return to WCA Archive Index
-- Topica Digest --
RE: anthroposophy
By pkcompany netzero.net
Re: anthroposophy
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: anthroposophy
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: anthroposophy
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: anthroposophy
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
Re: "He was a genius..."
By dan dandugan.com
Re: "He was a genius..."
By dan dandugan.com
Re: bd agriculture
By dan dandugan.com
Re: bd agriculture
By dan dandugan.com
Re: anthroposophy
By dan dandugan.com
RE: anthroposophy
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Ad hominem warning...
By dan dandugan.com
re: bd agriculture
By dan dandugan.com
Perfect pitch as clairvoyance
By feetapparel hotmail.com
link to Carol Milstone's article added to PLANS web site
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 15:41:27 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: anthroposophy
john calkins wrote:
)
) Pete: Actually, I have no problem believing in a spiritual world. But
) to win
) me over, John would have to convince me that *Steiner's* spiritual
) world
) exists. And, that Steiner's spiritual indications, social ideas and
) world vision should be more important to me than my own moral
) obligation
) to be honest.
)
) I would not say it is "Steiner's spiritual world" but rather Steiner's
) view of "the" spiritual world.
There's enough here to talk about without splitting hairs, wouldn't you
agree?
)
) I don't know how much Steiner you have read.
I've read more than my share.
) I have read a lot and am
) not simply accepting of his ideas the way baandje has suggested, but
) rather I look at them with a critical eye.
Again, that remains to be seen.
) Steiner is a man, not a god,
) and surely not everything he said is true. For example he said the
) elephants die in caves, and I do not believe that is true.
If that's the best example of Steiner's untrue statements you can come
up with, then perhaps you had better hit the books some more. Steiner's
work is riddled with nonsense and Steiner arrogantly calls this nonsense
"fact".
) Over time
) one gets a feeling of a wholeness and comprehensiveness of Steiner's
) worldview.
Or not. I agree, he tried hard to cover every topic, and that may have
been his downfall, as he obviously didn't know all that much about
everything.
)By no means is he easy to understand, he is always brilliant
) and original in his lectures and writings, and his work is based on his
) own philosophically rigorous philosophy that no modern philosopher since
)
) has been able to refute.
Original? Not really... He borrowed from wisdom traditions and added
his own musings, his own twists. He had some good moments. With regard
to modern philosophers taking the time and making the effort to refute
such a voluminous body of work that most people are disinclined to read
in the first place and most of those who do refute as they read it
anyway would seem like a waste of time to me, let alone to a philosopher
with his own ideas.
)
) I find the methods of Dan Dugan to be simply laughable, taking a
) citation out of context and implying that Steiner was a rascist.
Not "a" citation, there are literally hundreds of citations. And when
one looks critically at Steiner's work, it is undenyable that the
material is racist in nature, many of the statements were purely racist
and they were intended to be - because Steiner saw nothing wrong with
making such statements. Your comprehension of racism is that it has to
be bigotry to be racist. That is incorrect.
) When
) one looks at Steiner's work as a whole, this claim is simply absurd.
No - but perhaps to you. If you claim to know what "one" might see when
reading this material, I think you should take a sampling of the
mainstream world. It has been my experience that most people who read
this material find it shocking and offensive.
) Certainly on occasion Steiner says something that raises my eyebrow or
) makes statements that I would not want to defend. (By the way,
) "blauäugig" in the figurative sense means "naive".) If you search
) through the archives, you will find that Dan Dugan said that the
) Heisenberg uncertainty principle applies only to sub-atomic particles.
) This is simply not true, and I think it would be more fruitful if Dan
) Dugan applied the same criticalness to his own statements than to
) Steiner's.
Yeah, except that Dan didn't start a school system. Steiner did. I
think Steiner's statements should be the focus of those interested in
Waldorf.
)
) Steiner would not disagree with what you say above. Your own ideas
) stemming from your own sense of morallity are most important. He says
) the one should not simply take what he says at face value. Rather one
) should consider what he says thoughtfully and then after that make one's
)
) own judgment.
And I have done this - and Steiner's world view holds very little value
for me.
)
) At the same time there is no denying his brilliance as a leader.
I'll try (G).
)Many of his ideas are accepted in the main stream culture. His
)agriculture
) course anticipated the organic farming movement by about 30 years;
)the
) influence of biodynamic farmers on Rodale's founding of the organic
) agriculture movement is well-documented.
Not true. We've already been there on this list.
) One can Steiner's influence in
) public school curriculums in the states and Europe.
And that's what people here are objecting to. Being a leader is one
thing - leading in the right direction is something completely
independent.
) His description of how the various religious streams have contributed to
)
) the development of civilization is truly remarkable. His view has a
) unity in which each group has contributed to the whole, from ancient
) India, Zorothusta, Egypt, Judaism, Buddhism, Greece, Christianity, and
) Islam among others. Each stream has its speceific role, and he presents
)
) it respectfully and with devotion and thankfulness for the various
) contributions.
I don't think I particularly like his "remarkable" assessment of which
religious streams are valid and which ones have outlived their
usefulness. He's entitled to his opinion, of course - but please don't
feed it to my kids.
)
) Personally, I find this much more satisfying than the new agey and
) rather unspecific idea that all spiritual paths lead to the same goal.
Your choice of course. I personally find all the restrictive, closed
ideas of Steiner to be suffocating.
) I am not sure this is even true, since a Buddhist or Chritian path leads
)
) one in a different direction than an ahrimanic path, for example.
Being "sure" about one's spiritual path is, of course, an individual
thing - not something you can describe as "true" or not true.
) Even though I have some difficulty with a few things that Steiner has
) said, when taken as a whole one gets a sense of wholeness, sincerity,
) and personal sacrifice that indicate the genuineness of his striving.
The genuiness of his striving has nothing to do with the sincerity of
his actions. He TOLD Waldorf teachers to lie to parents about the true
intentions of Waldorf and Anthroposophy's connection to them. There is
little sense of sincerity that I can derive from this.
) In the end Pete, you have to make your own judgment.
I always do.
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 11:02:53 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: anthroposophy
John wrote:
)Walden, to be honest, I find your response to my last posting to be
)overly sarcastic, uninformed, and out of proportion, and it does not
)speak well for your credibility. It is not worthy of a response.
I'm not surprised. Listen: You posted a bunch of stuff about Steiner. After
years of experience being *in the Waldorf/Anthro movement* and years of
researching the movement from the outside, my "credibility" would seem to be
in tact. Yes, I am very well "informed." But... we do not agree on certain
subjects. That's the difference between us and a good place for discussion,
which in this case, you began with your post. There was very little sarcasm
in my post, John. I wonder if the content of my post is what disturbs
you...? And when compared - line for line, thought for thought, one does not
need more than a few minutes to discover which of our posts was "out of
proportion." Using a "critical eye," of course.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 19:20:07 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: anthroposophy
Pete wrote: “I would not say it is “Steiner’s spiritual world” but
rather Steiner's view of “the” spiritual world.”
*
That’s a good point. Until other anthroposophists and/or the movement
begins to work with the philosophy in such a way that they can say “No,
Steiner was incorrect here. The truth and reality is such and such…”
then it really is ‘Steiner’s’ spiritual world and vision. And the
perfect place to start would be with Steiner’s racial commentary.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 20:04:22 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: anthroposophy
baandje wrote:
)
) Pete wrote: “I would not say it is “Steiner’s spiritual world” but
) rather Steiner's view of “the” spiritual world.”
Actually, I believe John wrote this - and I said he was splitting hairs
- well, what do I know (G)?
Pete
)
) *
)
) That’s a good point. Until other anthroposophists and/or the movement
) begins to work with the philosophy in such a way that they can say “No,
) Steiner was incorrect here. The truth and reality is such and such…”
) then it really is ‘Steiner’s’ spiritual world and vision. And the
) perfect place to start would be with Steiner’s racial commentary.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 21:54:26 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: anthroposophy
John: “I would not say it is “Steiner's spiritual world” but rather
Steiner’s view of “the” spiritual world.
Pete: “There’s enough here to talk about without splitting hairs,
wouldn’t you agree?”
*
...is what I meant to quote in my last post ;-)
___________________________
John: “Over time one gets a feeling of a wholeness and comprehensiveness
of Steiner's worldview.”
Pete: “I agree, he tried hard to cover every topic…”
*
I’m honestly not trying to be a smart $$ but I thought this was a
particularly witty reply on Pete’s part :-) On the other hand, I would
guess if one was receiving clairvoyant inspirations from unseen realms,
s/he wouldn’t necessarily stop to consider how many or which ones to
share with others. For me, I’ve often wondered what drove Steiner to
give so many public talks – he appears to have made quite the effort to
get his message out. I've often wondered if he died from (soul?)
exhaustion... I'm quite serious.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 10:51:48 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: "He was a genius..."
Serena, you wrote,
)After some months of intensive reading on the WC and elsewhere,
)it seems to me that the essential areas of contention lie more in how
)relationships and communication flow -- or don't -- as well as the
)presence or lack of maturity and flexibility of both parent/teacher/school.
Ignoring the attempt to make school problems the parent's fault (and
I don't deny that can be the case), communication problems are
usually a major factor in disputes with Waldorf schools. But for many
of us here, the communication problems led us to research what was
behind them, and we found a lot to not like.
)I see this in the posts of those who love WE, didn't like the teacher
)or something about the school, and then decided to embark on a
)WE homeschooling path. WE concepts are not the primary issue;
)it's the human stuff that get's in the way, so many parents say I'll
)just do it myself.
The parents want what they -thought WE was-, not what it really is.
If WE presented itself more honestly, this confusion wouldn't happen.
)Increased interest in WE throws a light that also casts shadows. Who
)would deny that we all (including human educational institutions)
)have a shadow side or moments of weakness, failure, lack of courage,
)etc.
Of course every institution will have its bad apples. But what
critics have revealed about Waldorf is that its teacher training
system practically selects for incompetent and dysfunctional people,
and the governance system of the schools protects them from
correction.
)That said, I observe how the misconceptions about WE/A/RS that
)are peddled on the WC list detract from the real core issues.
What you consider to be the "real core issues" may be different from
other opinions.
)That's
)why it's (nearly) impossible to take WC concerns about "reform"
)seriously.
When I was in love with the San Francisco Waldorf School, I wanted to
reform what was wrong with it. I learned that reform was impossible.
The teachers said that it wasn't the parents' job to tell the school
what its mission was or how to accomplish it. It was the parents'
duty to support the faculty or leave if they didn't like it.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 12:46:55 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: "He was a genius..."
Serena Blaue, you wrote,
)If I were ASA or AWSNA, I'd be collecting the complaints and
)looking for patterns with an eye to pointing out what needs to be
)changed from a systemic point of view and finding out what the
)remedy might be (training, communications, parent/teacher
)relationships, etc.)
We agree on that.
)But the schools are independent entities
)and AWSNA doesn't have the authority to intervene (correct
)me if I am wrong).
You are wrong. AWSNA controls the Waldorf name in the U.S.A., and
licenses it to schools that meet their standards. Their standards
could use some revision.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 16:10:45 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: bd agriculture
John Calkins, a belated welcome to the list. You wrote,
)one can
)never come to an understanding of Steiner's view of agriculture and the
)earth solely through materialistic thinking. Furthermore one cannot
)form a satisfactory or valid critique using materialistic arguments.
Thanks. You affirm my opinion that BD agriculture is based on
religion, not science.
)In B-D agriculture, what is most important is not the physical qualities
)or the vegetables or the soil, although they are usually very good, even
)compared to organic; in Europe B-D (or Demeter) products are often
)valued above organic, even by non-anthroposophists. What is most
)important is the grower's spiritual relationship to the farm or garden,
)and the earth in general. This is more a moral question than one of the
)quality of the end-products. What is most important is one's love for
)the earth and one's desire to spiritually transform the earth through
)love. In organic agriculture it is possible to follow all of the rules
)without the need to develop this relationship to the earth. Certainly
)there are also organic growers who foster a love for the earth.
That's a good distinction. It's like Christians encouraging fellow
Christians to patronize Christian businesses.
)If one wishes to be critical of Steiner, one needs to approach his way
)of thinking. The following is a rather crude example, but it does
)illustrate my point. From a moral perspective, it makes a difference
)whether someone eats a Demeter carrot that has been stolen or if the
)grower himself eats its sister carrot.
Yes; and I assume you agree that the carrots themselves don't differ.
But in that case I think you will disagree with Steiner.
)I do not know where Diana stands on materilism, but I am well aware that
)many people believe that what I am talking about is nonsense, more from
)an inner conviction than with any scienctific certainty, since it is
)impossible to refute the existence of the spiritual, non-material world
)from a materialistic perspective.
They can be viewed as "non-overlapping magisteria" (S.J. Gould's term).
)From the other side, Steiner in his
)"Philosophy of Freedom" has shown beyond doubt that the realm of
)materialistic-scientific thinking is self-contradictory. One does not
)need clairvoyant faculties to arrive at these conclusions. They follow
)logically from simple observation of normal thinking. It is also worthy
)to note that Steiner gives some value to materialistic thinking,
)although it is limited.
Sorry, I don't follow that. PF made a very small ripple in the
philosophical world and sank from sight. Having failed at academic
philosophy, Steiner retreated to being a cult leader.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 16:11:58 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: bd agriculture
John Calkins, you wrote to Pete,
)Why would you believe that thoughts and impulses of will are imaginary.
)True they have no physical substance, but I find it radically extreme to
)say that we imagine that we are thinking or that we imagine we have an
)impulse of will to do a deed of love or hate. I know you didn't say
)this or imply it, but it is the logical conclusion from your statement.
)
)Steiner's view, and I agree with him on this, is that our thoughts and
)impulses of will are spiritual realities, as real as the book sitting
)here on my desk. How we think and act make a difference in the world,
)not just in the physical world, but in the spiritual world.
Dealing with the reality of non-material things was a conundrum for
pre-20th century philosophers. By my lights, the problem was solved
brilliantly by Carl Popper's conception of "three worlds." "World 1"
is the physical world. "World 2" is the world of human minds." "World
3" is the physical expression of World 2; writing is the best
example, but it also includes music in the air. All three worlds are
"real," but the reality of writing, for example, is much more than
ink molecules on paper.
If you want to call Worlds 2 and 3 "spiritual," be my guest, but I
think doing so makes "spiritual" so commonplace that it has little
meaning.
)I have heard of a study that plants grow better when they are sung to.
)I am rather sceptical that the solution to this mystery is to be found
)in the sound waves impinging on the surface of the plant.
There is no mystery, that's a myth.
)There are
)some individuals who can influence the oddness or evenness of a random
)number generator with their thoughts. Researches admit that it is
)beyond statistical probability that it is a random event. Certain
)individuals have this influence, others not.
Also a myth. Any study with a number of observers will show a range
of results. If they average to no effect there is no effect. Bad
scientists are too quick to change their research goal when they
don't achieve the desired result. They'll say that though the average
was insignificant, some observers were able to perceive a difference.
The right way to handle this is to do another study of the "good"
observers. Then the data either regress to the mean or the superior
abilities of the selected observers are shown to be true. This error
in method isn't restricted to woo-woo stuff; I saw it made in an
audio engineering (my field) report recently.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 16:14:00 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: anthroposophy
)Over time
)one gets a feeling of a wholeness and comprehensiveness of Steiner's
)worldview.
Youre mileage may vary. Over time I got a feeling of bullshit piled
higher and deeper from Steiner.
)By no means is he easy to understand, he is always brilliant
)and original in his lectures and writings,
Obviously he was charismatic. That doesn't carry through much in
transcripts of his lectures, though. Original? Rarely.
)and his work is based on his
)own philosophically rigorous philosophy that no modern philosopher since
)has been able to refute.
No one cares, he's on the lunatic fringe.
)I find the methods of Dan Dugan to be simply laughable, taking a
)citation out of context and implying that Steiner was a rascist.
"Taking something out of context" means that the meaning is changed
by the context. In the case of Steiner's statements about race, I
don't find this to be true, unless you count the platitudes about
humanity in general that he often used to smooth over the impact of
something particularly unpalatable. I wonder if he was reacting to
raised eyebrows in his audience at those times.
)When
)one looks at Steiner's work as a whole, this claim is simply absurd.
)Certainly on occasion Steiner says something that raises my eyebrow or
)makes statements that I would not want to defend.
But on those occasions you think he is being inconsistent with the
main thrust of his work?
)...His agriculture
)course anticipated the organic farming movement by about 30 years; the
)influence of biodynamic farmers on Rodale's founding of the organic
)agriculture movement is well-documented.
I wonder about that, I thought Steiner was just part of the organic
movement in the 20's.
)One can Steiner's influence in
)public school curriculums in the states and Europe.
I don't think so; please substantiate that claim. Just because people
do things similar to Steiner doesn't mean they got it from him.
)His description of how the various religious streams have contributed to
)the development of civilization is truly remarkable. His view has a
)unity in which each group has contributed to the whole, from ancient
)India, Zorothusta, Egypt, Judaism, Buddhism, Greece, Christianity, and
)Islam among others. Each stream has its speceific role, and he presents
)it respectfully and with devotion and thankfulness for the various
)contributions.
That is a sectarian view; that Anthroposophy is comprehensive, has
the whole truth, and that other religions contributed parts of the
truth.
)Personally, I find this much more satisfying than the new agey and
)rather unspecific idea that all spiritual paths lead to the same goal.
That's a non-sectarian view. Anthroposophy is a sect that claims, as
sects do, that it's true and the others aren't.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 16:14:15 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: anthroposophy
John Calkins, you wrote to Walden,
)Walden, to be honest, I find your response to my last posting to be
)overly sarcastic, uninformed, and out of proportion, and it does not
)speak well for your credibility. It is not worthy of a response.
This kind of sputtering answer indicates that you're unable to reply
and you have lost the argument.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 12:47:10 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Ad hominem warning...
Serena, you wrote in response to Diana,
)I don't approve the materials you admittedly stand behind that are
)posted on the PLANS website and that clearly slander WE/A/RS
)and are patently untrue.
Please point out any falsehoods you find on the PLANS site, so they
might be corrected. Referring us to other people's ravings is
avoiding the discussion -here-.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 16:12:23 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: re: bd agriculture
John Calkins, you wrote,
)First of all I do not have clairvoyant faculties in the usual sense.
Um, John, there is no "usual sense"; there is no such thing as
clairvoyant faculties.
)The type of proof you are looking for does not exist and cannot exist.
)There is no physical device that is capable of measuring etheric forces,
)for example.
Nor do "etheric forces" exist.
)For those of us without clairvoyance, we have to rely on
)indirect methods. Incidentally I knew someone once who had the ability
)to see auras, as she described it. She could tell what frame of mind I
)was in without the need to look at my face.
I advise a more skeptical attitude towards what people believe they can do.
)There are certain types of spiritual faculties that are more common. I
)have perfect pitch, as an example. I can tell you that this particular
)note is an F, and perhaps you or someone else cannot perceive that. To
)this person the F is imperceptible (not the tone itself, but identifying
)it as an F). Perfect pitch is a type of clairvoyance. It is the
)perception of a non-physical entity, the tones (not the sound).
Perfect pitch is an ability that has nothing to do with "clairvoyance."
)Just because I do not have deeper forms of clairvoyance, it would be
)rather arrogant of me to claim that someone is talking nonsense when
)they describe their clairvoyant experiences.
Since no one can demonstrate clairvoyance, nonsense would be the best
assumption when someone claims to have it.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 00:03:42 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Perfect pitch as clairvoyance
One of the most interesting aspects of reading posts from Anthroposphists is
the way in way in which clairvoyance is raised to some high level of power
and human achievement while at the same time the actual examples given of
the powers available through it to Anthroposophists and the like is either
trivial or non existent. John Calkin gave two examples in a post recently.
One was the ability to see auras. I don't wish to waste anyone's time any
further with this. The other was perfect pitch. A number of things are clear
about perfect pitch. Firstly, the physical mechanisms in the ear which
enable pitch differentiation are well understood, so well understood in fact
that artificial devices such as the bionic ear have been constructed to
allow some limited regaining of hearing loss. Secondly, the ability to
train for perfect pitch from an early age is also reasonably understood. If
this is all that Anthroposophists mean by clairvoyance then it is an empty
ability indeed.
See you, peter
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 18:13:23 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: link to Carol Milstone's article added to PLANS web site
On the PLANS web site I've added a link to Carol Milstone's November
1992 National Post (Canada) article "Gnomes and Critics at Waldorf
Schools." You can go directly:
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/1213-_Gnomes_and_critics_at_Waldorf_schools.html
Too bad it's not available from the National Post any more; they had
some great pictures of Gnomes with it.
-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 1834
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Steiner and mad cow disease
By ldenike aol.com
False and defamatory statements?
By SerenaBlaue aol.com
Re: False and defamatory statements?
By ldenike aol.com
Re: False and defamatory statements?
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: False and defamatory statements?
By SerenaBlaue aol.com
RE: False and defamatory statements?
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: False and defamatory statements?
By pkcompany netzero.net
Re: False and defamatory statements?
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: Steiner and mad cow disease
By feetapparel hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 10:39:27 -0400
From: ldenike aol.com
Subject: Re: Steiner and mad cow disease
Huh?
-----Original Message-----
From: john calkins (john5calkins yahoo.com)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Sent: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 06:46:51 +0000
Subject: Steiner and mad cow disease
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Get up to $1500.00 Fast and Easy!
No Credit Checks! No Paper Hassles! Nothing To Fax!
Apply Online and We'll Contact You Within the Hour!
http://click.topica.com/caadHk7b1dkiGbOrq7Ba/911PaydayAdvance
-------------------------------------------------------------------
You can make of this what you will...
Steiner and mad cow disease, roughly translated by John Calkins, from a
lecture on January 13, 1923, GA 348.
When the cow or ox eats this plant, then it is converted into the flesh
of the animal. That means, they have in them the power to make flesh
from plants.
Now just imagine, if this ox would say, ?It is too boring that I go
around and eat plants all the time. Another cow can do that for me.
Then I can eat that cow.? And so the ox would begin to eat cow meat,
but he can produce this meat himself! He has the power to do this in
himself. What would happen if he were to eat this meat directly instead
of plants? His ability to produce meat would be left unutilized! When
you think of a factory somewhere where something should be produced, and
you produce nothing, but the whole activity of the factory, think about
this, what there for production capacity is would be lost. But, my dear
Sirs, this force in the animal?s body cannot simply be lost. The ox is
entirely full of this force, and it does something else in him other
than converting plant matter into animal matter. This force remains in
him and does absolute rubbish. Instead of producing his flesh, a
damaging substance would be produced. If the ox were to suddenly begin
eating meat, he would fill himself with all sorts of damaging substance,
namely with uric acid and uric acid salts.
Such uric acid salts have their specific qualities, that they have a
weakness for the nervous system and the brain. And the effect of an ox
eating meat directly would be that he would secrete a large amount of
uric acid salts. They would go towards the brain and the ox would go
crazy. If we could perform this experiment, to feed pigeons to oxen, we
would get an entire herd of mad oxen. That is simply the case. No
matter how well-cooked the pigeons, the oxen would go mad.
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Get a Free Sirius Satellite Package, don't pass on this!
http://click.topica.com/caadHlCb1dkiGbOrq7Bf/ProductTestPanel
-------------------------------------------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New
threads are always welcome.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 14:35:56 EDT
From: SerenaBlaue aol.com
Subject: False and defamatory statements?
In a message dated 7/31/2005 7:31:12 PM Eastern Standard Time,
dan dandugan.com writes:
Serena, you wrote in response to Diana,
)I don't approve the materials you admittedly stand behind that are
)posted on the PLANS website and that clearly slander WE/A/RS
)and are patently untrue.
Please point out any falsehoods you find on the PLANS site, so they
might be corrected. Referring us to other people's ravings is
avoiding the discussion -here-.
-Dan Dugan
=====================================
I'd like to know what you think is incorrect on the websites
that discuss in detail PLANS numerous false and defamatory
statements. I don't think I've seen an effective rebuttal yet.
Calling them "ravings" is not a rebuttal -- it's just another sort
of empty ad hom attack.
See:
http://www.waldorfanswers.org/
www.defendingsteiner.com
http://www.thebee.se/comments/plans1.html#PLANS
Serena Blaue
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 14:50:00 -0400
From: ldenike aol.com
Subject: Re: False and defamatory statements?
Serena, you are answering Dan's question (what is wrong with the material posted on the PLANS web site) with another question.
You said that the PLANS site contains false and defamatory statements. Well, tell us what those statements are.
Lisa
-----Original Message-----
From: SerenaBlaue aol.com
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Sent: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 14:35:56 EDT
Subject: False and defamatory statements?
==========================================================
Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Get the latest weather,
sports, and lifestyle news you can't afford to miss, all
at a price you can afford to pay! Click now!
http://click.topica.com/caaa9eYb1dkiGbOrq7Ba/TopOffers
==========================================================
In a message dated 7/31/2005 7:31:12 PM Eastern Standard Time,
dan dandugan.com writes:
Serena, you wrote in response to Diana,
)I don't approve the materials you admittedly stand behind that are
)posted on the PLANS website and that clearly slander WE/A/RS
)and are patently untrue.
Please point out any falsehoods you find on the PLANS site, so they
might be corrected. Referring us to other people's ravings is
avoiding the discussion -here-.
-Dan Dugan
=====================================
I'd like to know what you think is incorrect on the websites
that discuss in detail PLANS numerous false and defamatory
statements. I don't think I've seen an effective rebuttal yet.
Calling them "ravings" is not a rebuttal -- it's just another sort
of empty ad hom attack.
See:
http://www.waldorfanswers.org/
www.defendingsteiner.com
http://www.thebee.se/comments/plans1.html#PLANS
Serena Blaue
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New
threads are always welcome.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 12:02:26 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: False and defamatory statements?
Serena - this is VERY simple. You made a claim about the PLANS site. You
were asked a couple of times to substantiate the claim. Instead of doing
just that you posted a link to another site. Dan then asked you to
substantiate your claim and you sent more links. I sincerely urge you to try
hard to be specific in your posts. There very well *might* be "patently
untrue" things at the PLANS site. When you tell us what and where they are,
they can be dealt with. The sites you referred us to are interesting and
contain various opinions and interpretations but I cannot find specifics
about "patently untrue" information at the waldorfcritics site.
In your latest post you ask for a rebuttal when, in fact, the onus is on
*you* to substantiate *your* claim. Again, this is a VERY simple exercise.
Please get on with it.
-Walden
Serena wrote:
))I don't approve the materials you admittedly stand behind that are
))posted on the PLANS website and that clearly slander WE/A/RS
))and are patently untrue.
Dan Dugan replied:
)Please point out any falsehoods you find on the PLANS site, so they
)might be corrected. Referring us to other people's ravings is
)avoiding the discussion -here-.
=====================================
Serena wrote:
I'd like to know what you think is incorrect on the websites
that discuss in detail PLANS numerous false and defamatory
statements. I don't think I've seen an effective rebuttal yet.
Calling them "ravings" is not a rebuttal -- it's just another sort
of empty ad hom attack.
See:
http://www.waldorfanswers.org/
www.defendingsteiner.com
http://www.thebee.se/comments/plans1.html#PLANS
Serena Blaue
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 15:17:39 EDT
From: SerenaBlaue aol.com
Subject: Re: False and defamatory statements?
It's just as I thought: you want me to waste my time re-inventing the wheel
(as is your wont) but you won't bother to go to the websites that point out
the defamatory and untrue statements by PLANS. et al. I'm not interested
in doing your work for you, Walden. Either you bother to have a look and
see for yourself or you don't. That's your decision. Of course, you know
that the creators of those websites can argue circles around you, I guess
that's good enough of a reason to stay away.
There's no "might be" about it: there are patently untrue things on the
PLANS
website and those guys have got the goods. Your rehashed arguments that
are two years old at least just won't cut it -- you might have to think some
new
thoughts!
Fine with me; I'm on vacation anyway. I'll play in the sand and you can
keep your head in the sand! (G)
Serena Blaue
In a message dated 8/1/2005 2:56:00 PM Eastern Standard Time,
awaldenpond shaw.ca writes:
Serena - this is VERY simple. You made a claim about the PLANS site. You
were asked a couple of times to substantiate the claim. Instead of doing
just that you posted a link to another site. Dan then asked you to
substantiate your claim and you sent more links. I sincerely urge you to try
hard to be specific in your posts. There very well *might* be "patently
untrue" things at the PLANS site. When you tell us what and where they are,
they can be dealt with. The sites you referred us to are interesting and
contain various opinions and interpretations but I cannot find specifics
about "patently untrue" information at the waldorfcritics site.
In your latest post you ask for a rebuttal when, in fact, the onus is on
*you* to substantiate *your* claim. Again, this is a VERY simple exercise.
Please get on with it.
-Walden
Serena wrote:
))I don't approve the materials you admittedly stand behind that are
))posted on the PLANS website and that clearly slander WE/A/RS
))and are patently untrue.
Dan Dugan replied:
)Please point out any falsehoods you find on the PLANS site, so they
)might be corrected. Referring us to other people's ravings is
)avoiding the discussion -here-.
=====================================
Serena wrote:
I'd like to know what you think is incorrect on the websites
that discuss in detail PLANS numerous false and defamatory
statements. I don't think I've seen an effective rebuttal yet.
Calling them "ravings" is not a rebuttal -- it's just another sort
of empty ad hom attack.
See:
http://www.waldorfanswers.org/
www.defendingsteiner.com
http://www.thebee.se/comments/plans1.html#PLANS
Serena Blaue
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 15:32:18 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: False and defamatory statements?
Serena:
)It's just as I thought: you want me to waste my time re-inventing the wheel
)(as is your wont) but you won't bother to go to the websites that point out
)the defamatory and untrue statements by PLANS. et al. I'm not interested
)in doing your work for you, Walden. Either you bother to have a look and
)see for yourself or you don't.
This is a load of bull, Serena. "Doing the work" rests with the person
making the claim, it isn't up to other people to disprove your claims. This
seems to be a little point anthroposophists have trouble with. There is no
moral obligation on critics to "do the work" and hunt for inaccurate
statements YOU claim are found on somebody's web site. YOU said there are
inaccurate statements and you can't even NAME ONE?
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 19:45:37 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: False and defamatory statements?
SerenaBlaue aol.com wrote:
)
)
) It's just as I thought: you want me to waste my time re-inventing the
) wheel
) (as is your wont) but you won't bother to go to the websites that point
) out
) the defamatory and untrue statements by PLANS. et al. I'm not
) interested
) in doing your work for you, Walden.
Serena, What I am hearing you say is that you would call statements by
PLANS defamatory and untrue... (drum roll)... BECAUSE SOMEBODY ELSE
THINKS THEY ARE.
) Either you bother to have a look and
) see for yourself or you don't. That's your decision. Of course, you
) know
) that the creators of those websites can argue circles around you, I
) guess
) that's good enough of a reason to stay away.
Pardon me if I disagree about the arguing circles part. What I've read
there has been nothing but utter nonsense that seems to have been
generated by a lunatic. When I went to the AT site, same sort of duck
and run, circling around but never addressing the real issues - lots of
namecalling and such. If that's what you would consider "arguing
circles" then that's fine. How about if you produce something of an
argument yourself that refutes something PLANS has said.
I, from my personal experience, have found little here that I disagree
with - or that disagrees with my personal experience and reading of
Steiner. Some things I have never had the opportunity to verify, like
checking the crayon basket in the kindergarten for black crayons, but
the important things are, indeed, aligned with my personal experience.
I'd love it if you could produce something that refutes what is here -
personally. It should be pretty easy for you. But since you've made
the accusation, I think it behooves you to support it.
)
) There's no "might be" about it: there are patently untrue things on the
)
) PLANS
) website and those guys have got the goods. Your rehashed arguments that
)
) are two years old at least just won't cut it -- you might have to think
) some
) new
) thoughts!
Oh please... "those guys have got the goods". How about something a
little more specific? The "goods", from what little I could stomach
reading there, are full of unsubstantiated implications like - the Nazis
hated Steiner, how stupid could PLANS be to suggest that Steiner wrote
anything that could be antisemitic? Those kind of "goods" are as common
as the sand you're sticking your toes in.
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 14:34:30 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: False and defamatory statements?
Serena wrote:
)It's just as I thought: you want me to waste my time re-inventing the wheel
)(as is your wont) but you won't bother to go to the websites that point out
)the defamatory and untrue statements by PLANS. et al. I'm not interested
)in doing your work for you, Walden.
Pathetic, Serena. You made a claim and will not back it up. I *did* visit
the sites you mentioned - even though it is *your* responsibility to back up
*your* claim. I cannot find anything to back up your claim. It's not about
doing my work - it's about taking responsibility for your own actions
(claims).
)Of course, you know that the creators of those websites can argue circles
around you, I guess
)that's good enough of a reason to stay away.
No, I don't know that the creators of those websites can argue circles
around me. Not at all. FYI, I am not interested in arguing circles around
them, either. Discussing and sharing information is more interesting to me.
)There's no "might be" about it: there are patently untrue things on the
PLANS
)website and those guys have got the goods.
One more time: Where are the "patently untrue things on the PLANS website?"
)Your rehashed arguments that are two years old at least just won't cut
it -- you might have to think some
)new thoughts!
Do have any idea how ludicrous this is now? I don't *have* an argument (let
alone 2 years old) because you have not given me anything to argue against!
You might be surprised to know that if you can provide examples of "patently
untrue things at the PLANS website" I might not have anything to argue
against. I might suggest the folks at PLANS make some changes based on the
information you provide to substantiate your claim.
)Fine with me; I'm on vacation anyway. I'll play in the sand and you can
keep your head in the sand! (G)
No comment.
-Walden
Serena Blaue
In a message dated 8/1/2005 2:56:00 PM Eastern Standard Time,
awaldenpond shaw.ca writes:
Serena - this is VERY simple. You made a claim about the PLANS site. You
were asked a couple of times to substantiate the claim. Instead of doing
just that you posted a link to another site. Dan then asked you to
substantiate your claim and you sent more links. I sincerely urge you to try
hard to be specific in your posts. There very well *might* be "patently
untrue" things at the PLANS site. When you tell us what and where they are,
they can be dealt with. The sites you referred us to are interesting and
contain various opinions and interpretations but I cannot find specifics
about "patently untrue" information at the waldorfcritics site.
In your latest post you ask for a rebuttal when, in fact, the onus is on
*you* to substantiate *your* claim. Again, this is a VERY simple exercise.
Please get on with it.
-Walden
Serena wrote:
))I don't approve the materials you admittedly stand behind that are
))posted on the PLANS website and that clearly slander WE/A/RS
))and are patently untrue.
Dan Dugan replied:
)Please point out any falsehoods you find on the PLANS site, so they
)might be corrected. Referring us to other people's ravings is
)avoiding the discussion -here-.
=====================================
Serena wrote:
I'd like to know what you think is incorrect on the websites
that discuss in detail PLANS numerous false and defamatory
statements. I don't think I've seen an effective rebuttal yet.
Calling them "ravings" is not a rebuttal -- it's just another sort
of empty ad hom attack.
See:
http://www.waldorfanswers.org/
www.defendingsteiner.com
http://www.thebee.se/comments/plans1.html#PLANS
Serena Blaue
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 05:10:19 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Steiner and mad cow disease
john calkins wrote (quoting his translation of Steiner)
----------
)
)You can make of this what you will...
)
)Steiner and mad cow disease, roughly translated by John Calkins, from a
)lecture on January 13, 1923, GA 348.
Rest of lecture translation cut.
John is wrong when he says "you can make of this what you will". Steiner is
quite specific her in the cause of a specific kind of madness in cows. In
fact the madness that Steiner is talking about does not occur. It is true
that other kinds of "madness" do occur but they occur for reasons very
different from thos that Steiner claims to be the case. This is simply
another case of Steiner being wrong.
See you, peter
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1835
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Steiner and mad cow disease
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
a funny thing happened on the way to my inbox
By g.pulgar kommunicera.umea.se
RE: a funny thing happened on the way to my inbox
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: a funny thing happened on the way to my inbox
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: a funny thing happened on the way to my inbox
By pkcompany netzero.net
"agendas"
By diana.winters verizon.net
Re: a funny thing happened on the way to my inbox
By motormouth punkAss.com
RE: a funny thing happened on the way to my inbox
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: "agendas"
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: "agendas"
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: "agendas"
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: "agendas"
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: "agendas"
By diana.winters verizon.net
Re: "agendas"
By motormouth punkAss.com
RE: "agendas"
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: "agendas"
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: "agendas"
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: "agendas"
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: "agendas"
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
Re: "agendas"
By motormouth punkAss.com
Re: Steiner and mad cow disease
By nmfoss2004 hotmail.com
Re: "agendas"
By ldenike aol.com
Re: "agendas"
By motormouth punkAss.com
RE: "agendas"
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: a funny thing happened on the way to my inbox
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: "agendas"
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: "agendas"
By pkcompany netzero.net
Re: "agendas"
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: Steiner and mad cow disease
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: Steiner and mad cow disease
By feetapparel hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 12:32:31 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: Steiner and mad cow disease
Iden- aol wrote: “Huh?”
*
I believe John’s point had to do mostly with the following quote from
his post:
“…the effect of an ox eating meat directly would be that he would
secrete a large amount of uric acid salts. They would go towards the
brain and the ox would go crazy. If we could perform this experiment, to
feed pigeons to oxen, we would get an entire herd of mad oxen.”
And I’m not sure what Peter is referring to when he says: “It is true
that other kinds of “madness” do occur but they occur for reasons very
different from those that Steiner claims to be the case.” My
understanding is that many countries have banned meat by-products in
cattle feed, due to the risk of mad cow disease.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 12:39:51 +0000
From: Why Not (g.pulgar kommunicera.umea.se)
Subject: a funny thing happened on the way to my inbox
John Calkins
I have stopped reading alot of this list when it lands in my inbox but
now and again I will look in. Some on this list say they have studied
Steiner 10 and more years and find his "claims" absurd. I wonder why
someone would devote so much time and energy in that effort. Such a
person is clearly misguided. Others are simply scared on this list. They
talk alot about how they want to "communicate" but really they are out
looking for a fight. No matter what you write, they will claim the
opposite. Even when you try to give a little and meet in the middle,
they gang up and attack. They then deny the attack. Look at the
exchanges this group promotes. I suppose for me, this group given all I
have said is still facinating in that I have found a pool of people who
read Steiner and are simply UNMOVED by his words. I am moved deeply by
everything he writes so I am truely facinated to find the opposite is
true for the members of this group. Ironic huh?
Bye for now,
Gabriel
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 13:14:12 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: a funny thing happened on the way to my inbox
Gabriel wrote: “They talk alot about how they want to “communicate” but
really they are out looking for a fight.”
*
Hi Gabriel. First, ‘they’ wouldn’t have anyone to fight with if people
like yourself stopped posting comments like that on this site. In that
sense, you’re a bit like the pigeon who feeds the ox which leads to the
madness.
And something else: Why would you or Serena – who seems to always be
upset about the same things you’re describing – expect anything
different on this site? It’s a critics list. Maybe it’s a matter of time
(don’t think it’s age, because you and Serena seem to be a couple of old
f*rts like myself) but I just see it as people having their own
particular viewpoint, one that isn’t going to change much, no matter
what’s discussed. And that goes for me as well. And from what I’ve read,
that appears to apply to you, Serena, John and everyone else here.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 09:33:44 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: a funny thing happened on the way to my inbox
Baandje, may I just observe that it is no more necessary for you to
chaperone people here than it is for people like Gabriel to complain about
the dialogue.
I'd like to point to something else, too - a comment that occurs here
regularly and keeps popping up lately on the Mothering threads - where Pete
is posting prolifically (I got kicked off, so I'm silent) - these complaints
that critics of Waldorf don't want to "dialogue" and don't "change their
minds" about Waldorf - as if this were a bad thing or a sign of critics' bad
faith.
I personally find the request that we "dialogue" with supporters of Waldorf
- or that we should change our views as a result of this dialogue not only
misguided but rather bullying in itself. People will change their views OR
NOT on their own time and according to their own principles or processes.
Nobody is required to publicly change their minds about anything or somehow
lose credibility. There is NOTHING WRONG with being on public boards NOT to
dialogue but to promote a particular point of view or provide information
that one feels may help other people. Sniffing at this like it were
unspiritual is a little holier than thou. Those who do not like it, do not
need to listen.
Every Waldorf web site, every Waldorf brochure, every presentation at an
open house, every poster on a bulletin board announcing a study group etc.,
is a point of view - they are NOT invitations to dialogue. To call that
dialogue is a pretense. Waldorf is extraordinarily UN-open to dialogue -
that tends to be why people leave these schools. Every critic here whom I
know personally "dialogued" till they were blue in the face at their Waldorf
school, gradually to realize that no one was listening - anthroposophists'
minds were made up because they believed they had "spiritual truth" on their
side. These peoples' posts on lists like this, just like all Waldorf
promotional materials, are advertisements, or (YMMV) propaganda if you will.
The purpose of critical sites is largely to COUNTER the propaganda.
In short, being on a public board to offer a particular point of view -
rather than "dialoguing" with people whom one knows to be shamelessly
promoting THEIR point of view and only pretending to "dialogue" -
- is not wrong, but often it is morally right. Also, it is "spiritual."
Anthroposophists and Waldorf supporters do not have a right to define what
is "spiritual" for the rest of us. People pursuing an activist cause are
just as spiritual as anthroposophists, and often more so.
Diana
-----Original Message-----
From: baandje [mailto:bangus nb.sympatico.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 8:14 AM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: RE: a funny thing happened on the way to my inbox
)Gabriel wrote: "They talk alot about how they want to "communicate" but
really they are out looking for a fight."
*
Hi Gabriel. First, 'they' wouldn't have anyone to fight with if people
like yourself stopped posting comments like that on this site. In that
sense, you're a bit like the pigeon who feeds the ox which leads to the
madness.
And something else: Why would you or Serena - who seems to always be
upset about the same things you're describing - expect anything
different on this site? It's a critics list. Maybe it's a matter of time
(don't think it's age, because you and Serena seem to be a couple of old
f*rts like myself) but I just see it as people having their own
particular viewpoint, one that isn't going to change much, no matter
what's discussed. And that goes for me as well. And from what I've read,
that appears to apply to you, Serena, John and everyone else here.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 13:44:15 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: a funny thing happened on the way to my inbox
Why Not wrote:
)
) John Calkins
)
) I have stopped reading alot of this list when it lands in my inbox but
) now and again I will look in. Some on this list say they have studied
) Steiner 10 and more years and find his "claims" absurd. I wonder why
) someone would devote so much time and energy in that effort. Such a
) person is clearly misguided.
You're completely right about that, in my case at least. I was
completely misguided - literally. I was married to an Anthroposophist
and my kids were in a Waldorf school and, yes, misguided every step of
the way until I found my way out of a maze of nonsense. Other's mileage
may vary.
) Others are simply scared on this list. They
) talk alot about how they want to "communicate" but really they are out
) looking for a fight. No matter what you write, they will claim the
) opposite. Even when you try to give a little and meet in the middle,
) they gang up and attack. They then deny the attack. Look at the
) exchanges this group promotes. I suppose for me, this group given all I
) have said is still facinating in that I have found a pool of people who
) read Steiner and are simply UNMOVED by his words.
Some people are "moved" by magic until they figure out the trick. Some
recognize it for what it is right off the bat. Everyone starts out
wanting to believe it exists.
) I am moved deeply by
) everything he writes so I am truely facinated to find the opposite is
) true for the members of this group. Ironic huh?
)
I don't get the irony you refer to - but I'm not surprised to find
people who are deeply moved by Steiner. I get the impression people who
are easily fascinated by magic are also easily facinated by people who
don't.
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 09:40:34 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: "agendas"
P.S. Another word they use to silence people is "agenda." I was kicked off
Mothering because I came there with an "agenda." Of course, the Mothering
boards are crawling with people with agendas - anti-vaccination,
anti-circumcision, pro-organic food, pro-breastfeeding, pro-family bed, you
name it (many of which I agree with). A handful of Waldorf supporters are
there with the clearest possible "agenda" - they counter every negative
Waldorf post (and there are always active threads there from people who have
had bad experiences in Waldorf) and it is clearly systematic. (They are
lying low at the moment as they care clearly overrun: Pete is really on a
roll . . . but they'll be baaaaaaaaaccccckkk). No one ever says suspiciously
to Waldorf supporters, "You seem to have an agenda." Their agenda on those
forums is not "dialogue" - it is damage control. They are not there to
"change their minds" and there is virtually no chance they are going to.
Does anyone really think Gabriel is going to change his mind about Waldorf
as a result of reading the critics list? Then why are critics supposed to
change our minds or we are not as spiritual as Gabriel?
Diana
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 10:10:26 -0400
From: motormama (motormouth punkAss.com)
Subject: Re: a funny thing happened on the way to my inbox
*big applauds* that was so well put, Diana - THANK YOU again for
having the energy to stand up for our right to question the propaganda
that the anthro-machine spews out.
m rosso
On Aug 2, 2005, at 9:33 AM, Diana Winters wrote:
) In short, being on a public board to offer a particular point of view -
) rather than "dialoguing" with people whom one knows to be shamelessly
) promoting THEIR point of view and only pretending to "dialogue" -
) - is not wrong, but often it is morally right. Also, it is "spiritual."
) Anthroposophists and Waldorf supporters do not have a right to define
) what
) is "spiritual" for the rest of us. People pursuing an activist cause
) are
) just as spiritual as anthroposophists, and often more so.
)
) Diana
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 15:01:32 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: a funny thing happened on the way to my inbox
Diana wrote: “Baandje, may I just observe that it is no more necessary
for you to chaperone people here than it is for people like Gabriel to
complain about the dialogue.”
*
Mommy can spank baandje if it make Mommy feel better… ;-)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 15:12:12 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: "agendas"
Diana wrote: “Does anyone really think Gabriel is going to change his
mind about Waldorf as a result of reading the critics list? Then why are
critics supposed to change our minds or we are not as spiritual as
Gabriel?”
*
That’s what I said. You’re stealing my stuff, and taking credit for it.
Plus I get spanked to boot.
I’d complain that life is unfair, but I don’t want to sound like Serena
in 2/3 of her posts. So I’ll just take the abuse. Okay Momsy... my pants
are down...
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 15:20:58 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: "agendas"
The thing I keep trying to point out is that most "critics" have shown
they have the ability or desire to change their minds. Most started out
as Waldorf supporters and changed their minds.
Thanks for the kind words about the motheing forums. The minute I
showed up I was attacked from all sides by supporters who wanted to
connect me to PLANS and WC - it's the same mentality that runs wild in
my own kid's school. The "agenda" of attacking the messenger to divert
attention from the message.
The latest thing they are trying, BTW, is to label threads with "Support
Only" and people with critical views are not allowed to post there.
Interesting how the whole dynamic has changed on the Mothering site.
Whew... (G)
Pete
Diana Winters wrote:
)
)
) P.S. Another word they use to silence people is "agenda." I was kicked
) off
) Mothering because I came there with an "agenda." Of course, the
) Mothering
) boards are crawling with people with agendas - anti-vaccination,
) anti-circumcision, pro-organic food, pro-breastfeeding, pro-family bed,
) you
) name it (many of which I agree with). A handful of Waldorf supporters
) are
) there with the clearest possible "agenda" - they counter every negative
) Waldorf post (and there are always active threads there from people who
) have
) had bad experiences in Waldorf) and it is clearly systematic. (They are
) lying low at the moment as they care clearly overrun: Pete is really on
) a
) roll . . . but they'll be baaaaaaaaaccccckkk). No one ever says
) suspiciously
) to Waldorf supporters, "You seem to have an agenda." Their agenda on
) those
) forums is not "dialogue" - it is damage control. They are not there to
) "change their minds" and there is virtually no chance they are going to.
) Does anyone really think Gabriel is going to change his mind about
) Waldorf
) as a result of reading the critics list? Then why are critics supposed
) to
) change our minds or we are not as spiritual as Gabriel?
)
)
)
) Diana
)
)
) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 16:06:57 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: "agendas"
Pete wrote: “The thing I keep trying to point out is that most “critics”
have shown they have the ability or desire to change their minds.”
*
In the expressive words of iden: “Huh?”
Three years of peeking in here has shown me one thing only, good buddy
Pete: That the exact same people are arguing the exact same issues from
the exact same perspectives and viewpoints.
I mean, c’mon… ;-)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 13:02:21 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: "agendas"
Okay, now see, I find this comment totally unacceptable. Totally. If I were
moderating this, I'd remove you for that in 10 seconds, Baandje. All your
spiritual shit is just that. I will probably be called humorless now but I
really can't believe you think you can say that to me. You have some nerve.
Diana
)I'd complain that life is unfair, but I don't want to sound like Serena
)in 2/3 of her posts. So I'll just take the abuse. Okay Momsy... my pants
)are down...
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 13:03:56 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: "agendas"
You seem to have missed the first part of the story, baanjde, which was the
ten years BEFORE these people came here to this list. Get it?
)Pete wrote: "The thing I keep trying to point out is that most "critics"
)have shown they have the ability or desire to change their minds."
)In the expressive words of iden: "Huh?"
)Three years of peeking in here has shown me one thing only, good buddy
)Pete: That the exact same people are arguing the exact same issues from
)the exact same perspectives and viewpoints.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 13:12:58 -0400
From: motormama (motormouth punkAss.com)
Subject: Re: "agendas"
who _are_ you bantjee, and what brought you to waldorf critics?
curious
m rosso
On Aug 2, 2005, at 12:06 PM, baandje wrote:
) Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
) -------------------------------------------------------------------
) Is your computer freezing up or slowing down?
) Repair corrupt files and harmful errors - protect your PC
) Take a 2-minute PC health check-up at no charge!
) http://click.topica.com/caadOuab1dkiGbOB9Bda/PC PowerScan
) -------------------------------------------------------------------
)
) Pete wrote: “The thing I keep trying to point out is that most
) “critics”
) have shown they have the ability or desire to change their minds.”
)
) *
)
) In the expressive words of iden: “Huh?”
)
) Three years of peeking in here has shown me one thing only, good buddy
) Pete: That the exact same people are arguing the exact same issues from
) the exact same perspectives and viewpoints.
)
) I mean, c’mon
) ;-)
)
) Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
) -------------------------------------------------------------------
) Erase wrinkles without Botox! Nexiderm SP is clinically proven to
) reduce wrinkles by 68% Click here to get your 30-day free supply.
) http://click.topica.com/caadOvzb1dkiGbOB9Bdf/Nexiderm
) -------------------------------------------------------------------
)
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
) basic. New threads are always welcome.
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 13:27:50 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: "agendas"
In case this wasn't clear, baandje, what we mean is we *already* changed our
minds - you missed that part because you didn't know us then. We were
typical Waldorf supporters, and typical work-like-dogs-for-the-school
Waldorf parents. I suspect back then, you wouldn't have been complaining
that we ought to change our minds or else be considered rigid and
unspiritual.
You're right that for most critics to change our minds back again NOW to
become Waldorf supporters AGAIN after having been burned by them is very
unlikely.
Thinking of it another way, you've simply come into the second part of the
dialogue. Critics tend to have "dialogued" fervently for ages with the
schools. When I realized anthroposophy was the explanation for everything
going on in the Waldorf school, did I complain and refuse to "dialogue"? No,
I started reading and studying very sympathetically and made strenuous
efforts to do everything anthroposophically that they wanted me to do. I
"dialogued" enthusiastically with that school for 3 years, until it finally
hit me there was no chance till doomsday for the anthroposophists there to
change their minds about ANYTHING.
Diana
I wrote:
)You seem to have missed the first part of the story, baanjde, which was the
)ten years BEFORE these people came here to this list. Get it?
Pete wrote:
"The thing I keep trying to point out is that most "critics"
have shown they have the ability or desire to change their minds."
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 17:54:13 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: "agendas"
Hi Diana. Yeah, it was kind over the top on my part, sorry. And that’s
my idea of ‘spiritual’ these days, by the way: apologizing if I've upset
someone.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 17:58:08 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: "agendas"
who _are_ you bantjee, and what brought you to waldorf critics?
curious
m rosso
*
A long-time WS teacher. When OpenWaldorf shut down, I had nowhere to go!
Plus I felt I should help Serena out a bit, although she doesn’t like to
do herself a lot of favors, I must say – hoo boy and yikes! Anyway,
thanks for asking :-)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 13:59:12 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: "agendas"
All right, cool Baandje. I overreacted, anyway. You know my original post
wasn't really directed at you entirely anyway. I tried to make clear it was
partly a response to the threads at Mothering too, but since it was in reply
to a post from you, it may have appeared I meant to really chew you out
personally. I didn't.
Let's all chill . . . sorry I overreacted . . . it's the heat . . .
Diana
)Hi Diana. Yeah, it was kind over the top on my part, sorry. And that's
my idea of 'spiritual' these days, by the way: apologizing if I've upset
someone.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 18:10:50 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: "agendas"
Diana: “You know my original post wasn’t really directed at you entirely
anyway.”
*
I noticed that after I posted my remarks, actually. Must have been fog
(here) that caused my over-reaction :-)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 14:15:13 -0400
From: motormama (motormouth punkAss.com)
Subject: Re: "agendas"
are you still teaching?
On Aug 2, 2005, at 1:58 PM, baandje wrote:
)
) who _are_ you bantjee, and what brought you to waldorf critics?
)
) curious
) m rosso
)
) *
)
) A long-time WS teacher. When OpenWaldorf shut down, I had nowhere to
) go!
) Plus I felt I should help Serena out a bit, although she doesn’t like
) to
) do herself a lot of favors, I must say – hoo boy and yikes! Anyway,
) thanks for asking :-)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 14:22:22 -0400
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss2004 hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner and mad cow disease
Baandje wrote: I believe John's point had to do mostly with the following quote from
his post:
".the effect of an ox eating meat directly would be that he would
secrete a large amount of uric acid salts. They would go towards the
brain and the ox would go crazy. If we could perform this experiment, to
feed pigeons to oxen, we would get an entire herd of mad oxen."
And I'm not sure what Peter is referring to when he says: "It is true
that other kinds of "madness" do occur but they occur for reasons very
different from those that Steiner claims to be the case." My
understanding is that many countries have banned meat by-products in
cattle feed, due to the risk of mad cow disease.
Nicole: Countries have indeed banned meat products in animal feed due to the risk of mad cow disease, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with uric acid salts as Steiner wrote. I have yet to find anything of significance which is biologically accurate in Steiner's writings and this example is no exception. All the evidence I am aware of suggests that mad cow disease is caused by a malformed protein called a prion. Prion proteins exist normally in tissue, and these normal prions can be converted into malformed prions through contact with a malformed prion introduced through the diet. In other words, malformed prions catalyze the conversion of normal prions into additional malformed prions. These newly converted prions then go on to catalyze the conversion of more prion molecules. The result is a conversion process over years or decades which starts with as little as a single malformed molecule and ends with significant quantities of nervous system tissue riddled with malformed prions. The process picks up speed over time as there are more and more prions catalyzing more and more conversions. The result is dementia and death.
The initial number of malformed prions would have a significant effect on the incubation period of the disease (the period until symptoms are observed) as a higher amount of infective material would accelerate the otherwise very slow initial phase of the disease. Apparently, it takes a quarter of a gram of infected cattle feed to give a cow BSE, although it would depend on how heavily contaminated the feed was. In the UK by 1989, a quarter of a million infected cattle were entering the food chain each year, so the meat and bone meal fed to cows could have been very highly contaminated. It is unclear how contaminated the resulting beef for human consumption would have been, and it is also unclear what the infective dose is for humans and how long an incubation period this minimum dose would lead to. An additional complication as far as humans are concerned is that there are two normal forms of prion protein in humans (M and V) and one is more susceptible to conversion than the other. Virtually every human case so far has had two copies of the more susceptible M gene, although I believe there was a case recently where the victim had one of each. I am unaware of any cases so far where the victim had two copies of the less susceptible V gene, although experiments with mice engineered to carry human prions show that both genes are ultimately susceptible to conversion. There should be a quite complicated disease patterns in humans as contamination dose would vary widely and there are three possible prion genotypes. Most cases have almost certainly not emerged yet as it has only been fifteen to twenty years or so since contamination in the food chain became widespread as so far only those individuals who are most susceptible (and probably contaminated earliest when contamination was limited in the human food chain) have succumbed.
What do you reckon the chances are that Steiner had the faintest clue about any of this? None of this knowledge was available in his time, but his most devoted followers discount any scientific progress made since Steiner died. They'd rather remain ignorant apparently and go on thinking that uric acid salts had something to do with it. Steiner never seemed at all shy about making specific pronouncements when he had no evidence and no idea what he was talking about.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 14:12:24 -0400
From: ldenike aol.com
Subject: Re: "agendas"
I actually think that baandje's "pants are down" comment would have been funny had he not used it in connection with the word "abuse." Because of that pairing, the image came off as being very off color.
Pull up your trousers, Baandje. The mommies here do not spank their kids.
Lisa
-----Original Message-----
From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Sent: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 13:02:21 -0400
Subject: RE: "agendas"
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Erase wrinkles without painful injections with Nexiderm SP.
Nexiderm SP is clinically proven to reduce wrinkles by 68% Click
here to get your 30-day free supply.
http://click.topica.com/caadOvHb1dkiGbOrq7Ba/Nexiderm
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, now see, I find this comment totally unacceptable. Totally. If I were
moderating this, I'd remove you for that in 10 seconds, Baandje. All your
spiritual shit is just that. I will probably be called humorless now but I
really can't believe you think you can say that to me. You have some nerve.
Diana
)I'd complain that life is unfair, but I don't want to sound like Serena
)in 2/3 of her posts. So I'll just take the abuse. Okay Momsy... my pants
)are down...
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Oreo's
Take our Nationwide Oreo Survey.
Receive a Free* Restaurant Gift card of your choice or a one year
supply of Oreo's. Hurry, limited time only!
http://click.topica.com/caadOvJb1dkiGbOrq7Bf/CookieSurvey
-------------------------------------------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New
threads are always welcome.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 14:17:11 -0400
From: motormama (motormouth punkAss.com)
Subject: Re: "agendas"
awww, see the two "sides" _can_ get along!
: )
On Aug 2, 2005, at 2:10 PM, baandje wrote:
)
) Diana: “You know my original post wasn’t really directed at you
) entirely
) anyway.”
)
) *
)
) I noticed that after I posted my remarks, actually. Must have been fog
) (here) that caused my over-reaction :-)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 14:00:18 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: "agendas"
M Rosso:
)who _are_ you bantjee, and what brought you to waldorf critics?
Baandje:
)A long-time WS teacher.
Maybe you should clarify long-time EX- Waldorf teacher?
trying to be helpful here, really -
Carry on,
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 16:11:02 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: a funny thing happened on the way to my inbox
Btw thank you Motormama :) sorry I flew past this earlier, squawking at
baandje . . .
Diana
)*big applauds* that was so well put, Diana - THANK YOU again for
)having the energy to stand up for our right to question the propaganda
)that the anthro-machine spews out.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 21:42:17 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: "agendas"
LOL! OK - but what I meant was - their mind was made up to *support*
Waldorf at one point - and then their mind *changed*. I'm not
suggesting it is likely to change *back* (G). I know mine won't without
a lot of changing on the Waldorf side too.
Pete
baandje wrote:
)
) Pete wrote: “The thing I keep trying to point out is that most “critics”
)
) have shown they have the ability or desire to change their minds.”
)
) *
)
) In the expressive words of iden: “Huh?”
)
) Three years of peeking in here has shown me one thing only, good buddy
) Pete: That the exact same people are arguing the exact same issues from
) the exact same perspectives and viewpoints.
)
) I mean, c’mon… ;-)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 21:50:51 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: "agendas"
It's cool... He's with me (G).
Pete
motormama wrote:
)
) who _are_ you bantjee, and what brought you to waldorf critics?
)
) curious
) m rosso
)
)
)
)
) On Aug 2, 2005, at 12:06 PM, baandje wrote:
)
) ) Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
) ) -------------------------------------------------------------------
) ) Is your computer freezing up or slowing down?
) ) Repair corrupt files and harmful errors - protect your PC
) ) Take a 2-minute PC health check-up at no charge!
) ) http://click.topica.com/caadOuab1dkiGbOB9Bda/PC PowerScan
) ) -------------------------------------------------------------------
) )
) ) Pete wrote: “The thing I keep trying to point out is that most
) ) “critics”
) ) have shown they have the ability or desire to change their minds.”
) )
) ) *
) )
) ) In the expressive words of iden: “Huh?”
) )
) ) Three years of peeking in here has shown me one thing only, good buddy
) ) Pete: That the exact same people are arguing the exact same issues from
) ) the exact same perspectives and viewpoints.
) )
) ) I mean, c’mon
) ) ;-)
) )
) ) Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
) ) -------------------------------------------------------------------
) ) Erase wrinkles without Botox! Nexiderm SP is clinically proven to
) ) reduce wrinkles by 68% Click here to get your 30-day free supply.
) ) http://click.topica.com/caadOvzb1dkiGbOB9Bdf/Nexiderm
) ) -------------------------------------------------------------------
) )
) ) ==^================================================================
) ) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
) ) basic. New threads are always welcome.
) )
) )
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 15:05:42 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: "agendas"
Baandje wrote:
)Three years of peeking in here has shown me one thing only, good buddy
)Pete: That the exact same people are arguing the exact same issues from
)the exact same perspectives and viewpoints.
)I mean, c'mon. ;-)
Not quite the exact same people but I'm not sure what your point is,
baandje? When there are demonstrable problems, should we not
at least attempt to discuss those problems - especially in one of the only
public forums available? This list and these people and these issues and
arguments are, imo, a *reaction* to Waldorf *action* (especially with
regards to inaccurate PR). Call it Waldorf's "karma" if it makes more sense.
Here: I've been involved in the peace and environmental movements for
decades now and I am guilty of arguing many of the same issues during all
those years. Guilty as charged and pleased to admit it. Sure, I listen to
other perspectives but I *do* feel a need to express my feelings on various
issues - from War to Waldorf. You think civil rights, for example, happened
over night? Or there were/are no arguments involved?
What's your point?
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:56:26 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Steiner and mad cow disease
Baandje wrote:
)I believe John’s point had to do mostly with the following quote from
)his post:
)
)“…the effect of an ox eating meat directly would be that he would
)secrete a large amount of uric acid salts. They would go towards the
)brain and the ox would go crazy. If we could perform this experiment, to
)feed pigeons to oxen, we would get an entire herd of mad oxen.”
)
)And I’m not sure what Peter is referring to when he says: “It is true
)that other kinds of “madness” do occur but they occur for reasons very
)different from those that Steiner claims to be the case.” My
)understanding is that many countries have banned meat by-products in
)cattle feed, due to the risk of mad cow disease.
My point is that mad cow disease does exist. It does not occur via the
mechanisms Steiner claims madness in cows would occur and no madness in cows
does occur via the mechanism Stiener claims.
See you, peter
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 01:08:54 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner and mad cow disease
I'd like to thank Nicole for posting the well known explanation for the
origin of mad cow disease. There was one comment I have taken from Nicole's
post. She wrote:
"I have yet to find anything of significance which is biologically accurate
in Steiner's writings and this example is no exception."
One might well replace "biologically" with "physically" or indeed
"scientifically".
See you, peter
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1836
-- Topica Digest --
Re: a funny thing happened on the way to my inbox
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Steiner and mad cow disease
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: "agendas"
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: "agendas"
By diana.winters verizon.net
Re: Steiner and mad cow disease
By feetapparel hotmail.com
From the WC-Watch
By hardorp gmx.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 19:09:38 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: a funny thing happened on the way to my inbox
Gabriel wrote:
)I have stopped reading alot of this list when it lands in my inbox but
)now and again I will look in. Some on this list say they have studied
)Steiner 10 and more years and find his "claims" absurd. I wonder why
)someone would devote so much time and energy in that effort. Such a
)person is clearly misguided. Others are simply scared on this list. They
)talk alot about how they want to "communicate" but really they are out
)looking for a fight. No matter what you write, they will claim the
)opposite. Even when you try to give a little and meet in the middle,
)they gang up and attack. They then deny the attack. Look at the
)exchanges this group promotes. I suppose for me, this group given all I
)have said is still facinating in that I have found a pool of people who
)read Steiner and are simply UNMOVED by his words. I am moved deeply by
)everything he writes so I am truely facinated to find the opposite is
)true for the members of this group. Ironic huh?
I don't see the irony (wrong word, perhaps?) but I do see (in this post) the
reason we hear the
label "cult" or "cult-like" so often associated with Anthroposophists. It
involves, imo, a deep dedication to
a cause (faith...?) and...(drum roll) ... paranoia. Writing in vague
generalities while completely ignoring questions seems to be a sign
of such behaviour. IMO.
Gabriel has previously posted opinions to this list - no problem. What I
find odd is a refusal to
engage in dialogue after such posts. During my recent discussion with
another list member, Gabriel popped in to say that my post involved "BS."
I asked about that a couple of times and have yet to read a response. As for
this latest post (above), are people coming out of a "movement" or
interested (even critical) in a"philosophy" or "religion" really "clearly
misguided?" Perhaps they/we are simply interested in the subject - just as
many cult experts have had previous experience in various cults. Of course,
many people have many interests - do theologians *need* to follow any
particular religion in order to study what they study? Etc. Are they
actually "scared." Does anyone think this is true? The evidence would seem
to point to the theory that those who refuse to engage in discussion while
hurling insults at others on the list would seem to be - for lack of a
better term - "scared."
Hey - I might very well have a little "BS" in my posts but if my accuser
will not show the location of the crap, I won't be able to "meet in the
middle." Being specific really helps with clear communication. Again, I
encourage Gabriel to discuss specific concerns or issues that she/he finds
truly fascinating.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 19:18:49 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Steiner and mad cow disease
Absolutely. Thanks to both of you for clarification. Are you trying to say
that just because one has faith in a particular ideology and its founder,
one still needs to think critically and research independently in order to
find some semblance of reality? I suppose just because one wants to believe
something, that well intentioned belief does not "make it so." Questioning
our faith is not always easy but I've never looked back to whence I came.
Life is too short and there are many questions to be asked in order to make
it meaningful. For me, anyway.
Thanks.
-Walden
Peter wrote:
)I'd like to thank Nicole for posting the well known explanation for the
)origin of mad cow disease. There was one comment I have taken from Nicole's
)post. She wrote:
)"I have yet to find anything of significance which is biologically accurate
)in Steiner's writings and this example is no exception."
)One might well replace "biologically" with "physically" or indeed
)"scientifically".
)See you, peter
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:25:49 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: "agendas"
LOL! Then make him behave (G)
Diana
)It's cool... He's with me (G).
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:38:13 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: "agendas"
Baandje wrote:
)Three years of peeking in here has shown me one thing only, good buddy
)Pete: That the exact same people are arguing the exact same issues from
)the exact same perspectives and viewpoints.
Yup - I have the "exact same perspective" I had on these things 3 years ago.
I will change this perspective when Waldorf schools start creakily making a
few changes in response to parental pressure. Once there start to be fewer
requests coming in for the survivors list, with people telling stories about
their left-handed children being switched, or icky stories about a blond
prince and a dark prince, or asking "Why is my child drawing pictures of
Atlantis?" then I'll have good anecdotal grounds for thinking things are
changing.
Indications of *systematic* change, however (rather than just an impression
of lessening in the inflow of horror stories), would make me much more
inclined to change my perspective. Actual written directives from Dornach,
for instance, that left-handedness is normal and not to be interfered with,
or Michaela Glockler saying so in a public lecture. I would have a *very*
positive attitude change if I heard that had happened.
If someone writes here to tell me that new teachers are learning modern
reading methods, I'll report this here, with accompanying attitude change,
very happily. And this stuff is not hard to document - new teachers, or
teachers presently in training - send in your reading lists!
If someone can show me a document from AWSNA issuing a policy against
corporal punishment of any sort in Waldorf schools, or threatening to
withhold use of the name "Waldorf" from a school with parental complaints of
this nature, I will have the biggest attitude change you've ever seen.
Oh - here's one more. If people like Paul Georghiades respond to criticism
of the delayed reading policy by no longer hiding the Dr. Seuss books, and
begin encouraging parents to help their children read rather than telling
pretty lies ("whole language") when they explain the reading program to
parents, and when Waldorf teachers are no longer confiscating the books in
kids' backpacks and shushing them for talking about their reading, I'll have
an even bigger attitude change for the better.
Personally, I *do* believe these things are going to happen, and are
happening. Change can be very slow, and it certainly doesn't all come about
as a result of criticism, but it's a piece of the picture.
(Anyway Baandje, that's why we go on boring you with our unchanging
attitudes.)
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 03:43:21 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner and mad cow disease
G'day Walden,
)
)Are you trying to say
)that just because one has faith in a particular ideology and its founder,
)one still needs to think critically and research independently in order to
)find some semblance of reality? I suppose just because one wants to believe
)something, that well intentioned belief does not "make it so." Questioning
)our faith is not always easy but I've never looked back to whence I came.
)Life is too short and there are many questions to be asked in order to make
)it meaningful. For me, anyway.
I think I was trying to say something much simpler than this. John Calkins
graciously translated some Steiner for us with the clear object of showing
that Steiner through his clairvoyance combined with his deep knowledge of
science (sarcasm alert) had PREDICTED the occurence of mad cow disease. Of
course if one has faith in Steiner, and a willingness to remain ignorant of
what was known then and has been learnt since, then one could easily fall
into the trap of believing Steiner had predicted something in advance. In
fact the foolish and shortsighted experiment of feeding animal scraps to
cows has demonstrated precisely the opposite. That Steiner was wrong in his
prediction of the mechanism by which such an outcome could occur. I'd like
to thank John for adding to the list of plainly incorrect science from
Steiner.
See you, peter
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 10:13:40 +0200
From: "Detlef Hardorp" (hardorp gmx.net)
Subject: From the WC-Watch
The following comes from
http://www.defendingsteiner.com/wc/
I post the following reaction to a quote from the PLANS website here for
information. Of course I know well enough that the PLANS web site is
totally immune to any reality checks, as is any propaganda website. Still,
I thought it fair to post this to the "critics" list, at the risk of it
being ridiculed with more unsubstantiated propaganda. D. Hp.
PLANS - accurate?
quoted from PLANS:
Parents should be told that although Waldorf bills itself as "arts-based"
education to attract holistically minded parents, creativity is actually
discouraged, and many of the "artistic" activities in Waldorf are more
accurately described as religious rituals, such as meditation on symbols
important in Anthroposophy. Children spend a lot of time copying the
teacher's work directly off the board. Fourth graders embroidering a purse
must all use the same pattern (often with esoteric symbols).
Some comments from DK (waldorf student, waldorf sibling, waldorf parent,
waldorf staff member, waldorf grandparent)
Like most of the material on the PLANS site, the above remarks are not
backed up by any citations or documentation.
To tackle one piece of the above nonsense: My daughter did cross-stitch in
the fourth grade along with the rest of her class. Every child did an
original design and had a choice of making a pillow or a backpack. I still
have the pillow almost 30 years later. It has a nice picture of a house,
some trees, grass with flowers and a blaze of sunlight in the corner. The
teacher didn’t make any suggestions at all about the design or the choice of
colors.
It is certainly possible that in at least one fourth grade at one or another
waldorf school, somewhere in the world, the teacher told the children what
to embroider...but I find it hard to believe that all of the disgruntled
parents who have passed through PLANS and the WC have all encountered this
same rigid teacher.
No creativity? At another school I know well, the eighth grade class spends
their craft periods learning to design and sew clothing. At the end of the
year they put on a fashion show. Every garment is different: different
fabric, different choice of design, different items of clothing. Dresses,
jackets, skirts, pants, shirts, blouses, everything from formal wear to
swimwear. The parents and children at that school would be quite surprised
to discover that creativity is supposedly discouraged at waldorf schools.
Esoteric symbols is another odd one. No examples are given (this is typical
of the material on the PLANS site, vague smears are always preferred over
facts that could be verified), but I suppose some of the symbols that turn
up in children’s notebooks could be interpreted as esoteric. The difficulty
here is how broadly you interpret the term. The sun, for example, has been
used as an esoteric symbol at various times and places. My daughter’s pillow
includes a sun in the design. Aha, proof positive! The moon, the signs of
the zodiac, angels, stars, flowers, symbols used for the elements and much
more could legitimately turn up in children’s work...but is the presence of
such symbols actually proof of occult indoctrination? Only for people who
are easily, very easily, convinced.
Years ago I had a friend who had spent many years studying the “New Age
Conspiracy.” Everything she encountered in life was neatly slotted into her
theories as evidence of this all-pervasive conspiracy. I think she managed
to cook dinner without obsessing about it, but it is hard to think of
anything else that was allowed to exist without being linked. The folks who
believe that waldorf is an evil conspiracy seem to operate the same way. Are
there stars in the sky in a picture in a second grader’s notebook? They must
be occult symbols, not simply an attempt to indicate that it is night in the
picture. And so on and on...
After over 40 years of exposure to waldorf education I can’t think of a
single incident of children being asked to meditate in class or out of
class. Teachers do sometimes ask children to be quiet...perhaps this is
being misinterpreted by a creative member of PLANS?
Reading about waldorf on the PLANS site is like a trip through the looking
glass! I need to practice believing six impossible things before breakfast.
After a couple of weeks of this profound spiritual exercise perhaps it will
stop sounding so silly.
One short paragraph. I didn't even cover every point. But every statement
(supposedly a careful critique of an aspect of waldorf education) is
distorted, exaggerated, and undocumented.
Posted by Deborah at 04:03 PM on the blog at
http://www.defendingsteiner.com/wc/
)From WC-Watch, which states:
"A lot of nonsense gets repeated on the WC list (that's "Waldorf Critics")
as simple fact. Yet those who challenge these erroneous statements are
frequently banned on the flimsiest of pretexts. This blog will examine the
facts in an unrestricted forum."
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1837
-- Topica Digest --
Re: From the WC-Watch
By dan dandugan.com
Re: False and defamatory statements?
By dan dandugan.com
Re: a funny thing happened on the way to my inbox
By dan dandugan.com
Re: From the WC-Watch
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 13:05:13 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: From the WC-Watch
Detlef Hardorp, you posted
)The following comes from
)
)http://www.defendingsteiner.com/wc/
)
)I post the following reaction to a quote from the PLANS website here for
)information. Of course I know well enough that the PLANS web site is
)totally immune to any reality checks, as is any propaganda website.
Really? I recall making corrections now and then.
)Still,
)I thought it fair to post this to the "critics" list, at the risk of it
)being ridiculed with more unsubstantiated propaganda. D. Hp.
)PLANS - accurate?
)quoted from PLANS:
Your disrespect for the subscribers is noted. At
this point in your post you switch to quoting the
defendingsteiner.com web site with no indication;
you're a professional communicator, Detlef, you
can do better than this!
) Parents should be told that although Waldorf bills itself as "arts-based"
)education to attract holistically minded parents, creativity is actually
)discouraged, and many of the "artistic" activities in Waldorf are more
)accurately described as religious rituals, such as meditation on symbols
)important in Anthroposophy. Children spend a lot of time copying the
)teacher's work directly off the board. Fourth graders embroidering a purse
)must all use the same pattern (often with esoteric symbols).
That paragraph is from the PLANS web site
(http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/concerns.html).
What follows is commentary by Deborah (DK) posted
to defendingsteiner:
)Some comments from DK (waldorf student, waldorf sibling, waldorf parent,
)waldorf staff member, waldorf grandparent)
)
)Like most of the material on the PLANS site, the above remarks are not
)backed up by any citations or documentation.
The claims made on Waldorf web sites are backed
up by citations and documentation?
)To tackle one piece of the above nonsense: My daughter did cross-stitch in
)the fourth grade along with the rest of her class. Every child did an
)original design and had a choice of making a pillow or a backpack. I still
)have the pillow almost 30 years later. It has a nice picture of a house,
)some trees, grass with flowers and a blaze of sunlight in the corner. The
)teacher didn’t make any suggestions at all about the design or the choice of
)colors.
OK, DK got us. Any categorical statement like
"fourth graders embroidering a purse must all use
the same pattern" is bound to be falsified by one
counter-example.
)It is certainly possible that in at least one fourth grade at one or another
)waldorf school, somewhere in the world, the teacher told the children what
)to embroider...but I find it hard to believe that all of the disgruntled
)parents who have passed through PLANS and the WC have all encountered this
)same rigid teacher.
Of course not. My son's teacher, for example,
wasn't rigid at all. But you know, Detlef, that
it's the rule in the early grades that all the
kids do the same art. This smoke screen is too
transparent.
How about adding the word "usually" before
"fourth graders"? Would that be sufficient
qualification?
)No creativity? At another school I know well, the eighth grade class spends
)their craft periods learning to design and sew clothing. At the end of the
)year they put on a fashion show. Every garment is different: different
)fabric, different choice of design, different items of clothing. Dresses,
)jackets, skirts, pants, shirts, blouses, everything from formal wear to
)swimwear. The parents and children at that school would be quite surprised
)to discover that creativity is supposedly discouraged at waldorf schools.
Now DK has switched to eighth grade, where,
everybody knows, some creativity -is- allowed.
)Esoteric symbols is another odd one. No examples are given (this is typical
)of the material on the PLANS site, vague smears are always preferred over
)facts that could be verified), but I suppose some of the symbols that turn
)up in children’s notebooks could be interpreted as esoteric.
Yeah, like all those analemma symbols!
)The difficulty
)here is how broadly you interpret the term. The sun, for example, has been
)used as an esoteric symbol at various times and places. My daughter’s pillow
)includes a sun in the design. Aha, proof positive! The moon, the signs of
)the zodiac, angels, stars, flowers, symbols used for the elements and much
)more could legitimately turn up in children’s work...but is the presence of
)such symbols actually proof of occult indoctrination? Only for people who
)are easily, very easily, convinced.
Even in public Waldorf schools, the art often
(note the qualification) features occultist
symbols. That's the Waldorf culture.
)Years ago I had a friend who had spent many years studying the “New Age
)Conspiracy.” Everything she encountered in life was neatly slotted into her
)theories as evidence of this all-pervasive conspiracy. I think she managed
)to cook dinner without obsessing about it, but it is hard to think of
)anything else that was allowed to exist without being linked. The folks who
)believe that waldorf is an evil conspiracy seem to operate the same way. Are
)there stars in the sky in a picture in a second grader’s notebook? They must
)be occult symbols, not simply an attempt to indicate that it is night in the
)picture. And so on and on...
I agree, paranoia feeds on confirmatory evidence,
often trivial. But that doesn't mean any observed
pattern like the use of occultist symbols in
Waldorf student art isn't meaningful.
)After over 40 years of exposure to waldorf education I can’t think of a
)single incident of children being asked to meditate in class or out of
)class. Teachers do sometimes ask children to be quiet...perhaps this is
)being misinterpreted by a creative member of PLANS?
Deborah doesn't realize what the endless
wet-on-wet painting exercises were for.
)Reading about waldorf on the PLANS site is like a trip through the looking
)glass! I need to practice believing six impossible things before breakfast.
)After a couple of weeks of this profound spiritual exercise perhaps it will
)stop sounding so silly.
)
)One short paragraph. I didn't even cover every point. But every statement
)(supposedly a careful critique of an aspect of waldorf education) is
)distorted, exaggerated, and undocumented.
)
)Posted by Deborah at 04:03 PM on the blog at
)http://www.defendingsteiner.com/wc/
Deborah is welcome to make her points in person, here.
)From WC-Watch, which states:
)
)"A lot of nonsense gets repeated on the WC list (that's "Waldorf Critics")
)as simple fact. Yet those who challenge these erroneous statements are
)frequently banned on the flimsiest of pretexts.
Talk about exaggeration! Banning from
waldorf-critics is a rare and extreme remedy
that's only applied after repeated warnings and
suspensions for violation of clearly stated rules.
)This blog will examine the
)facts in an unrestricted forum."
If that's true I welcome it.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 12:21:09 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: False and defamatory statements?
Serena Blaue, you wrote,
)It's just as I thought: you want me to waste my time re-inventing the wheel
)(as is your wont) but you won't bother to go to the websites that point out
)the defamatory and untrue statements by PLANS. et al. I'm not interested
)in doing your work for you, Walden. Either you bother to have a look and
)see for yourself or you don't. That's your decision.
Serena, you made a claim, you have to back it up. If you think
something on the PLANS web site is false, tell us what it is, and
we'll discuss it. Pointing us to somebody else's opinions won't cut
it.
)Of course, you know
)that the creators of those websites can argue circles around you, I guess
)that's good enough of a reason to stay away.
I don't know that. At least one of the creators of those web sites,
Sune Nordwall, participated here until he had to be banned for ad
hominem arguments. The others are welcome to come to this public
forum and make their case.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 12:26:06 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: a funny thing happened on the way to my inbox
Gabriel, you wrote,
)I have stopped reading alot of this list when it lands in my inbox but
)now and again I will look in.
Disrespect noted.
)Some on this list say they have studied
)Steiner 10 and more years and find his "claims" absurd. I wonder why
)someone would devote so much time and energy in that effort. Such a
)person is clearly misguided.
Gabriel, this is something that the defenders of Anthroposophy have a
very hard time with. You always want to talk about the -people- here,
but not the issues. That's called an ad hominem argument, known as a
logical fallacy since the middle ages.
)Others are simply scared on this list. They
)talk alot about how they want to "communicate" but really they are out
)looking for a fight. No matter what you write, they will claim the
)opposite. Even when you try to give a little and meet in the middle,
)they gang up and attack. They then deny the attack. Look at the
)exchanges this group promotes. I suppose for me, this group given all I
)have said is still facinating in that I have found a pool of people who
)read Steiner and are simply UNMOVED by his words. I am moved deeply by
)everything he writes so I am truely facinated to find the opposite is
)true for the members of this group. Ironic huh?
The members of this group include people who support Anthroposophy
and people who criticize it, in case you haven't noticed.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 18:16:18 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: From the WC-Watch
Hi Detlef and welcome.
Detlef wrote:
)I post the following reaction to a quote from the PLANS website here for
)information. Of course I know well enough that the PLANS web site is
)totally immune to any reality checks, as is any propaganda website.
Demonstrably incorrect. I have made suggestions in the past and the folks at
PLANS have made changes based on those suggestions.
)Still, I thought it fair to post this to the "critics" list, at the risk of
it
)being ridiculed with more unsubstantiated propaganda. D. Hp.
)PLANS - accurate?quoted from PLANS:
Just like Serena before you, why don't *you* post the "unsubstantiated
propaganda" at the PLANS site? Claim = Responsibility to substantiate the
claim. Detlef then lifted a snippet from another website ostensibly showing,
I suppose, the "unsubstantiated propaganda."
It seems this boils down to the matter of a waldorf critic somewhere writing
about embroidery on a purse. Yes, it looks like the writer of the piece at
the PLANS site should have inserted the word "often" or "sometimes" or "in
my experience" in one sentence. I'll agree with Detlef on that one.
And this is it? This is the propaganda???
)From the Detlef link:
)No creativity? At another school I know well, the eighth grade class spends
)their craft periods learning to design and sew clothing. At the end of the
)year they put on a fashion show. Every garment is different: different
)fabric, different choice of design, different items of clothing. Dresses,
)jackets, skirts, pants, shirts, blouses, everything from formal wear to
)swimwear. The parents and children at that school would be quite surprised
)to discover that creativity is supposedly discouraged at waldorf schools.
Grade 8 = nearing that magical age of 14 whereby Waldorf students are
encouraged to ask questions and think as individuals. The early years are
not at all like that and this is no secret in Waldorf circles - especially
teachers. The educational model is designed that way and if
Main Lesson Books from children in the early grades in a Waldorf School show
that the teacher encouraged individual thoughts
and/or creativity, I would suggest the teacher find a Waldorf trained
mentor. I doubt there is much debate on that angle.
Please correct me if things have changed in the last little while.
)Esoteric symbols is another odd one. No examples are given (this is typical
)of the material on the PLANS site, vague smears are always preferred over
)facts that could be verified), but I suppose some of the symbols that turn
)up in children's notebooks could be interpreted as esoteric. The difficulty
)here is how broadly you interpret the term. The sun, for example, has been
)used as an esoteric symbol at various times and places. My daughter's
pillow
)includes a sun in the design. Aha, proof positive! The moon, the signs of
)the zodiac, angels, stars, flowers, symbols used for the elements and much
)more could legitimately turn up in children's work...but is the presence of
)such symbols actually proof of occult indoctrination? Only for people who
)are easily, very easily, convinced.
Esoteric symbols in Waldorf are not at all "odd." I don't know why they
would even be considered "odd?"
No conspiracy theory needed with this one. Simply have a look at art in
Waldorf schools - some of it is beautiful, btw.
And much of it would be (and should be) considered "esoteric."
While I think Waldorf promoters would be wise to explain this to parents
(and children), it is certainly not one of the best kept secrets. Ex-Waldorf
parent Sharon Lombard sent information to the PLANS site some time ago with
regards to Waldorf and Art. Be sure to link to the photos and quotes
section, as well. Not a "vague smear" and very informative:
http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/lombardART.html
Better still, there is a very informative book on the esoteric background of
Waldorf Education - "oddly" enough, the book has those words right there in
the title. I doubt the author is attempting to smear the movement. See:
"Esoteric Background of Waldorf Education - The Cosmic Christ Impulse" by
R. Querido
)Years ago I had a friend who had spent many years studying the "New Age
)Conspiracy." Everything she encountered in life was neatly slotted into her
)theories as evidence of this all-pervasive conspiracy. I think she managed
)to cook dinner without obsessing about it, but it is hard to think of
)anything else that was allowed to exist without being linked. The folks who
)believe that waldorf is an evil conspiracy seem to operate the same way.
Are
)there stars in the sky in a picture in a second grader's notebook? They
must
)be occult symbols, not simply an attempt to indicate that it is night in
the
)picture. And so on and on...
LOL - this is cute. Ironic, even. (Gabriel - listen up (g)) Trying to
disprove something Waldorf teacher training tries to prove. And then the bit
about "evil conspiracies...." Hand up folks - which Waldorf critics "believe
that waldorf is an evil conspiracy?" I wonder if the person who wrote this
(above) actually understands the esoteric nature of Waldorf education? It's
a spiritual exercise - respected Anthroposophic ex-teacher of Waldorf
teachers calls it a "religious experience."
Sun and stars and various other symbolism is an important part of that
experience. And why not? It's Waldorf education and based on Anthroposophy.
Why pretend otherwise? This was a large part of my children's Waldorf
education. I clearly remember, for example, standing beside a well respected
(and kind, btw) Anthroposophic teacher as she helped a 6 year old boy stand
and "close your eyes and spread your arms and legs out wide (star shape) and
remember when you were a star in heaven...."
)From WC-Watch, which states:
)"A lot of nonsense gets repeated on the WC list (that's "Waldorf Critics")
)as simple fact. Yet those who challenge these erroneous statements are
)frequently banned on the flimsiest of pretexts. This blog will examine the
)facts in an unrestricted forum."
Yes, there is a lot of nonsense at the WC list. And elsewhere, it seems (I
just discovered the WC-Watch. Amazing!) ) I hope I have helped to clear up
some of the nonsense by responding to one such post here.
-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 1838
-- Topica Digest --
RE: From the WC-Watch
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
Re: From the WC-Watch
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: From the WC-Watch
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
Re: From the WC-Watch
By ldenike aol.com
RE: From the WC-Watch
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
Re: From the WC-Watch
By ldenike aol.com
Fwd: Sharon's family's story
By ldenike aol.com
Re: From the WC-Watch
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: From the WC-Watch
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
PLANS - accurate? NOT! cont'd
By SerenaBlaue aol.com
Re: PLANS - accurate? NOT! cont'd
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 15:58:27 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: From the WC-Watch
Walden wrote: “Ex-Waldorf parent Sharon Lombard sent information to the
PLANS site some time ago with regards to Waldorf and Art. Be sure to
link to the photos and quotes:
And from the link/article he provided:
“Sharon: “Colors heal at Waldorf schools. Take a look at the magic color
exercises imposed on my daughter at her Waldorf school…
“Audrey E. McAllen: “The colours which the child uses for the expression
of the harmonious connection with his body before the change of teeth
are blue and yellow; out of these colours the soul weaves its connection
with the hereditary body and transforms it.
“Audrey McAllen: "I have found these colour exercises of great help to
the pupils to whom they have been given. They work as a stimulus to
creativity…
“Sharon here: I will post Steiner's explanation of the supposed effect
of vermilion red on the soul sometime soon!!!”
*
So Sharon’s issue is that color ‘heals’ and ‘creates harmony’. Yes, no
wonder she resented the fact these exercises were “imposed” on her
child. I mean, who wants a healed and harmonious kid? ;-) And no wonder
she so breathlessly desires to inform everyone with regards to Steiner’s
vermillion soul-observations. Terribly shocking and dangerous stuff no
doubt.
The only issue in all this – and I’ve stated this before, sure – is that
Steiner-Waldorf teachers for the most part do not reveal these realities
to parents. Past that, you’ve got a forum here devoted to making other
people’s beliefs and lifestyle choices look silly, stupid and kooky.
And Walden, you’re trying (in that other thread) to make a case for
“When there are demonstrable problems, should we not at least attempt to
discuss those problems…?” There are no demonstrable problems here,
sorry. A bunch of people believe one thing, and a bunch of people
believe another. Last time I looked, that was called ‘life’ ;-)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 10:04:56 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: From the WC-Watch
Baandje wrote:
)So Sharon's issue is that color 'heals' and 'creates harmony'. Yes, no
)wonder she resented the fact these exercises were "imposed" on her
)child. I mean, who wants a healed and harmonious kid? ;-) And no wonder
)she so breathlessly desires to inform everyone with regards to Steiner's
)vermillion soul-observations. Terribly shocking and dangerous stuff no
)doubt.
Good grief, baandje - talk about a stretch! No, Sharon's issue is not that
color heals and creates harmony. Did you read what she wrote?!
)The only issue in all this - and I've stated this before, sure - is that
)Steiner-Waldorf teachers for the most part do not reveal these realities
)to parents. Past that, you've got a forum here devoted to making other
)people's beliefs and lifestyle choices look silly, stupid and kooky.
Oh, where to begin...? "A forum" devoted to"...Etc. It's an email discussion
list, baandje. Lots of people with different ideas and experiences. And
before this bit you *yourself* say that SW teachers "for the most part do
not reveal these realities to parents." How many SW teachers have you
interviewed to arrive at your conclusions? Or is this simply what your
experience leads you to believe? In any case, in your *opinion,* this is
"the only issue in all this." Fine. Can you accept that perhaps other people
have seen patterns in Waldorf (other than that which you believe to be the
"only issue") that they find disturbing/upsetting - maybe even patterns that
have affected their own children negatively? Maybe - just maybe - these
patterns have something to do with what you see as the "only issue...?"
BTW, I have not seen much devotion here (from anyone) to judging people's
beliefs and lifestyle choices. The "beliefs" are what we need to discuss,
imo, in order for people to ascertain whether or not those beliefs might
become their "lifestyle choice." But that takes us back to your "only
issue," does it not??
)And Walden, you're trying (in that other thread) to make a case for
)"When there are demonstrable problems, should we not at least attempt to
)discuss those problems.?" There are no demonstrable problems here,
)sorry.
Wow. A classic case of Hollanditus. Listen: You *just* wrote of the problem,
baandje. Remember - the "only issue???" Personally, I think there are other
problems but I think they stem from your concern. And based on our combined
experience and research, we are able to demonstrate the reality of
misleading or inaccurate information coming from those who promote Waldorf
schools - from (not all) teachers to Waldorf web sites and beyond. This is a
problem and it is demonstrable. By your own account. And mine.
)A bunch of people believe one thing, and a bunch of people
)believe another. Last time I looked, that was called 'life' ;-)
And a bunch of kids caught in the middle. And too many parents (and
ex-students/teachers) at the Waldorf Survivors list and beyond. Maybe
needless pain and confusion should be the "only issue?"
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 17:35:08 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: From the WC-Watch
Walden wrote: “And based on our combined experience and research, we are
able to demonstrate the reality of misleading or inaccurate information
coming from those who promote Waldorf schools - from (not all) teachers
to Waldorf web sites and beyond. This is a problem and it is
demonstrable. By your own account. And mine.”
*
BTW: I’m aware Sharon/the author of that article doesn’t believe in the
healing affects of color. It’s the fact she turns such an innocuous idea
into something so terrible and shocking or what have you. That was my
point.
I agree there are many problems in Waldorf schools. But again, with the
exception of the disclosure issue, those problems are Waldorf problems,
not Waldorf Critics’ problems. Waldorf schools are perfectly free to run
their schools in exactly the sort of dysfunctional manner they often do
– that’s their right, just like it’s the right of any organization or
business to run things the way they see fit. The fact that others might
have a problem with that really means nothing. And at that point the
rest becomes nit-picky gossip IMO. And the “children and families are
hurt” argument is empty emotionalism, again IMO. People are free to
leave the school at any time.
But this is one of those ever-revolving arguments. I know you and others
feel you’re providing some sort of service – ‘informing the public’,
etc. And that’s all that really counts – feeling like you’re doing
something important and productive.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 14:25:02 -0400
From: ldenike aol.com
Subject: Re: From the WC-Watch
Watch your step, baandje.
Sharon's lovely young daughter became gravely ill while attending a Waldorf school and was apparently treated, ineffectually, by a curative eurythmist and various Anthro practitioners, one of whom finally counseled the parents to "get ready for death" and one of which apparently told them that the best thing they could do was to have the child color with orange and earth-toned beeswax crayons at dusk. (They were told that the father's deceased mother was hovering about in the spirit world and wanted to communicate with them through their very ill daughter.)
Had Sharon not snapped out of the daze she was in and not gotten her child to an evidence-based medical center, who knows what might have happened?
So don't joke about Sharon not wanting a "healed' child. How dare you! You have NO idea what this family went through, and how close that child came to being beyond the point of no return under the supposedly healing and "harmonious" care of Waldorf teachers, one of whom (if memory serves me) suggested the child would do well to skip rope outside in the Wisconsin winter to stimulate her appetite.
Baandje, you don't know what you are talking about.
Lisa
-----Original Message-----
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Sent: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 15:58:27 +0000
Subject: RE: From the WC-Watch
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Is your computer freezing up or slowing down?
Repair corrupt files and harmful errors - protect your PC
Take a 2-minute PC health check-up at no charge!
http://click.topica.com/caadOuab1dkiGbOrq7Ba/PC PowerScan
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Walden wrote: "Ex-Waldorf parent Sharon Lombard sent information to the
PLANS site some time ago with regards to Waldorf and Art. Be sure to
link to the photos and quotes:
And from the link/article he provided:
"Sharon: "Colors heal at Waldorf schools. Take a look at the magic color
exercises imposed on my daughter at her Waldorf school.
"Audrey E. McAllen: "The colours which the child uses for the expression
of the harmonious connection with his body before the change of teeth
are blue and yellow; out of these colours the soul weaves its connection
with the hereditary body and transforms it.
"Audrey McAllen: "I have found these colour exercises of great help to
the pupils to whom they have been given. They work as a stimulus to
creati