 'reverence versus religion' aspect. But schools take a very Christianized approach even to that, which I see E.S. himself wasn't ready to admit.
Hi Galway -- Your last note was very truthful and quite kind. Where'd you learn that technique? Hey, I didn't mean to suggest you have a problem (from my last note). I was just saying that I've learned from experience that whenever I'm feeling frustrated, it always comes down to me and what I need to be doing.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 09 May 2004 00:50:49 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Some issues
Hi Bruce,
You quoted:
Eugene Schwartz: "I would say we are religious schools. Religious schools
plus; religious schools with a difference; religious schools light--whatever
you want to call it. But we are, we are schools that inculcate religion in
children. But it's a different kind of religion, because it leaves them free
to find their own religious path or not."
Then Bruce adds:
"That's the first time I've read the famous E.S. speech. You know, he isn't
actually saying that Waldorf schools are religious."
What he says is *exactly* that, Bruce. You just quoted him.
Schwartz continues his speech:
"I have a 9-year-old daughter; she's in third grade at Green Meadow Waldorf
school. And these are some of my experiences. I know every morning she says
a verse, and, as Dan pointed out, it's a verse that speaks to God. I would
call it a prayer: that's what I used to tell my class. You're speaking a
prayer. I want you to stand still, I don't want you to move around, I want
you to really be respectful because we're talking to God now. And a child
said, "You mean we're praying?", and I said yes, we're praying."
And...
"She's learned that God created the world in seven days; she's learning
about Abraham, and the terrible existential struggle he had when he was
asked by God to sacrifice his son. She's going to learn about the king, the
battles, the Israelites. Does she learn from her teacher? Well,
archaeological evidence has pointed out recently that the size of David's
empire might have been severely exaggerated by the scriptures. Not at all:
she's learning it as truth."
I remember a similar discussion with a Waldorf teacher - asking if he
teaches the old testament stories as "stories" or "fact." My child would
come home feeling quite confused. Really. The answer from the teacher was
"fact." This is history and this is "the truth." This is Waldorf
education - a religious education.
Schwartz:
"That's why I send her to a Waldorf school. She can have a religious
experience. A religious experience. I'll say it again: I send my daughter to
a Waldorf school so that she can have a religious experience. So that she
learns something about reverence. So that she learns something about
respecting a higher being. If she didn't learn that, she'd be out the door
in a minute. I don't want her to go to a school that calls itself Waldorf,
and denies her a religious experience."
And...
"The time has come for us to stop pussyfooting around [theories] that will
sound too strange if we tell parents what we are really doing. Don't say I
didn't tell you guys--10 years ago!. Stop pussyfooting around. Tell
everybody what we are about. The day they walk into the school, let them
know then.
If we are really to be a movement for cultural renewal, it is our
responsibility to share with the parents those elements of Anthroposophy
which will help them understand their children and fathom the mysterious
ways in which we work Yes, we are giving the children a version of
Anthroposophy in the classroom; whether we mean to or not, it's there. So
let's at least do it the right way."
Bruce wrote:
"He's saying the term 'religious' as it's understood by most people, doesn't
apply in the same way. In a roundabout way, he's really saying Waldorf
schools are simply reverential (and non-denominational). And he's correct to
a degree regarding the 'reverence versus religion' aspect. But schools take
a very Christianized approach even to that, which I see E.S. himself wasn't
ready to admit."
I hear what you're saying, Bruce and to be honest, the debate around
Anthroposophy -is it or is it not a religion... does not interest me as much
as the need to correct the shoddy Waldorf outreach material. I suspect we
would be in agreement when it comes to suggesting that Waldorf schools
really need to prepare parents for what their children will be doing on a
daily basis in these schools. Personally, I do believe it to be more
"religious" than any other description or perhaps a NRM (new religious
movement). I tend to agree with Merriam Webster:
Main Entry: an·thro·pos·o·phy
Pronunciation: "an(t)-thr&-'pä-s&-fE
Function: noun
: a 20th century religious system growing out of theosophy and centering on
human development
And I also agree with Schwartz that this religious system is "in the
classroom." I have always found it bizarre that this fact has ever been in
question. It is blatantly obvious, IMO. The word "occult" is sadly lacking
in this discussion - perhaps out of fear of a misconstrued meaning. Steiner
was an occultist and had no problem with that word. You mention that you
think Schwartz was speaking in a "roundabout way." Funny how that seems to
happen a lot in anthroposophic circles. What a shame, don't you think?
-Walden
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1340
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Some issues
By madpark nildram.co.uk
Re: Some issues
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: Waldorf Schools
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: Some issues
By momof2gals mindspring.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 09 May 2004 12:24:41 +0100
From: madpark (madpark nildram.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Some issues
Hello walden
You often ask for statistics from the waldorf schools, I have some "leavers"
statistics here from 1996 '97 '98 from Michael Hall School, Forest Row, east
sussex england.
1996 school pupil numbers: 514 leavers jul 96: 118
1997 school pupil numbers: 466 leavers jul 97 :159
1998 school pupil numbers:466 leavers jul 98: 111
The 'communications' lady used to say they had no trouble attracting new
pupils they just had trouble holding onto them.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 11:08:51 -0300
From: "Bruce Angus" (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: Re: Some issues
Walden wrote: "And I also agree with Schwartz that this religious system is "in the classroom." I have always found it bizarre that this fact has ever been in question. It is blatantly obvious, IMO. The word "occult" is sadly lacking in this discussion - perhaps out of fear of a misconstrued meaning."
Hi Steve - I agree with the points you make, and that it (some sort of religious "something") is in the classroom. But what is it that's actually in the classroom? That's the thing I'm interested in uncovering - and I understand and accept that most people here have no interest in these questions whatsoever.
Your occult comment is telling I think. Steiner meant for this stuff to be treated in an occult way - Anthroposophy is his attempt at creating a modern stream of occult knowledge. But it's generally taken up in a quasi-religious manner by teachers. People, to put it bluntly, worship Steiner and his philosophy-specific lecture-sermons, whereas the occult tradition is all about self-won knowledge of the universal variety.
To be fair, many teachers are too overworked to put much thought into occult self-development and occult study. It's so much easier to simply join a faculty morning circle, recite a Steiner verse, and then head off to the classroom. That's the extent of most teachers' occult development - with the exception of a Thursday afternoon Steiner reading in which half the faculty usually nods off. People end up just following along, and presto - a religious (follow the priest) rather than occult (follow the self) relationship to the philosophy.
E. S. quote from your post: "Yes, we are giving the children a version of Anthroposophy in the classroom; whether we mean to or not, it's there. So let's at least do it the right way." I still believe he's really saying in his lecture: "This is all about developing a "true" relationship with Anthroposophy - working with occult knowledge in an open and correct manner. It's not really about religion, because "religion" in the normal sense of the word doesn't apply here."
One thing he's definitely not saying, is that Anthroposophy takes a Christian-specific occult approach to things. I'd suggest he and others (unconsciously?) don't want to mention that reality, given it would throw quite a monkey wrench into the "different kind of religion" argument.
.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 09 May 2004 21:58:05 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Waldorf Schools
G'day Galway,
I don't recall seing an uncivil post to you. Can you point one out please.
See you, Peter.
_________________________________________________________________
SEEK: Now with over 50,000 dream jobs! Click here:
http://ninemsn.seek.com.au?hotmail
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 09 May 2004 18:33:15 -0400
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Some issues
That looks like an understatement, at least for Michael Hall!
) From: "madpark nildram.co.uk" (madpark nildram.co.uk)
) Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Date: Sun, 09 May 2004 12:24:41 +0100
) To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Subject: Re: Some issues
)
) ===========================================================
) Cancel your low-carb diet. Lose weight. Choose your own
) foods. Learn more about our program at:
) http://click.topica.com/caaccM7b1dkiGb1IpcOa/ Dr. Smith
) ===========================================================
)
) Hello walden
) You often ask for statistics from the waldorf schools, I have some "leavers"
) statistics here from 1996 '97 '98 from Michael Hall School, Forest Row, east
) sussex england.
) 1996 school pupil numbers: 514 leavers jul 96: 118
) 1997 school pupil numbers: 466 leavers jul 97 :159
) 1998 school pupil numbers:466 leavers jul 98: 111
) The 'communications' lady used to say they had no trouble attracting new
) pupils they just had trouble holding onto them.
)
) ===========================================================
) Give Your Team Access to Their PCs from Anywhere. Increase
) productivity with a secure remote-access solution from
) GoToMyPC Pro. Stay in touch with your office. FREE TRIAL:
) http://click.topica.com/caaccMVb1dkiGb1IpcOf/ ExpertCity
) ===========================================================
)
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New
) threads are always welcome.
)
)
)
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1341
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Waldorf Schools
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Steiner and the Occult
By woden101 yahoo.com
RE: Steiner and the Occult
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: Anthroposophy in the classroom
By dan dandugan.com
RE: Waldorf Schools
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Man and Animal
By dan dandugan.com
RE: Anthroposophy in the classroom
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Some issues
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Steiner and the Occult
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 07:42:29 -0400
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Schools
Galway, I was merely pointing out that the only "evidence" that *anyone* on
this list (for or against Waldorf) has provided is anecdotal. *You* say
Waldorf education worked well for you, and I (and others) say that it did
not work well for our children.
I said this because, in a previous message, you stated that no one on this
list provided anything other than their own opinions or experiences to
bolster their viewpoint. My objective was simply to point out that that was
all you had offered yourself.
Please do not take this as confrontational; within the limits of email, I am
merely trying to point out that we *all* can only speak from our own
experiences about Waldorf, as there are no studies that anyone here knows
about to reveal whether Waldorf graduates are well prepared for further
education, how they do on tests, whether the Waldorf schools are able to
retain the students they enroll, etc. No one has, to my knowledge, done
these studies.
We *can*, however, examine Waldorf lesson blocks and materials to see
whether or not they are based on/communicate/otherwise teach the tenets of
Anthroposophy. We *can*, and do, read Steiner and how his words and ideas
have been applied for decades in Waldorf school classrooms around the world.
I also am puzzled by your comment that some people here have been "less than
civil." Who? When? I have read every post, I believe, since you came onto
the list and I am baffled by your comment. In fact, I recall noting with
amazement just how civil and polite/friendly this discussion has been.
Lisa
) From: Galway O'Mahony (galway420 hotmail.com)
) Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Date: Sat, 8 May 2004 03:38:04 +0000
) To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Subject: RE: Waldorf Schools
)
) ===========================================================
) Domains as low as $4.95!
) Limited Time! ICANN Accredited GoDaddy!
) http://click.topica.com/caaccM5b1dkiGb1IpcOa/ GoDaddy
) ===========================================================
)
)
)
) Lisa D. Ercolano wrote:
) "Galway, no offense, but the "evidence" that you provide of Waldorf
) education being effective and of value is just as anecdotal as the
) "evidence" provided by those of us whose own experiences or whose
) children's experiences revealed the opposite"
)
) I have provided no evidence other than the text of my "Man and Animal"
) book. In all my other posts, all of my information is provided with
) qualifying statements to make it clear that it is my personal experience
) or opinion and nothing more. I've approached this discussion list with
) nothing but an open mind, politely requesting that people explain their
) positions. Although the majority of the people contributing are quite
) polite and respectful in their replies, I feel that there are people who
) are less than civil.
)
) Galway
)
) ===========================================================
) Empower your Team with Remote Access. GoToMyPC Pro
) provides your organization with instant remote access to
) email,files, applications and network resources in real
) time. FREE TRIAL:
) http://click.topica.com/caaccMSb1dkiGb1IpcOf/ ExpertCity
) ===========================================================
)
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New
) threads are always welcome.
)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 13:19:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: Woden (woden101 yahoo.com)
Subject: Steiner and the Occult
Hello all,
Some recent posts have stimulated me to write a few
words about the nature of anthroposophy, as I
understand it, and how it, and other things deemed
"religious" by this organization, and thereby
condemned as over and against the interests and values
of mainstream society, relates to the education of our
young and a good way of "approaching the world". It
is, in fact, these latter considerations which I think
this list and organization ought to grapple with, and
I did mention this in my original post to this list.
The basic thing to keep in mind, along the lines of
the question of what exactly the Occult influence is
in the classroom, is that Steiner was himself
well-versed in the conventional philosophy and science
of his day (he had a PhD). Much of this science is
still pretty modern , although he missed the
Einsteinian and Quantum Mechanical revolutions.
Perhaps most importantly, Steiner was influenced by
the relatively obscure scientific work of Johann
Wolfgang von Goethe. Goethe himself is a whole other
subject and deserves a re-evaluation in light of where
science has come to, and where it was in his day. His
most readily graspable and applicable insight was his
commitment to first-hand observation and his deeply
worked-out phenomenology which derived therefrom,
whose ultimate completion was to be found in what he
called the Archetype, the most famous example being
the archetypal-plant, die Ur-Pflanze auf Deutsch.
Goethe wrote a volume entitled the Metamorphosis of
Plants which derived entirely from his independant,
first-hand research. He also made a practical
contribution to anatomy discovering the "goethe bone"
(i.e. I believe it's called the intermaxillary bone,
in the jaw) purely from his phenomenological grasp of
the skeleton. In any case, Steiner, who was appointed
to manage the Goethe archives because of his
widely-recognized scholarly revival of Goethe,
integrated Goethe's ideas and methods into his own
experiences of the Spiritual world. He wrote a book
entitled "The Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's
World-View", which, along with "The Philosophy of
Freedom", forms a really top-notch contribution to the
field of epistemology.
This early work also forms what I think is an
indispensable basis for understanding where Steiner
went, which was Anthroposophy. Goethe's science is not
dead, although it was widely ignored because he dared
to take on Isaac Newton (a good, although highly
speculative book entitled "Goethe's way of science"
contains a collection of essays by various
contemporary scholars on how Goethe may help to
revivify science today). I urge anyone who wants to
give Steiner and/or Anthroposophy a fair hearing to
approach these foundational works and influences in an
open-minded way. Our current cultural approach to
science has many deep issues which are not even
admitted, much less resolved. But this is a topic for
a lengthy essay. Suffice it to say that in addition to
the "research aspect" of science hardly being closed
to benefit from new ideas, the epistemological and
philosophical foundations of what passes as
"scientific knowledge" today are also not as firm as
those who do not wish to think about them presume. I
think that it is in this context that one should
approach Steiner and Anthroposophy.
As I've said, a good portion of what Steiner thought
has been shown to be at least somewhat true, or at
least true in an unexpected way, if not straight-up
true. This is not to say that Steiner was infallible.
I find his vestigial views deriving from theosophy
somewhat troubling myself, but I don't use that as an
excuse to abandon the whole corpus of his work.
I have been able to determine, however, that many
people on this list are most put-off by what is being
perceived as deception and dishonesty, and perhaps
even subterfuge, emanating from Waldorf schools and
their patron Anthroposophists. Indeed this troubles me
as well, which is why I've given some time in making
contributions here. I agree with the person who said
that it seems antithetical to the directions Steiner
himself gave, especially in his earlier, foundational
work. I think that what happened is that as he became
more and more at the center of attention in the occult
following he gathered around himself he also became
more and more savvy to the idea that he 'needed' to
exert control and influence over other people, if by
no other means than subtle dissimulation. In any case,
I have my doubts as to whether any original research
is being done, in the manner Steiner pursued it, by
latter-day anthroposophists, which is, I think, the
source of this problem. Anthroposophists have taken
too much to Steiner as a cult guru, and are unwilling
to critically examine themselves in this light. And
quite frankly, most people do not, in their current
state, have the intellectual calibre to comprehend
what Steiner was doing, although this is remediable.
This whole situation creates, among other things, the
following two-fold problem: a problem within the
Waldorf ranks of not really understanding what they're
doing or Steiner himself, and a problem with the
outside, with those interested in Waldorf, who,
through some combination of lack of intellect and/or
the constriction of rigid beliefs, would not be able
to understand anyways, and are therefore susceptible
to whoever appeals most to their emotions and/or prior
beliefs. Note that I AM NOT reverting to a typical
cultish position of denying contrary views simply on
the basis that I consider the people who hold these
views to be incapable of correct comprehension.
Rather, I am stating that as with any intellectually
involved venture, there are those who will not
understand, or misunderstand, or whose prior beliefs
prevent them from even considering something
(cognitive dissonance). The simple fact of the
matter is that main-stream, or conventional beliefs
are not, in their mainstreamness or conventionality,
any more correct than marginalized beliefs, an
epistemological observation which seems to me
necessary in attempting to honestly assess any issue
which comes down to the nature of human knowledge. The
application of this observation is often subtle,
requiring tact and discrimination lest we become
embroiled in useless circular debate which diverges
from the assertion at hand (which, BTW, has happened
to me many times in Internet discussions).
Okay, I think I've said what needs to be said. I am
willing to clarify and discuss points which I've
brought up here-- but, in the interest of effectively
budgeting my time, I will not pursue what I see to be
fruitless lines of debate, or debate with those whose
points of contention with me do not rest in any valid
form of reasoning, or are not to be found in what I've
actually said.
A final question: would those here be willing, instead
of pursuing this dogmatically critical position, no
matter how well-founded their experiences of deception
might be, to pursue a more honest, open-minded and
open-ended inquiry into that upon which Steiner built
Anthroposophy?
Chris Wilson
(Thank you to all those who pursued this lengthy post
all the way through)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 00:22:23 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Steiner and the Occult
Chris wrote:
)The basic thing to keep in mind, along the lines of
)the question of what exactly the Occult influence is
)in the classroom, is that Steiner was himself
)well-versed in the conventional philosophy and science
)of his day (he had a PhD). Much of this science is
)still pretty modern , although he missed the
)Einsteinian and Quantum Mechanical revolutions.
Peter F responds:
There has been considerable discussion about this on the list. I don't
believe any longer that he was well versed in the science of the time. He
did not miss the Einsteinian revolution, and he caught at least the first
part of the quantum revolution. I have posted several times about his
misrepresentation of the then current status of the scientific understanding
of thermal expansion in his warmth course (lecture 2). I have also commented
that he misrepresented Einstein and others in the lecture on Einstein in
"From Elephants to Einstein".
His PhD was awarded for a philosophical work under somewhat unusual
circumstances as I understand it. That is not to say that I don't believe
that he deserved it. It is no evidence that he was well versed in science.
Chris continues after I have removed a bit.
)Suffice it to say that in addition to
)the "research aspect" of science hardly being closed
)to benefit from new ideas, the epistemological and
)philosophical foundations of what passes as
)"scientific knowledge" today are also not as firm as
)those who do not wish to think about them presume. I
)think that it is in this context that one should
)approach Steiner and Anthroposophy.
Peter F replies.
I think this is a commonly heard criticism of modern science with very
little if any foundation. There are many examples of new and unwelcome ideas
being incorporated into the mainstream of science, both recently and in the
past. Usually this argument comes from those whose ideas do not come with
the requisite supporting evidence. I also believe that this story about the
infirmity of the epistemological and philosophical foundations is greatly
overrated again mostly by those with a vested interest in being able to push
some line for which they do not have the requisite evidence. You may quote
Kuhn and others if you wish but I would point out that there is a
considerable body of work which is rightly critical of Kuhn's views.
)
)As I've said, a good portion of what Steiner thought
)has been shown to be at least somewhat true, or at
)least true in an unexpected way, if not straight-up
)true. This is not to say that Steiner was infallible.
Peter F asks. Please give examples. I am hard pressed to find something that
Steiner had to say that is original and has been independently verified. Dan
gave a trivial example once.
)I find his vestigial views deriving from theosophy
)somewhat troubling myself, but I don't use that as an
)excuse to abandon the whole corpus of his work.
Peter F responds:
I agree with this absolutely. One should not abandon the whole of his work.
One should pick and choose those hypotheses and insights which one can
verify with independent evidence. Of course this applies to everyone else as
well. Given that we have finite resources how much of those resources should
we spend on a single source of hypotheses before we give up and move onto
some evidently more fruitful source?
)
The simple fact of the
)matter is that main-stream, or conventional beliefs
)are not, in their mainstreamness or conventionality,
)any more correct than marginalized beliefs, an
)epistemological observation which seems to me
)necessary in attempting to honestly assess any issue
)which comes down to the nature of human knowledge. The
)application of this observation is often subtle,
)requiring tact and discrimination lest we become
)embroiled in useless circular debate which diverges
)from the assertion at hand (which, BTW, has happened
)to me many times in Internet discussions).
)
Peter F responds:
I agree that mainstream or conventional beliefs are not necessarily any more
correct than marginalised beliefs. I continue to assert that the only even
remotely reliable method of obtaining useful knowledge that we have is to
demand evidence and logical argument. This can break the useless circular
debate.
)
)A final question: would those here be willing, instead
)of pursuing this dogmatically critical position, no
)matter how well-founded their experiences of deception
)might be, to pursue a more honest, open-minded and
)open-ended inquiry into that upon which Steiner built
)Anthroposophy?
Peter F responds:
I reject the notion that I pursue a dogmatically critical position. The
position that I have with respect to Steiner's work has come through an
increasing understanding of what he wrote and what he is recorded to have
said. The result of that is that I am critical of his work. I think he was
deliberately intellectually dishonest. I think he misled others over whom he
held a position of authority to further his own ends. I think he attempted
to cover this up using arguments that only those versed in the occult could
criticise the work.
You seem to be suggesting that somehow I could be more honest in my approach
to Steiner's work. I don't see how but I am willing to listen to
suggestions. I don't think that I approach his work without an open mind.
The problem is I think that the evidence of intellectual dishonesty is very
clear. I don't know what you mean by open ended.
)
)Chris Wilson
)
)(Thank you to all those who pursued this lengthy post
)all the way through)
)
)
I enjoyed your post even though we seem to disagree.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Best Restaurant Giveaway Ever! Vote for your favorites for a chance to win
$1 million! http://local.msn.com/special/giveaway.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 17:16:59 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: Anthroposophy in the classroom
) ) TOMAS:
)) ) ) )The four elements and chemistry doesn*t really fit together. We had a
)) ) ) )chemistry block in seventh grade (13/14) and we burned different
)) )) )materials and studied the oxidation and reaction. The four elements was
)) ) ) )never mentioned though.
))
)) DAN DUGAN:
)) ) ) Sounds like it might have been a better-taught
)) )) block, but I'd like to know more about "studied
)) )) the oxidation." Sorry to sound like a broken
)) ) ) record, but do you have that lesson book?
))
)) TOMAS:
)) )No I don*t have the lesson book... I -think- we studied the oxidation
)) )and how different materials react with fire. We talked about how and why
)) )they melt, burn and explode. And don*t even think think that we used any
)) )Goethian Science, because we didn*t.
))
)) Did you actually talk about the oxidation
)) chemical reactions? My son's combustion lessons
)) didn't mention real chemistry at all. The "why"
)) was completely missing, it was all observation.
)) Your description does sound like Goethean
) ) Science, so far.
)If you don¥t believe me, fine. You don¥t know anything about the swedish
)educational system, and I don¥t understand how this discussion could
)favour any of us.
Instead of answering reasonable questions about
the details of your lessons, you are taking my
questions as personal attacks and acting
offended. What did you expect on "waldorf
critics," Tomas? You are offered an opportunity
to defend Waldorf as you know it, and I hope you
will rise to the occasion.
Whether or not the chemistry of oxidation was in
your lesson on burning is a very important
question in light of your insistence that
Goethean Science is not in Swedish Waldorf
schools, or at least not in your school. Again,
since you're still in school, you could borrow a
lesson book from the current seventh-grade
teacher, or from your former class teacher, to
provide the evidence this discussion needs.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 19:12:51 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: Waldorf Schools
)Chris wrote:
)"In my experience MYTHOLOGY WAS NEVER TAUGHT AS HISTORICAL FACT"
and Galway responded,
)I couldn't agree with you more. In my Waldorf experience, mythology was
)presented as just that, and there was a clear distinction between it and
)the history lessons we had (Oregon state history in 5th grade).
I wouldn't be so sure. Do you have your 5th-grade ancient history lesson books?
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 19:10:06 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Man and Animal
Galway O'Mahoney, you wrote,
)I've seen a lot of references to the "Man and Animal" main lesson book
)on here, and since I have mine I thought it might be useful to post.
)Below is the entire text of my "Man and Animal" main lesson book. The
)only thing in there that could possibly be construed as religious is the
)division of the body into head, trunk, and limbs. But there's no
)question that this division can also be viewed as a simple metaphor for
)the different functions of the body. If you're really searching for
)something to get worked up about, you might also claim that referring to
)our ears, eyes, nostrils, and mouth as "windows" is religious. Anyway,
)here it is; I left grammar/spelling errors intact, and noted them at
)points.
Thank you very much for transcribing your lesson book, Galway.
)** Man and Animal **
)"Noble be Man - helpful and good. For this alone distinguishes him from
)all other beings unto us known." - Goethe
We're off to a bad start right there. Goethe's distinction between
humans and the other animals is false. There are many examples of
animal behavior that embody "helpfulness" and "goodness." And many
examples of the bad things humans do, too.
)Three-Fold Man:
) In the human form, we see three main parts: head, trunk, and limbs.
)- Head: The head is round and sits on the body. It's hardest part is
)outside and the soft part is inside. It is the organ of Thinking. It
)also contains 7 windows through which we perceive the world.
)- Trunk: The trunk holds the balance with its curving ribs, alternating
)hard bone and soft space. Our life of feeling is present through the
)harmonious rhythm of heart and lungs.
)- Limbs: Our limbs are straight with the hardest part within and the
)softest part without. Our limbs are active and doing many things.
)Because humans have arms and hands free of the ground, we can serve and
)work.
This is a brief sketch of the Anthroposophical anatomy lesson that's
often given in much more detail in the seventh grade. Everything it
says it true, but it's irrelevant to scientific study. It's all about
forms and the symbolism of forms. It's religion, not science.
I recommend Antonio Damasio's fascinating books for contemporary
science on "the life of feeling."
)The Four Kingdoms of Nature:
) Though it is not living, the Mineral Kingdom gives form and structure
)to the earth and all living things.
) The Plant Kingdom is imbued with life. Plants take nourishment from the
)earth and sun.
) The Animal Kingdom has the ability to move from one place to another.
)Through the sounds of animals, we can perceive their feelings. An animal
)is led to act in a particular way through its instincts.
) Man alone has the ability to stand upright. His hands are free to serve
)and work and he can think and act out of free will. He can create
)artistically and communicate through writing and speech. He cares for
)the earth and all living things.
The concept of "the four kingdoms of nature" is 19th-century science.
Schools stopped teaching this a couple of generations ago. To
continue to teach such a lesson today indicates a serious
disconnection from the real world, such as might occur in a cult. It
is, thinly veiled, teaching the Anthroposophic concept of "fourfold
man": the physical body (the mineral kingdom), the etheric body
("plant man"), the astral body ("feelings"), and the "I", ("upright,"
"free will).
The notions that only "man" is upright, only man can think, and only
man has free will is Anthroposophy, not science. Not only is there no
longer a human "kingdom" in today's zoology, even the definition of
"genus homo" is fast eroding. For more about this, I recommend
reading "The Third Chimpanzee" by Jared Diamond.
The rest of the lesson, the descriptions of various animals that
Steiner chose as examples of different "qualities," continues the
theme of Goethean description without theory. You're quite mistaken
to characterize this lesson as not being religious; if it isn't
science, and it's things only Anthroposophists believe, what is it?
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 17:08:26 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: Anthroposophy in the classroom
) ) TOMAS:
)) )Well, since I can*t give you any evidence, perhaps we should just face
)) )the facts: I like waldorf, and you don*t, and since you wont accept that
) ) )there are good waldorf schools, I can*t do anything else.
DAN DUGAN:
) ) I didn't say that. I've allowed as how it might
)) be possible that your school is quite different
)) from most Waldorf schools; but then I also know
)) that the Waldorf movement in Sweden is very
)) Anthroposophical, so that makes your claims
)) harder to believe. My son's Waldorf teacher was a
)) very good teacher, and I had little to disagree
)) with with her. I know from personal experience
)) that there can be good Waldorf teachers, and I
)) don't deny that there are good Waldorf schools
)) either.
)
)I give up.
Because I want evidence to back up your claims?
What's wrong with asking the fourth-grade teacher
if you can borrow a copy of a Man and Animal
lesson book to help you with an internet
discussion?
)You may not be aware what was
) ) ) ) Anthroposophic and what was real history.
)) )
)) )So... I was thaught false history... I haven*t noticed any fake parts.
)) )By the way, I was discussing history with a public history teacher, and
)) )he thought that I was very good at history. And what would be concidered
)) )as Anthroposophic history?
))
)) Most of the ancient history lesson books I've
)) seen have concentrated on mythical and religious
)) themes. The ancient India period is completely
)) mythical, drawn from the Vedas. The ancient
)) Persia period is all about Ahura Mazda and
)) Ahriman. Ancient Egypt is about pharaohs being
)) initiated into mystery religion; stories not from
)) history but from 18th and 19th-century fiction.
)) Study of Rome will cover the mythical "seven
)) kings." And so on. I suppose it's pointless to
) ) ask to see your lesson books on these.
)
)Thats right.
So if you want to defend your assertion that your
school is better than those others here have
experience with, something that I acknowledge is
quite possible, you'll have to look outside of
your personal collection for that evidence.
)And since when do you speak swedish?
I'm sorry I don't, and I'm impressed with your
command of English. My impression of Swedish
Waldorf schools comes from the extensive
Anthroposophical web sites that I've seen from
Sweden. For example,
http://antroposofi.org
and the propaganda pages
http://www.waldorfanswers.org that attempt to
counteract the influence of PLANS.
What I see on these sites makes me believe that
Swedish Waldorf schools are at least as
Anthroposophical, if not more so, as the schools
elsewhere.
) ) ) ) (snip)
)) )) )What are your plans after 12th grade?
)) )) )
)) )) )I*m studying civil engineering/industrial design at KTH (The Royal
)) )) )University of Technology) in Stockholm. But im going to travel and work
)) )) )first.
)) ))
)) ) ) I'd like to hear more about where you plan to go and what you will do.
)) )
)) )I don*t know where, but I would like to "know" a city and maybe learn a
)) )language.
))
)) Hmm, not quite the same thing as planning to go
)) to KTH. Have you actually been accepted there?
)
)Thats right, dont believe a word of what I¥m saying. I¥m just a stupid
)waldorf student. KTH i my dreams. I¥m going to travel and work FIRST.
)And no, I have not yet been accepted, I haven¥t even graduated! I¥m not
)even going to try to explain!
)Totally irrelevant!
Not really. What Waldorf students make of the
rest of their lives says something about Waldorf,
doesn't it? First you said you were going to the
technical university; then you said you really
were more or less aimless.
I don't see anything wrong with wandering for a
year or so and then going to the University. I
hope you keep in touch and let us know what
happens with you.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 23:34:09 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Some issues
Howdy Bruce,
You asked:
I agree with the points you make, and that it (some sort of religious
"something") is in the classroom. But what is it that's actually in the
classroom? That's the thing I'm interested in uncovering - and I understand
and accept that most people here have no interest in these questions
whatsoever.
I'm not sure you're right about that - I suspect many people here are very
interested. While I would be the first to agree with the idea that each
Waldorf teacher is an individual and comes with her/his own way of teaching,
I think it important to look at what is expected of those teachers during
their time spent with students. What is in the classroom? Anthroposophy.
Pure and simple. Souls are guided into their hosts and the new social order
is the flavor of the day. But you're the ex-Waldorf teacher, Bruce - what's
your take?
You wrote:
"Your occult comment is telling I think. Steiner meant for this stuff to be
treated in an occult way - Anthroposophy is his attempt at creating a modern
stream of occult knowledge. But it's generally taken up in a quasi-religious
manner by teachers. People, to put it bluntly, worship Steiner and his
philosophy-specific lecture-sermons, whereas the occult tradition is all
about self-won knowledge of the universal variety."
Yes, the "worship" part always gave me the creeps. Steiner also commented
that people should not take him as the "truth," but should do their own
inner work... and hopefully arrive at his conclusions... a l'anthroposophie.
You wrote;
"To be fair, many teachers are too overworked to put much thought into
occult self-development and occult study. It's so much easier to simply join
a faculty morning circle, recite a Steiner verse, and then head off to the
classroom. That's the extent of most teachers' occult development - with the
exception of a Thursday afternoon Steiner reading in which half the faculty
usually nods off. People end up just following along, and presto - a
religious (follow the priest) rather than occult (follow the self)
relationship to the philosophy."
Yes, I *do* agree with the "overworked" bit. Burn-out is a common theme -
keep them working, attending meetings... it keeps teachers from being able
to take the time necessary to reflect on what exactly is happening in their
lives. Having problems? Read Steiner....
Re: Eugene Schwartz, you wrote:
"One thing he's definitely not saying, is that Anthroposophy takes a
Christian-specific occult approach to things. I'd suggest he and others
(unconsciously?) don't want to mention that reality, given it would throw
quite a monkey wrench into the "different kind of religion" argument."
I wonder about the "unconscious" bit, too. Is Anthroposophy really *that*
difficult to explain to non-Anthros...or for anthroposophists to discuss
openly amongst themselves? I realize there is a lot to chew on but the
Christian-specific occult approach (good line) is a healthy way to start.
The Mystery of Golgotha is as important as the root races. In any case,
parents deserve to understand that anthroposophy *is* Waldorf.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 00:23:51 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Steiner and the Occult
Hi Chris,
You wrote:
"Some recent posts have stimulated me to write a few
words about the nature of anthroposophy, as I
understand it, and how it, and other things deemed
"religious" by this organization, and thereby
condemned as over and against the interests and values
of mainstream society, relates to the education of our
young and a goo