return to WCA Archive Index
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Some more info on Anthroposophy and Waldorf Education in Australia
By diana.winters verizon.net
My posts
By diana.winters verizon.net
Steiner and scientific research
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Michaela Glockler: War of All, handling mothers, vaccination,
pedago
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Michaela Glockler: War of All
By pstaud hotmail.com
glenaeon's teacher training info
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Michaela Glockler: War of All
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Some more info on Anthroposophy and Waldorf Education in Australia
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Michaela Glockler: War of All, handling mothers, vaccination,
pedago
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Some more info on Anthroposophy and Waldorf Education in Australia
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: Some more info on Anthroposophy and Waldorf Education in Australia
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
re-post on Glockler and War of All
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Some more info on Anthroposophy and Waldorf Education in
Australia
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Michaela Glockler: War of All, handling mothers, vaccination, pedago
By ldenike aol.com
RE: Michaela Glockler: War of All, handling mothers, vaccination,
pedago
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Some more info on Anthroposophy and Waldorf Education in Australia
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: Some more info on Anthroposophy and Waldorf Education in Australia
By feetapparel hotmail.com
homeopathic satisfaction
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: My posts
By ldenike aol.com
Maybe it's my own email -
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: race development and epochs
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: What a joke.............old business
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:03:21 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Some more info on Anthroposophy and Waldorf Education in Australia
Walden to Keith:
)Do you *really* believe the way to address this problem is for *other*
)schools (and society) to clean up their act - first? Can "bad" behavior by
)one school (movement) be justified by pointing to perceived "bad" behaviour
)in other schools? Why not simply take the moral high road and let the chips
)fall where they fall? Is Waldorf/Anthroposophy not about Social Renewal?
Great point. Why don't they lead the way? Don't they already *claim* to be
leading the way forward for humanity?
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 15:46:00 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: My posts
. . . again are showing up out of order, hours, or sometimes days, after I
send them. Apologies if I appear to be picking up the wrong end of the stick
on some of these conversations, or beating old topics to death. (I know,
some of you think that's all I do anyway.)
Diana
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 13:22:04 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Steiner and scientific research
Charlie wrote:
)Steiners knowledge of the sciences was broad and deep.
)He discussed mathematics, physics, chemistry, physiology, education,
)philosophy, etc. with a great depth of understanding.
)To confused the fact that he disagreed with much of what he had learned
)with ignorance is the same as saying that somebody who doesn't practice
)Anthroposophy must not know anything about it.
It is Charlie who is confused here. Steiner did not merely "disagree with
much of what he had learned" in the natural sciences. He rejected both the
methods and the findings of the science of his day, even while claiming the
mantle of science for his own teachings. He often denounced what he called
the "scientific attitude", and sometimes he abjured "the whole of modern
science" as an integral part of "the Ahrimanic deception". At other times he
contrasted "modern scientific thought" unfavorably with thinking based on
"the spirit". Einstein and Darwin were two of his favorite targets for
ridicule.
By the way, the notion of Steiner's "ignorance" of science was not at issue
in this exchange, contrary to Charlie's claim (the term does not appear in
Pete's post, to which Charlie is ostensibly replying). The assertion under
dispute was that Steiner's "scientific research into the natural world led
to his founding the General Anthroposophical Society in Dornach,
Switzerland." I recommend that Charlie re-read both posts.
Meanwhile, Keith wrote:
)The statement isn't true from a Logical Positivist standpoint: they have
)one view of science, Steiner had another view.
I encourage Keith to name a single living scientist who is a Logical
Positivist.
)Science is a large set of ideas and hypotheses, some have which have
)been proven with evidence, and others which haven't.
Yep. That's why Steiner's anthroposophical endeavors were not science. He
did not offer hypotheses, and he did not prove his claims with evidence. The
very point of his "occult science" is to direct attention toward precisely
those phenomena that are inaccessible to sensory perception and outside of
the purview of scientific research.
)...for several years during the period he was a member of the
)Theosophical Society he conducted (or continued to conduct) his research
)into the Occult and the spiritual world and developed ideas about social
)issues. Whether it was scientific research according to standard modern
)theories or not, it was still research, writing and contemplation, and
)exposure to groups via his lectures (which means interaction with other
)minds and personalities and ideas).
The PR blurb from the Waldorf school did not say that Steiner engaged in
occult research. It said he engaged in scientific research into the natural
world.
)He based the society on research - of course he did. He couldn't write
)anything about the occult that would have real relevance to actual
)occult practice unless he did read and think about it. We can see he has
)done extensive reading on that field.
Steiner denied this. He claimed that his descriptions of spiritual and
supernatural realities came directly from his own clairvoyant powers.
)He also spoke and wrote about science and different fields within it. As
)a student in college he would been required to do some reading on the
)subjects he was taught, which included maths and science, and of course
)received information via lectures and tackling tasks utilising this
)knowledge as a student.
What does that have to do with conducting scientific research? And what
connection are you drawing between his college studies and his much later
anthroposophical phase?
)He based the Society on philosophical tenets, which incorporated ideas
) about science and the occult.
Yes indeed. Many of those ideas were explicitly opposed to scientific
research into the natural world. They were presented as an alternative to
scientific research into the natural world, an alternative premised on
occult and supernatural procedures.
)While it would be better if the
)statement about his status on science was more precise, it is still
)valid to talk about him as a philosopher on science to the extent he
)delved into it. Just look at the likes of Pythagorus, Plato, Aristotle,
)Rene Descartes, Frederich Neitsczhe, Umberto Eco, Jascques Derrida, and
)Paul Davies: these people contemplate(-d) the meaning, nature and role
)of science and scientific theory and it's applicability to the real
)world. They have valid and interesting things to say about science and
)the nature of knowledge. So it's valid in my view to cite someone who
)talked about science as a matter of some interest as someone involved
)with using science or conducted research on that topic.
That would apply to every public figure of the last century and a half. By
this logic, critics of feminism who talk alot about feminism are actually
feminists. Opponents of the death penalty are actually supporters of the
death penalty because they talk about it as a matter of some interest and
engage in research on the topic. And Nietzsche and Derrida have belatedly
become practitioners of scientific research into the natural world. Heck,
why not call Steiner a leading materialist? After all, he talked about it as
a matter of great interest and conducted lots of research on the topic. And
come to think of it, this standard magically turns all of anthroposophy's
critics into anthroposophists. So much for accuracy and accountability in
public discourse.
Greetings,
Peter Staudenmaier
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 09:39:11 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Michaela Glockler: War of All, handling mothers, vaccination,
pedago
) Dan quoted Michaela Glockler:
)
)
) "Q: Who comes first - the mother or the child?
)
) "MG: As care givers, of course, our first concern
) is the child. We must "take on" the mother as
) well and not try to educate her. If we do, we
) only increase her guilty conscience. We must give
) her joy in her child, tell her about small,
) wonderful experiences with her child and make her
) happy about him. If we succeed in making her so
) happy about him that she gives up her job, so as
) not to miss being with him, then we have been
) really successful! If she herself feels confident
) enough to ask questions, we can then answer
) these. The most important thing is to support her
) in feeling she is a good mother. We must make the
) mother happy, as the child thrives on joy!"
I wrote:
) Boy, if this isn't chilling, if this doesn't give prospective parents
) qualms
Lemuria, sarcastically:
)Positively mortifying!!!
)Can you imagine trying to help a new mother to stay home with her baby a
)to be confident and joyful?
)What has gotten into that crazy woman?
)These Anthros are NUTS!
Lemuria, it's absolutely bone chilling. The tone is pure Stepford Wife. I
understand that you cannot hear the tone, because you have been immersed in
this for years. It is condescending, patronizing, smug and really, quite
revolting, to someone *outside* this cult that believes it knows best for
everyone. It quite honestly ought to make a prospective parent take their
child and run for the hills. The warning signs are all over the place.
I will try, just for a minute. Why do these people assume the mother has a
guilty conscience? If she "feels confident enough to ask questions"???? What
if she doesn't have any questions she wants to hear your answers to? That
means she is not self-confident? A self-respecting woman (or man) today
feels first like just saying "Fuck you" to this stuff. The implication that
these people are actually *trying to make someone give up a job* - they are
admitting to each other that this is their unspoken agenda but they will
have to trick her into it - is just appalling.
I try to resist the "brainwashing" and "mind control" type terminology, as
it is only in what I might call "extreme" anthroposophy, but Michaela
Glockler is way, way, way out there. She writes treatises on mind control
and social control and her mindset is markedly fascist.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 13:32:35 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Michaela Glockler: War of All
Dan provided the following passage from an interview with Michaela Glockler
published in the Spring/Summer 1999 issue of Gateways, the Newsletter of the
Waldorf Early Childhood Association of North America (issue # 36):
)http://www.waldorflibrary.org/Journal_Articles/GW3603.pdf
)
)From the question period:
)
)"Q: What do you mean "war inside/war outside"?
)
)"MG: I am glad that you ask this question. We are at the end of the first
)third of the three periods of development of the consciousness soul.
)Through the deed of Golgotha, the death and resurrection of the Christ, man
)was for the first time able to carry his I consciousness through the death
)experience, and this I development continues. Christ did not only bring
)peace, but also the strengthening of the I experience, and along with this
)comes egoism. (Gospel of St. Luke, Chapter 12) In our epoch the struggle is
)with evil. The old traditions carry us no longer, and we must therefore
)develop our higher ego qualities. This situation will last into the seventh
)Post Atlantaen epoch (about 7,700 A.D.), where it will be a war of all
)against all. Waldorf education is based on altruism and the developing of
)general human qualities. These are necessary as a counter balance to the
)development of individualism.
I think this is a good example of the unacknowledged influence of
anthroposophical race theory within the contemporary Waldorf movement.
Though she does not mention it in the interview, the periods of development
that Glockler invokes here are delineated along racial and ethnic lines. The
scheme of epochs in Steiner's cosmological vision is explicitly racialized.
And the anthroposophical notion of a coming War of All against All is also
squarely based on racial categories. For Steiner, the development of higher
qualities depends on the expulsion and destruction of racially marked lower
forms and the concomitant advance of a small select group, those who will
form the nucleus of the future epoch.
The "War of All against All" is a major theme of Steiner's book *The
Apocalypse of St. John* (Anthroposophical Publishing Company, London, 1958).
Here he explains that the coming War will divide humanity into "the good
race" and "the evil race", with "those who refuse to receive the
Christ-principle" ending up in the catgeory of racially evil unfortunates
(p. 186; see also p. 92). Steiner further declares: "The most capable must
be chosen and prepared to live beyond the period of the great War of All
against All when men will confront those who bear in their countenances the
sign of evil" (p. 142). These more advanced types are in turn recognizable
as those who have embraced anthroposophy: "The souls now living in bodies
which have the heart to hear and feel Anthroposophy, are now preparing
themselves to live in bodies in the future in which power will be given them
to serve their fellow creatures" (p. 206). Glockler's remarks refer to this
process of spiritual eugenics, without disclosing its racial contours.
According to Steiner, the War of All against All will separate the racial
wheat from chaff, with the lower racial forms remaining bound to their
animal nature, while the higher racial forms take part in the coming
marriage of intellect and spirit:
"All those will participate in this marriage who take into themselves the
impulse of Christ Jesus and they will form the great brotherhood which will
survive the great War, which will experience
enmity and persecution, but will provide the foundation for the good race.
After this great War has brought out the animal nature in those who have
remained in the old forms, the good race will arise, and this race will
carry over into the future that which is to be the spiritually elevated
culture in that future epoch." (p. 135)
Steiner emphasizes that this crucial difference between the race of good and
the race of evil will be manifested physically "in the epoch following the
great War of All against All":
"Upon the forehead and in the whole physiognomy it will be written whether
the person is good or evil. He will show in his face what is contained in
his inmost soul. What a man has developed within himself, whether he has
exercised good or evil impulses, will be written on his forehead. After the
great War of All against All there will be two kinds of human beings. Those
who had previously tried to follow the call to the spiritual life, who
cultivated the spiritualizing and ennobling of their inner spiritual life,
will show this inward life on their faces and express it in their gestures
and the movements of their hands. And those who have turned away from the
spiritual life, represented by the community of Laodicea, who were lukewarm,
neither warm nor cold, will pass into the following epoch as those who
retard human evolution, who preserve the backward forces of evolution which
have been left behind. They will show the evil passions, impulses and
instincts hostile to the spiritual in an ugly, unintelligent, evil-looking
countenance. In their gestures and hand-movements, in everything they do,
they will present an outer image of the ugliness in their soul. Just as
humanity has separated into races and communities, in the future it will
divide into two great streams, the good and the evil. And what is in their
souls will be outwardly manifest, they will no longer be able to hide it."
(p. 82)
Steiner continues:
"Man still has something within him which must separate itself from the
universal evolution as a descending branch, as the other animal forms have
done. That which man has within him as tendency to good and evil, to
cleverness and stupidity, to beauty and ugliness, represents the possibility
of an upward progress or a remaining behind. Just as the animal form has
developed out of progressing humanity, so will the race of evil with the
horrible faces develop out of it as it progresses towards spirituality and
reaches the later goal of humanity. In the future there will not only be the
animal forms which are the incarnated images of human passions, but there
will also be a race in which will live what man now hides within him as a
portion of evil, which today he can still conceal but which later will be
manifest." (p. 84)
According to Steiner, cosmic evolution functions in this way so that "that
might be destroyed which is not worthy to take part in the ascent of
humanity." (p. 89) This is, indeed, what makes spiritual progress possible:
"Humanity has risen by throwing out the lower forms in order to purify
itself and it will rise still higher by separating another kingdom of
nature, the kingdom of the evil race. Thus mankind rises upward." (p. 84)
These are the conclusions that are built into Glockler's comments, but which
she fails to state outright.
Passages such as these are by no means the only anthroposophical source on
the coming racial war that will distinguish good people from evil people.
Consider Steiner's musings on "the mission of white humanity" and his
insistence that "the transition from the fifth culture epoch to the sixth
will bring about a violent struggle of the white and yellow races in the
most varied domains." Here is an anthroposophist translation of that text;
note how Glockler's words echo these statements by Steiner:
"And what is the characteristic that must particularly develop in this fifth
culture-epoch? It is one that was kindled through the Mystery of Golgotha,
namely that spiritual impulses have been led down right into the directly
physically-human, that as it were the flesh must be laid hold of by the
spirit. It has not yet happened. It will not happen till Spiritual Science
has one day spread more widely over the earth and many more men bring it to
expression in direct life, until, one could say, the spirit comes to
expression in every movement of hand, of finger, in the most everyday
affairs. But it was for the sake of bringing down the spiritual impulse that
Christ became flesh in a human body. And the characteristic of the mission
of white humanity in general is to carry down the spirit, to impregnate the
flesh with the spirit. Man has his white skin that the spirit may work in
the skin when it descends to the physical plane. The task of our fifth
culture-epoch, prepared through the preceding four epochs, is to make the
outer physical body a shrine for the spirit. We must acquaint ourselves with
those cultural impluses which show the tendency to bring the spirit into the
flesh, into everyday matters. When we quite recognise this, then we shall
also be clear that where the spirit has still to work as spirit, where in a
certain way it has to stay behind in its development -- because in our time
it should descend into the flesh -- where it stays behind, takes a demonic
character and does not completely permeate the flesh, there the white skin
does not appear. Atavistic forces are present which do not let the spirit
come into complete harmony with the flesh.
In the sixth post-Atlantean Culture epoch the task will be to know the
spirit as something hovering in the surroundings, to recognise the spirit
more in the elemental world, because that epoch must prepare the knowledge
of the spirit in the physical environment. That could not easily come about
if ancient atavistic forces were not preserved which recognise the spirit in
its purely elemental life. But these things do not enter the world without
the most violent struggles. White humanity is still on the way to take the
spirit more and more deeply into its own being. Yellow humanity is on the
way to conserve that age in which the spirit is held away from the body, is
sought purely outside the human physical organisation. This makes it
inevitable that the transition from the fifth culture epoch to the sixth
will will bring about a violent struggle of the white and yellow races in
the most varied domains. What precedes these struggles will occupy
world-history up to the decisive events of the great contests between the
white world and the coloured world."
(Rudolf Steiner, "The Christ-Impulse as Bearer of the Union of the Spiritual
and the Bodily", typoscript "For Members of the Anthroposophical Society",
translated by M. Cotterell; originally published in German, Dornach 1944,
now in Rudolf Steiner, Die geistigen Hintergründe des Ersten Weltkrieges,
Dornach 1974, pp. 37-38)
Since it ties into a question recently posed by Keith, in a subsequent post
I will also quote a lengthy passage from chapter four of The Apocalypse of
St. John on race-development, epochs, and initiation. [This is the post that
came through yesterday.]
Peter Staudenmaier
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:49:33 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: glenaeon's teacher training info
Let's just nail this. This pisses me off so much, these unbelievable lies.
*This* is what the info. at the Glenaeon web site says about the teachers,
in toto (it was not necessary to go poring over the course modules at
Parsifal, as it is all right here). There is no claim that they "encourage"
their teachers to get a professional teaching certificate, as Keith said. It
is clear that less than a bachelor's is required. I could go on and on, as
it is clear to me what the nonsense about "the norm" and the teachers who
hold "up to four" higher qualifications actually means, but I won't bore
people analyzing this. Anyone with a brain can do it, if they aren't
determined to keep the rose colored glasses on. "Up to" four higher
qualifications . . . just think about it for ten seconds. "Higher" teaching
qualifications - higher than what? Higher than Parsifal - get it?
"Currently, Glenaeon employs 58 full- and part-time highly qualified
teachers, many of whom have been with the school for between one and two
decades. While the norm for our staff is a formal teaching qualification and
Steiner Waldorf training, approximately half of our teachers hold, in
addition, up to four higher tertiary qualifications.
Annual and biannual in-service training seminars feature local and
international speakers, and weekly staff development sessions are held for
all staff. Teachers attend international and interstate educational
conferences as school representatives, as recipients of international study
awards and as valued speakers. In association with Sydney's Parsifal
College, Glenaeon works with trainees in an accredited course, the Advanced
Diploma of Steiner Education, through which students may gain advanced
standing into a Bachelor of Education. These initiatives allow Glenaeon to
remain at the forefront of educational practice."
http://www.glenaeon.nsw.edu.au/about-glenaeon.php3#Teachers%20of%20excellenc
e
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 20:32:58 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Michaela Glockler: War of All
Dan provided the following passage from an interview with Michaela Glockler
published in the Spring/Summer 1999 issue of Gateways, the Newsletter of the
Waldorf Early Childhood Association of North America (issue # 36):
)http://www.waldorflibrary.org/Journal_Articles/GW3603.pdf
)
)From the question period:
)
)"Q: What do you mean "war inside/war outside"?
)
)"MG: I am glad that you ask this question. We are at the end of the first
)third of the three periods of development of the consciousness soul.
)Through the deed of Golgotha, the death and resurrection of the Christ, man
)was for the first time able to carry his I consciousness through the death
)experience, and this I development continues. Christ did not only bring
)peace, but also the strengthening of the I experience, and along with this
)comes egoism. (Gospel of St. Luke, Chapter 12) In our epoch the struggle is
)with evil. The old traditions carry us no longer, and we must therefore
)develop our higher ego qualities. This situation will last into the seventh
)Post Atlantaen epoch (about 7,700 A.D.), where it will be a war of all
)against all. Waldorf education is based on altruism and the developing of
)general human qualities. These are necessary as a counter balance to the
)development of individualism.
I think this is a good example of the unacknowledged influence of
anthroposophical race theory within the contemporary Waldorf movement.
Though she does not mention it in the interview, the periods of development
that Glockler invokes here are delineated along racial and ethnic lines. The
scheme of epochs in Steiner's cosmological vision is explicitly racialized.
And the anthroposophical notion of a coming War of All against All is also
squarely based on racial categories. For Steiner, the development of higher
qualities depends on the expulsion and destruction of racially marked lower
forms and the concomitant advance of a small select group, those who will
form the nucleus of the future epoch.
The "War of All against All" is a major theme of Steiner's book *The
Apocalypse of St. John* (Anthroposophical Publishing Company, London, 1958).
Here he explains that the coming War will divide humanity into "the good
race" and "the evil race", with "those who refuse to receive the
Christ-principle" ending up in the latter catgeory of racially evil
unfortunates (p. 186; see also p. 92). Steiner further declares: "The most
capable must be chosen and prepared to live beyond the period of the great
War of All against All when men will confront those who bear in their
countenances the sign of evil" (p. 142). These more advanced types are in
turn recognizable as those who have embraced anthroposophy: "The souls now
living in bodies which have the heart to hear and feel Anthroposophy, are
now preparing themselves to live in bodies in the future in which power will
be given them to serve their fellow creatures" (p. 206). Glockler's remarks
refer to this process of spiritual eugenics, without disclosing its racial
contours.
According to Steiner, the War of All against All will separate the racial
wheat from chaff, with the lower racial forms remaining bound to their
animal nature, while the higher racial forms take part in the coming
marriage of intellect and spirit:
"All those will participate in this marriage who take into themselves the
impulse of Christ Jesus and they will form the great brotherhood which will
survive the great War, which will experience
enmity and persecution, but will provide the foundation for the good race.
After this great War has brought out the animal nature in those who have
remained in the old forms, the good race will arise, and this race will
carry over into the future that which is to be the spiritually elevated
culture in that future epoch." (p. 135)
Steiner emphasizes that this crucial difference between the race of good and
the race of evil will be manifested physically "in the epoch following the
great War of All against All":
"Upon the forehead and in the whole physiognomy it will be written whether
the person is good or evil. He will show in his face what is contained in
his inmost soul. What a man has developed within himself, whether he has
exercised good or evil impulses, will be written on his forehead. After the
great War of All against All there will be two kinds of human beings. Those
who had previously tried to follow the call to the spiritual life, who
cultivated the spiritualizing and ennobling of their inner spiritual life,
will show this inward life on their faces and express it in their gestures
and the movements of their hands. And those who have turned away from the
spiritual life, represented by the community of Laodicea, who were lukewarm,
neither warm nor cold, will pass into the following epoch as those who
retard human evolution, who preserve the backward forces of evolution which
have been left behind. They will show the evil passions, impulses and
instincts hostile to the spiritual in an ugly, unintelligent, evil-looking
countenance. In their gestures and hand-movements, in everything they do,
they will present an outer image of the ugliness in their soul. Just as
humanity has separated into races and communities, in the future it will
divide into two great streams, the good and the evil. And what is in their
souls will be outwardly manifest, they will no longer be able to hide it."
(p. 82)
Steiner continues:
"Man still has something within him which must separate itself from the
universal evolution as a descending branch, as the other animal forms have
done. That which man has within him as tendency to good and evil, to
cleverness and stupidity, to beauty and ugliness, represents the possibility
of an upward progress or a remaining behind. Just as the animal form has
developed out of progressing humanity, so will the race of evil with the
horrible faces develop out of it as it progresses towards spirituality and
reaches the later goal of humanity. In the future there will not only be the
animal forms which are the incarnated images of human passions, but there
will also be a race in which will live what man now hides within him as a
portion of evil, which today he can still conceal but which later will be
manifest." (p. 84)
According to Steiner, cosmic evolution functions in this way so that "that
might be destroyed which is not worthy to take part in the ascent of
humanity." (p. 89) This is indeed what makes spiritual progress possible:
"Humanity has risen by throwing out the lower forms in order to purify
itself and it will rise still higher by separating another kingdom of
nature, the kingdom of the evil race. Thus mankind rises upward." (p. 84)
These are the conclusions that are built into Glockler's comments, but which
she fails to state outright.
Passages such as these are by no means the only anthroposophical source on
the coming racial war that will distinguish good people from evil people.
Consider Steiner's musings on "the mission of white humanity" and his
insistence that "the transition from the fifth culture epoch to the sixth
will bring about a violent struggle of the white and yellow races in the
most varied domains." Here is an anthroposophist translation of that text;
note how Glockler's words echo these statements by Steiner:
"And what is the characteristic that must particularly develop in this fifth
culture-epoch? It is one that was kindled through the Mystery of Golgotha,
namely that spiritual impulses have been led down right into the directly
physically-human, that as it were the flesh must be laid hold of by the
spirit. It has not yet happened. It will not happen till Spiritual Science
has one day spread more widely over the earth and many more men bring it to
expression in direct life, until, one could say, the spirit comes to
expression in every movement of hand, of finger, in the most everyday
affairs. But it was for the sake of bringing down the spiritual impulse that
Christ became flesh in a human body. And the characteristic of the mission
of white humanity in general is to carry down the spirit, to impregnate the
flesh with the spirit. Man has his white skin that the spirit may work in
the skin when it descends to the physical plane. The task of our fifth
culture-epoch, prepared through the preceding four epochs, is to make the
outer physical body a shrine for the spirit. We must acquaint ourselves with
those cultural impulses which show the tendency to bring the spirit into the
flesh, into everyday matters. When we quite recognise this, then we shall
also be clear that where the spirit has still to work as spirit, where in a
certain way it has to stay behind in its development -- because in our time
it should descend into the flesh -- where it stays behind, takes a demonic
character and does not completely permeate the flesh, there the white skin
does not appear. Atavistic forces are present which do not let the spirit
come into complete harmony with the flesh.
In the sixth post-Atlantean Culture epoch the task will be to know the
spirit as something hovering in the surroundings, to recognise the spirit
more in the elemental world, because that epoch must prepare the knowledge
of the spirit in the physical environment. That could not easily come about
if ancient atavistic forces were not preserved which recognise the spirit in
its purely elemental life. But these things do not enter the world without
the most violent struggles. White humanity is still on the way to take the
spirit more and more deeply into its own being. Yellow humanity is on ethe
way to conserve that age in which the spirit is held away from the body, is
sought purely outside the human physical organisation. This makes it
inevitable that the transition from the fifth culture epoch to the sixth
will will bring about a violent struggle of the white and yellow races in
the most varied domains. What precedes these struggles will occupy
world-history up to the decisive events of the great contests between the
white world and the coloured world."
(Rudolf Steiner, "The Christ-Impulse as Bearer of the Union of the Spiritual
and the Bodily", typoscript lecture "For Members of the Anthroposophical
Society", translated by M. Cotterell, pp. 7-8; original edition: Rudolf
Steiner, Die geistigen Hintergründe des Ersten Weltkrieges, pp. 37-38)
Similar passages are to be found throughout Steiner's works and the works of
his followers. For a recent sample of anthroposophical writings on racial
epochs and the War of All against All, see any of the following:
http://www.vermontel.net/~vtsophia/pitris2.htm
http://www.vermontel.net/~vtsophia/RELIG2.htm
http://www.vermontel.com/~vtsophia/easdoc.htm
It seems to me that it is incumbent on Waldorf officials and prominent
anthroposophists like Glockler to clarify the relationship between their own
expressed views and the constellation of ideas just presented.
Since it ties into a question recently posed by Keith, in a subsequent post
I will quote a lengthy passage from chapter four of Steiner's book The
Apocalypse of St. John on race-development, epochs, and initiation.
Peter Staudenmaier
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 13:48:30 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Some more info on Anthroposophy and Waldorf Education in Australia
Pete:
)I agree. And the fact that I can dance around my livingroom in my
)underwear makes me a ballerina.
(giggle)
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 13:48:30 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Michaela Glockler: War of All, handling mothers, vaccination,
pedago
Lemuria wrote:
)Can you imagine trying to help a new mother to stay home with her
)baby a to be confident and joyful?
Barnaby:
)The sugar-and-spice sexism of that passage eludes you, Charlie *cough* I
)mean Lemuria. Why do new *mothers* need to be helped to stay home? Why
)isn't this anthroposophic 'doctor' urging *dads* to give up their jobs
)and stay at home with their newborns?
Hi Barnaby, to me, it wasn't the notion that the mom should stay home,
although you're right that presenting this as if it were an inevitable law
of nature is basically religious zealotry. But of course lots of moms (who
can afford to) stay home and that's great.
What bothered me is the deception - TRICK the mother into staying home -
manipulate her - provide "little experiences" for her so that she thinks
she's decided for herself. Why not just drug her?
The depiction of the mother as some kind of happy idiot - as long as she is
joyful everything will be lovely! Maybe she'll even become "confident" to
"ask questions" and receive anthroposophic answers!
Diana
(needing another motion sickness bag)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 23:20:35 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Some more info on Anthroposophy and Waldorf Education in Australia
Keith McLean wrote:
) ) [Diana:]
) ) Blech . . . no, this isn't one of those "It's true for me, is it true
) ) for
) ) you?" kind of things. The guy either did scientific research or he
) ) didn't,
) ) and he didn't. The statement isn't true.
)
)The statement isn't true from a Logical Positivist standpoint: they have
)one view of science, Steiner had another view.
)
)Science is a large set of ideas and hypotheses, some have which have
)been proven with evidence, and others which haven't. The evidence and/or
)theories could change tomorrow - so there is no such thing as absolute
)facts or absolute reliable knowledge in science. It seems science takes
)on the evidence which is convenient for it's purposes, evidence which
)stands out as the most obvious.
)
)Hey, the laws of physics are apparently not constant, as was long
)believed. This was observed by scientists examining what was going on in
)the cosmos:
)
)"Is There Nothing Certain? Even the Fundamental Laws of Physics May Be
)Mere Suggestions"
)
)-) http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,171379,00.html
For the sake of argument I'll accept all that you've said above for the
moment. So what!! All you are doing is justifying a subterfuge. The question
is not whether the philosphy of science is broad enough to accept Steiner as
a scientist. The question is what do the average people who come to the
school think is meant when it is claimed that Steiner was a scientist. You
know as wel as I do that few consider the issues you are raising here.
See you, Peter
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 10:09:15 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Some more info on Anthroposophy and Waldorf Education in Australia
Keith McLean wrote:
) The statement isn't true from a Logical Positivist standpoint: they have
)
) one view of science, Steiner had another view.
Pete replied:
"I agree. And the fact that I can dance around my livingroom in my
underwear makes me a ballerina. People can write about me a hundred
years from now and say what an accomplished ballerina I was - I spent
hours perfomring movements that other ballerinas had never even
attempted. My impressions of ballet are obviously just as important in
a worldly sense as everyone elses - right?"
lol - but an excellent point. I also hear what Keith is saying about markets
and how they are driven; in this case, what drives the market for Waldorf
Education?
I don't think Keith is actually defending such questionable behaviour as
much as pointing to the way it *is* in much of today's world.
How would accurate, honest public relations affect the Waldorf movement?
What would happen to enrolment, for example, if Waldorf webmasters -
instead of misleading readers with words like "scientist" and "educator" -
used the word "occultist" to describe Steiner? While this word pushes
certain buttons in the non-Anthro/occult world, it is perfectly accurate to
describe the founder of Anthroposophy/Waldorf. An important question might
be: Why are Anthroposophists and Waldorf leadership afraid to accurately
share information about the movement? Where does this fear come from?
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 13:28:37 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: re-post on Glockler and War of All
Yesterday I sent a longish message to the list in reply to the Michaela
Glockler comments on the war of all against all. It didn't come through (it
should have appeared before my post on race development and epochs, which
was meant as an addendum to the longer post in reply to Glockler), so I am
going to try to reconstruct it and send it again. My apologies if this means
it ends up appearing twice. Also, if I'm reading the most recent posts
right, I think I need to apologize for an inadvertent breach of anonymity. I
will try to stick to screen names.
Peter Staudenmaier
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 12:06:20 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: Some more info on Anthroposophy and Waldorf Education in
Australia
Lemuria, you wrote,
)Anybody who has read as much Steiner as Pete would know that Steiners
)knowledge of the sciences was broad and deep.
)He discussed mathematics, physics, chemistry, physiology, education,
)philosophy, etc. with a great depth of understanding.
Anybody who's familiar with science and reads Steiner will find that
his understanding (and in many areas, mis-understanding) was at a
high-school level at best.
)To confused the fact that he disagreed with much of what he had learned
)with ignorance is the same as saying that somebody who doesn't practice
)Anthroposophy must not know anything about it.
Disagreement is part of the culture of science. But disagreements
based on visions rather than critical experiments aren't acceptable.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 16:05:32 -0500
From: ldenike aol.com
Subject: Re: Michaela Glockler: War of All, handling mothers, vaccination, pedago
To be honest (and risk the ire of the PC police!), I don't think there is anything at all sexist about the ideal of having a mother stay home -- at least for awhile -- with her infant and young children. It *is* the ideal, and it's that way because Nature made it that way. Babies come out of the female of the species, and not the male, and last I heard, babies cannot take sustenance from the breasts of their daddies, no matter how lovely and nurturing those daddies may be.
I don't think, frankly, that there is any question but that in the best of all worlds, a mother could and would and would want to stay at home with her infant.
Of course, life is not always ideal. Some women cannot afford to stay home, and many others are not willing to accept the lifestyle changes (financially) that would be necessary if they decided to quit their jobs and stay home. Others do not have the desire to stay home; taking care of children 24/7 is a tough, tough job, and not every woman wants to tackle it. Going out into the world to work with other adults is easier, without question.
What I objected to in the Anthro passage that was quoted on this topic is not the idea that the ideal pairing early in life is female mom and baby, but the attitude that the mother must be *handled* into thinking that she is happy, just so the baby will be happy. It sounded manipulative to me. It did not talk about how Waldorf schools or the Anthro community could *support* mothers so they could be better mothers. That bothered me. Parenting is one of life's toughest jobs. We need all the support we can get. We don't want to be handled. We want to be supported.
Lisa
-----Original Message-----
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Sent: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 19:14:10 +0000
Subject: RE: Michaela Glockler: War of All, handling mothers, vaccination, pedago
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/caaedmqb1dkiGbOrq7Ba/PC PowerScan
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Barnaby McEwan wrote:
)
) Lemuria wrote:
)
) ) Can you imagine trying to help a new mother to stay home with her
) ) baby a to be confident and joyful?
)
) The sugar-and-spice sexism of that passage eludes you, Charlie *cough* I
)
) mean Lemuria.
Thanks for that, pal.
Keep it up.
How about a little moderator intervention here.
This yahoo is well acquainted with my desire for anonymity.
Why do new *mothers* need to be helped to stay home? Why
) isn't this anthroposophic 'doctor' urging *dads* to give up their jobs
) and stay at home with their newborns?
)
) It's already been pointed out to you, but that 'doctor', like many other
)
) religious zealots, clearly feels that 'good mothers' don't have jobs.
And, I'll even address your point.
As a father who DID stay home for 4 years with my oldest child, I can
still understand the difference between a mother and a father.
Breastfeeding, for instance, was a real challenge for me.
cl
)
) ) What has gotten into that crazy woman?
) ) These Anthros are NUTS!
)
) Now, I didn't say that, but...
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
So Much Television, Such Little Time! In Love with Lost(TM) or
Devoted to Desperate Housewives(TM)? Take our premier week
survey, complete our offers, and get a FREE* DVD set of either
show!
http://click.topica.com/caaeatAb1dkiGbOrq7Bf/Viewer Survey
-------------------------------------------------------------------
==^================================================================
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: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 16:11:29 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Michaela Glockler: War of All, handling mothers, vaccination,
pedago
Lemuria wrote:
)Breastfeeding, for instance, was a real challenge for me.
Of course, breastfeeding isn't why moms are supposed to stay home, in
anthroposophy, as breastfeeding past the first few months isn't encouraged
anyway.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 02:44:17 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Some more info on Anthroposophy and Waldorf Education in Australia
I replied to this already but the post appears to have vanished. If it shows
up, it may be noticed that this response is alittle more measured.
Lemuria wrote:
)
)This is, of course, absurd.
)Anybody who has read as much Steiner as Pete would know that Steiners
)knowledge of the sciences was broad and deep.
)He discussed mathematics, physics, chemistry, physiology, education,
)philosophy, etc. with a great depth of understanding.
)To confused the fact that he disagreed with much of what he had learned
)with ignorance is the same as saying that somebody who doesn't practice
)Anthroposophy must not know anything about it.
)
Steiner's knowledge of the sciences was not deep. I have had made
substantial posts to this list demonstrating that Steiner misrepresented the
science of his time to lay audiences. I recommend highly that anyone
doubting this read the lectures of the warmth course.
http://wn.rsarchive.org/Science/WrmCrs_index.html
The mathematical understanding demonstrated by Steiner in this lecture
series is laughable. He misrepresents the state of scientific understanding
of the time by suggesting that high school level physics was the state of
the art. I have posted on this topic in the past at length.
See you, Peter
)
)Pete Karaiskos wrote:
) )) Here's the lie, Keith. "Scientific research into the natural world."
) ) Steiner did NO scientific research - )
) ) Pete
)
)Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
)-------------------------------------------------------------------
)Oprah vs Dr. Phil- who is your favorite? Vote now.
)http://click.topica.com/caaeatsb1dkiGb2Quwif/Your opinion
)-------------------------------------------------------------------
)
)==^================================================================
)You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
)New threads are always welcome.
)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 23:13:50 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Some more info on Anthroposophy and Waldorf Education in Australia
Lemuria wrote:
)
)This is, of course, absurd.
)Anybody who has read as much Steiner as Pete would know that Steiners
)knowledge of the sciences was broad and deep.
This really makes me angry. Steiner wrote a lot of bullshit about science. I
have spent considerable energy on this list demonstrating how ridiculous the
warmth course is as an example of Steiner's supposedly deep understanding of
science.
)He discussed mathematics, physics, chemistry, physiology, education,
)philosophy, etc. with a great depth of understanding.
Rubbish. He misrepresented the sicntific understanding of his time to those
who were not in a position to know to futher hos own ends.
)To confused the fact that he disagreed with much of what he had learned
)with ignorance is the same as saying that somebody who doesn't practice
)Anthroposophy must not know anything about it.
I have no problem with disagreement. I have a real problem with the
arrogance that Steiner displayed in his discussions of science.
See you, Peter
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 04:21:46 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: homeopathic satisfaction
A regular topic of discussion here is satisfaction with homeopathy. Those of
you intersted in this will enjoy the following
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience/ which reports a survey of
customer satisfaction with homeopaths.
See you, Peter
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 16:06:23 -0500
From: ldenike aol.com
Subject: Re: My posts
Diana, your posts are always a pleasure to read. I frankly don't always read posts in order, anyway, so I didn't even notice the problem!
Lisa
-----Original Message-----
From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Sent: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 15:46:00 -0500
Subject: My posts
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/caaedmqb1dkiGbOrq7Ba/PC PowerScan
-------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . again are showing up out of order, hours, or sometimes days, after I
send them. Apologies if I appear to be picking up the wrong end of the stick
on some of these conversations, or beating old topics to death. (I know,
some of you think that's all I do anyway.)
Diana
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you need to borrow money, up to $1500? YES! Payday can help
you with your needs. Get the cash you need now, click the
following link:
http://click.topica.com/caaedmbb1dkiGbOrq7Bf/YESPayday
-------------------------------------------------------------------
==^================================================================
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: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:23:49 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: Maybe it's my own email -
- it's now funneling my own messages to critics into the trash. No comments
please (G)
Or are other people finding their posts to this list going haywire?
Diana
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 15:43:17 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: race development and epochs
Hi Barnaby,
)
)http://www.defendingsteiner.com/wc/archives/2005/04/barnaby_and_sel.html
)
)If you have a moment, could you cast your eye over this claim of
)Hindes', available at the url above, about Steiner's editorship of the
)Deutsche Wochenschrift? Thanks.
)
) ) When Steiner took over informally as editor (the point at which he
) ) started writing) he essentially co-opted it for his own purposes. In
) ) fact, the new direction was so unsuccessful that the journal folded
) ) in six months, and Steiner was involved in a lawsuit over its
) ) demise. Basically, Steiner was not writing pan-German nationalist
) ) articles, and this alienated the readership.
Those claims are inaccurate. Steiner was the actual editor, not informally
but very much formally and officially, from January 1888 through July 1888.
He did not change the direction of the paper, and its eventual closure had
nothing to do with any alienation of the readership on Steiner's part.
Steiner discusses the episode in his autobiography, and it is covered in
Gerhard Wehr's biography of Steiner as well. Christoph Lindenberg's
biography devotes an entire chapter to the topic: Lindenberg, *Rudolf
Steiner: Eine Biographie*, Stuttgart 1997, chapter 9 ("Der Redakteur -- Ein
Ausflug in die Politik"). Lindenberg gives a number of quotes from Steiner's
Deutsche Wochenschrift articles, including several of the same passages that
I have also posted to this list over the years in my discussions of
Steiner's early pan-German journalism.
The Deutsche Wochenschrift was started by Heinrich Friedjung, one of the
founding fathers of the pan-German movement in Austria and an associate of
Steiner's in the 1880s. Steiner was already acquainted with Friedjung and
with the Deutsche Wochenschrift by 1884; see Rudolf Steiner, Briefe vol. II
pp. 44-45. Steiner's letters at the time indicate that Friedjung was still
involved with the Deutsche Wochenschrift during Steiner's tenure as editor
(see Steiner, Briefe vol. I p. 84). The anthroposophist editors of this
collection of letters say that it was Joseph Eugen Russell, Friedjung's
earlier co-publisher, who hired Steiner after Friedjung had left the paper.
They blame the paper's closing on Russell, not on a change in direction or
Steiner having somehow alienated the readership (see p. 261).
All of Steiner's articles for the Deutsche Wochenschrift are forthrightly
and aggressively pan-German. In one of his last pieces for the paper, "Die
Deutschen in Oesterreich und ihre naechsten Aufgaben" from July 1888, he
demands that the political agenda in Austria must be set by "the exclusively
national elements of the German people in Austria", and says quite
explicitly that he means "the pan-Germans" (Rudolf Steiner, Gesammelte
Aufsaetze zur Kultur- und Zeitgeschichte 1887-1901, Dornach 1966, p. 143).
The same message is repeated throughout his contributions to the paper.
Steiner's editorial service was hardly the only instance of his active
involvement in the pan-German movement during the 1880s. During this period
he published in several other pan-German periodicals as well, as I have
detailed at length on this list in the past. Lindenberg notes that already
in the early 1880s the young Steiner considered himself a member of the
pan-German movement (p. 61) and that his involvement in pan-German
organizations went far beyond the usual level of commitment typical for
Austro-German university students at the time (p. 62). Lindenberg further
notes that Steiner served in several different official positions in a
pan-German student association, including a brief stint as chairman (p. 62;
see also Steiner's own reference to this is his autobiography). Lindenberg's
own perspective on these matters is of course sympathetic.
For very extensive excerpts from and discussion of this part of Steiner's
journalistic career, see my post "Steiner's early nationalism" to this list
on January 29, 2001. I gave even more extensive quotations (whole pages
worth) in German on the waldorf-diskurs email list in 2002. So far no
anthroposophist translator has found the time to translate these extremely
telling parts of Steiner's work into English.
Peter Staudenmaier
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 00:39:35 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: What a joke.............old business
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
"That's interesting. I took a look at the archives to try to locate this in
its context; I hadn't realized there was discussion of it so recently. I
would be very intrigued indeed to hear what Linda (or Deborah, or anybody
else) considered false or misleading or unresponsive about the citations and
explanations I provided. I thought I had interpreted Deborah's rules
accurately, and responded to all of her questions thoroughly. I welcome
comments, corrections, criticism and response of whatever sort."
Yes, that approach would be welcomed by many at this list, as well. The
Defending Steiner folks seem to be hibernating.
I hope they paid their bet-debt before nodding off to sleep but they should
at least remove the nonsense at the defendingsteiner website.
Someone might actually stumble upon the site and take it seriously even
though what is written is not even close to resembling any sense of
"context."
-Walden
)Linda wrote:
) ))Deborah apparently foretold there'd be PLANS funny-business here, and
) ))the rules she layed out were very sensible and very thorough. If you
) ))think you're due $100, then tarry no more. Just go over there and
) ))produce what she asked.
)
)Dan replied:
)
) )Done weeks ago (September 22), Linda. Here it is again:
)http://lists.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1719463
953&sort=d&start=28926
) )Now pay up or explain, in detail, what in Peter's reply doesn't
) )satisfy your conditions. And please apologize, both here and on that
) )blog, for calling PLANS' publication "lies."
)
)I noticed not much has changed at the Defending Steiner website and this
)matter has yet to be addressed there - or here. The same smearing of PLANS
)and Peter Staudenmaier appears at the site. Is it really that difficult to
)apologize?
)
)Shame.
)
)-Walden
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Make phone calls with phone service from Packet8.Order VoIP
today & get Free Activation, Free Equipment & First Month
Free! Packet8 30-day money back guarantee. 1-877-868-1135
http://click.topica.com/caaeeohb1dkiGbPRG0Jf/TMONE
-------------------------------------------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1989
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Michaela Glockler: War of All, handling mothers, vaccination, pedago
By ldenike aol.com
RE: race development and epochs
By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
RE: Some more info on Anthroposophy and Waldorf Education in Australia
By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
RE: Some more info on Anthroposophy and Waldorf Education in Australia
By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
RE: Steiner and scientific research
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: Steiner and scientific research
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: race development and epochs
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Steiner and scientific research
By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
RE: race development and epochs
By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
RE: Michaela Glockler: War of All, handling mothers, vaccination,
By barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com
RE: race development and epochs
By barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com
RE: Michaela Glockler: War of All, handling mothers, vaccination,
By barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com
RE: Some more info on Anthroposophy and Waldorf Education in Australia
By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 15:58:52 -0500
From: ldenike aol.com
Subject: Re: Michaela Glockler: War of All, handling mothers, vaccination, pedago
Lemuria, the thing is, your anonymity would be better protected if your email address did not contain your first initial and last name. It's there for everyone to see.
-----Original Message-----
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Sent: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 19:14:10 +0000
Subject: RE: Michaela Glockler: War of All, handling mothers, vaccination, pedago
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/caaedmqb1dkiGbOrq7Ba/PC PowerScan
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Barnaby McEwan wrote:
)
) Lemuria wrote:
)
) ) Can you imagine trying to help a new mother to stay home with her
) ) baby a to be confident and joyful?
)
) The sugar-and-spice sexism of that passage eludes you, Charlie *cough* I
)
) mean Lemuria.
Thanks for that, pal.
Keep it up.
How about a little moderator intervention here.
This yahoo is well acquainted with my desire for anonymity.
Why do new *mothers* need to be helped to stay home? Why
) isn't this anthroposophic 'doctor' urging *dads* to give up their jobs
) and stay at home with their newborns?
)
) It's already been pointed out to you, but that 'doctor', like many other
)
) religious zealots, clearly feels that 'good mothers' don't have jobs.
And, I'll even address your point.
As a father who DID stay home for 4 years with my oldest child, I can
still understand the difference between a mother and a father.
Breastfeeding, for instance, was a real challenge for me.
cl
)
) ) What has gotten into that crazy woman?
) ) These Anthros are NUTS!
)
) Now, I didn't say that, but...
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
So Much Television, Such Little Time! In Love with Lost(TM) or
Devoted to Desperate Housewives(TM)? Take our premier week
survey, complete our offers, and get a FREE* DVD set of either
show!
http://click.topica.com/caaeatAb1dkiGbOrq7Bf/Viewer Survey
-------------------------------------------------------------------
==^================================================================
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: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 12:32:11 +0000
From: Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
Subject: RE: race development and epochs
Steiner was of German ethnicity, correct?
Were there German communities in the Austro-Hungarian empire, and were
they numerous?
So, my question is, was the nationalism Steiner adhered to against the
interests of, say, the Austrian people, or could we consider that the
Austrians generally felt they were German?
Are we saying something about the moral status of Steiner's nationalism?
Is "pan-German" for Steiner meant as a genuine belief that all Germanic
languages and cultures are one cultural entity, or is this political
agitation on his part to give more power to German minorities in
Austria, despite or regardless of a democratic mandate of a majority of
indigeneous Austrians to exist as a seperate entity?
Regards,
Keith
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
) Hi Barnaby,
)
)
) )
) )http://www.defendingsteiner.com/wc/archives/2005/04/barnaby_and_sel.html
) )
) )If you have a moment, could you cast your eye over this claim of
) )Hindes', available at the url above, about Steiner's editorship of the
) )Deutsche Wochenschrift? Thanks.
) )
) ) ) When Steiner took over informally as editor (the point at which he
) ) ) started writing) he essentially co-opted it for his own purposes. In
) ) ) fact, the new direction was so unsuccessful that the journal folded
) ) ) in six months, and Steiner was involved in a lawsuit over its
) ) ) demise. Basically, Steiner was not writing pan-German nationalist
) ) ) articles, and this alienated the readership.
)
)
) Those claims are inaccurate. Steiner was the actual editor, not
) informally
) but very much formally and officially, from January 1888 through July
) 1888.
) He did not change the direction of the paper, and its eventual closure
) had
) nothing to do with any alienation of the readership on Steiner's part.
) Steiner discusses the episode in his autobiography, and it is covered in
)
) Gerhard Wehr's biography of Steiner as well. Christoph Lindenberg's
) biography devotes an entire chapter to the topic: Lindenberg, *Rudolf
) Steiner: Eine Biographie*, Stuttgart 1997, chapter 9 ("Der Redakteur --
) Ein
) Ausflug in die Politik"). Lindenberg gives a number of quotes from
) Steiner's
) Deutsche Wochenschrift articles, including several of the same passages
) that
) I have also posted to this list over the years in my discussions of
) Steiner's early pan-German journalism.
)
) The Deutsche Wochenschrift was started by Heinrich Friedjung, one of the
)
) founding fathers of the pan-German movement in Austria and an associate
) of
) Steiner's in the 1880s. Steiner was already acquainted with Friedjung
) and
) with the Deutsche Wochenschrift by 1884; see Rudolf Steiner, Briefe vol.
) II
) pp. 44-45. Steiner's letters at the time indicate that Friedjung was
) still
) involved with the Deutsche Wochenschrift during Steiner's tenure as
) editor
) (see Steiner, Briefe vol. I p. 84). The anthroposophist editors of this
) collection of letters say that it was Joseph Eugen Russell, Friedjung's
) earlier co-publisher, who hired Steiner after Friedjung had left the
) paper.
) They blame the paper's closing on Russell, not on a change in direction
) or
) Steiner having somehow alienated the readership (see p. 261).
)
) All of Steiner's articles for the Deutsche Wochenschrift are
) forthrightly
) and aggressively pan-German. In one of his last pieces for the paper,
) "Die
) Deutschen in Oesterreich und ihre naechsten Aufgaben" from July 1888, he
)
) demands that the political agenda in Austria must be set by "the
) exclusively
) national elements of the German people in Austria", and says quite
) explicitly that he means "the pan-Germans" (Rudolf Steiner, Gesammelte
) Aufsaetze zur Kultur- und Zeitgeschichte 1887-1901, Dornach 1966, p.
) 143).
) The same message is repeated throughout his contributions to the paper.
)
) Steiner's editorial service was hardly the only instance of his active
) involvement in the pan-German movement during the 1880s. During this
) period
) he published in several other pan-German periodicals as well, as I have
) detailed at length on this list in the past. Lindenberg notes that
) already
) in the early 1880s the young Steiner considered himself a member of the
) pan-German movement (p. 61) and that his involvement in pan-German
) organizations went far beyond the usual level of commitment typical for
) Austro-German university students at the time (p. 62). Lindenberg
) further
) notes that Steiner served in several different official positions in a
) pan-German student association, including a brief stint as chairman (p.
) 62;
) see also Steiner's own reference to this is his autobiography).
) Lindenberg's
) own perspective on these matters is of course sympathetic.
)
) For very extensive excerpts from and discussion of this part of
) Steiner's
) journalistic career, see my post "Steiner's early nationalism" to this
) list
) on January 29, 2001. I gave even more extensive quotations (whole pages
) worth) in German on the waldorf-diskurs email list in 2002. So far no
) anthroposophist translator has found the time to translate these
) extremely
) telling parts of Steiner's work into English.
)
)
) Peter Staudenmaier
)
)
Reason guides our attempt to understand the world about us. Both reason
and compassion guide our efforts to apply that knowledge ethically, to
understand other people, and have ethical relationships with other
people.
- Molleen Matsumura
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 12:37:49 +0000
From: Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
Subject: RE: Some more info on Anthroposophy and Waldorf Education in Australia
Diana Winters wrote:
)
) I wrote:
)
) )First graders are not focused exclusively on their mother and their
) )brains are not failing to make use of the information they take in.
)
) (to Keith, who was speculating that first graders may be "vague" or
) perhaps
) not taking in information; all a general defense of the "first graders
) not
) yet fully incarnated" thing on a school web site).
)
) And what should have been said is that the opposite of this "vagueness"
) thing is true of first graders, and younger children: this is the period
) of
) the *greatest* brain plasticity, and an incomparable window for
) learning.
) They're taking in and making use of more information before breakfast
) than
) us aged folk with aging brains do in a year.
) Diana
)
Thanks Diana, thats sounding right to me. Who do you feel are the
primary theorists regarding this topic in/of child development?
Regards,
Keith
)
)
)
Reason guides our attempt to understand the world about us. Both reason
and compassion guide our efforts to apply that knowledge ethically, to
understand other people, and have ethical relationships with other
people.
- Molleen Matsumura
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 13:20:34 +0000
From: Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
Subject: RE: Some more info on Anthroposophy and Waldorf Education in Australia
Hi Diana,
Diana Winters wrote:
)
)
) Keith was replying to the stuff I posted from a school web site
) describing
) first graders' drawings depicting things "off the ground."
) [Keith:]
) )See, small kids are away in their imagination, aren't they? Also, the
) )fact of the disorientation that attends this is quite real, I think, eg.
) )
) )stumbling around, learning to walk; running and scampering around
) )generally oblivious to surroundings, etc.
) [Diana:]
) I'd like to point out that they're effective in getting you to view
) children
) as much less developmentally advanced than they really are (delaying and
) dumbing down are crucial in Waldorf). This was about first grade. First
) graders aren't "stumbling around learning to walk." Nor are they
) "oblivious
) to surroundings." You're talking about babies.
Yeah, that makes sense.
) [Keith:]
) )Babies themselves are not fully conscious in the sense that they
) )identify
) )first and solely with the mother - their not focusing or connecting in a
) )clear way with other people - there's a vagueness, isn't there? It might
) )be
) )true that in the first year or two of life human beings absorb heaps of
) )information from their surroundings, but they (or the brain) can't make
) )use
) )of this immediately, but over time or years. Some of this I'm vague on,
) )but
)
) )their my impressions just now, anyway.
) [Diana:]
) Again you're replying to the passage as if it described infants. It
) described *first graders*. Six year olds (in Waldorf, often seven year
) olds). First graders are not focused exclusively on their mother and
) their
) brains are not failing to make use of the information they take in.
) Waldorf
) educators hope to find an "off" switch in first graders' brains, making
) them
) paint and sing dreamy songs all day and frolic with the gnomes, and
) avoid
) anything resembling an effort at *thought* as long as possible, but it's
) not
) because this is some kind of normal state in first graders. It's not.
) It's
) closer to hypnosis.
)
) Some people will recall Deby Snell's son complaining, in around second
) grade, that the Waldorf teacher was trying to hypnotize him. He said he
) would fall out of his chair hypnotized some day and hit his head and it
) would be her fault . . .
)
That sounds weird. Hypnosis should only be used for therapy under the
strictist of conditions, if it all (- according to my research, mind
control is a refined technology easily used to control/influence
perception and thought processes. I don't want to scare anyone, but it's
serious business and I think wariness about the subject is essential.
I'm not an expert, though.)
[Keith:]
) )So anyway, do you attribute all of this child behaviour to exclusively
) )physical brain functions and muscular development and child
) )socialisation, or is there a bigger role for a social and spiritual
) )factor - at least as a theory?
) [Diana:]
) We really weren't discussing whether child behavior is attributable to
) brain
) function or whether there may be spiritual explanations. Obviously, lots
) of
) people believe in the spiritual explanations. This is a deflection from
) the
) topic of the Waldorf movement's lack of honesty in advertising.
)
) [Keith:]
) )With the premature development aspect and consequences, I think it would
) )
) )be obnoxious of the teachers to lay or even conceive of blame.
) [Diana:]
) I have no idea where this blame thing came from, can you clue me in?
)
Yes, you said the following:
"(And an alert parent here needs to wonder what happens with the child
who
*doesn't* draw houses and figures floating in the air. This child is
"prematurely awakened," and it's probably the parent's fault.)"
(See:
ists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1719707520&sort=d&start=30328
)
-) So you're saying here that the parent receives the blame, or has the
blame directed at them, from the Waldorf teachers regarding this
"prematurely awakened" child idea.
[Keith:]
) )It doesn't make sense to me that a different art style or development in
) )a
) )child is an indication of something bad or undesirable. If the cause is
) )more advanced intellectual development, then this could be a gift or
) )talent, or it simply shows I think that the child in question is very
) )receptive or observant. I reckon that there should be support of all
) )reasonable situations, and a kid with a talent which has occured
) )naturelly (ie. is real, and not forced or coerced) should be encouraged
) )appropriately. I'm against the idea of either parents, teachers or other
) )
) )adults "living through" children - the kids are themselves, and are a
) )combination of influences. Discipline of and self-discipline in kids is
) )a fine art, I think, especially in consideration of all of the above.
) [Diana:]
) I can't disagree with any of the above, just don't know where this line
) of
) discussion came from.
)
)
) [Keith:]
) )- Would it be easier to explain the principles in technical terminology
) )(such as etheric, astral, etc.), or use the metaphor or intellectual
) )version of imagination and art?
) [Diana:]
) It is better to use the "technical terminology" because it makes clear
) to
) parents what the model or system that is being used at this school is.
) Parents don't have to understand it all - I'm sure I don't know anything
) about most of the theories or methods my child's teachers studied in
) their
) training. I do need the information, however, if they attended a
) specifically religious institution in preparation for teaching and will
) be
) using these theories on my child.
)
Yes.
) [Keith:]
) )The latter is supposed to be the product of the former, but is the
) )esoteric
) )too abstract for people new to Anthroposophy to absorb after just
) )encountering it with the Waldorf School?
) [Diana:]
) The point is to inform them what system is being used, and it is
) anthroposophy. It is condescending to say the parents won't understand
) so
) don't tell them.
) Once they know what system is being used, it's up to them how much they
) want
) to learn about it.
) [Keith:]
) )Could an expert in higher mathematics explain trigonometry and
) )advanced statistics ahead of basic arthemetic or geometry to a novice in
) )
) )maths? How useful would that be?
) [Diana:]
) Let's not stretch the point. This isn't trigonometry or advanced
) statistics.
) Steiner really isn't difficult. That's a smokescreen. The theories
) Waldorf
) educators are using are actually an embarrassingly simple set of
) esoteric
) correspondences. It's a lot of details to keep straight at first, and
) Steiner was a very poor writer, but it isn't rocket science, Keith.
)
Yeah, that makes sense.
) Anthroposophy isn't intellectually challenging. It is sometimes
) perceived
) that way because Steiner was an incredibly tedious and repetitive bore
) as a
) writer. Also, I believe his writings are sometimes perceived as "deep"
) because they're deliberately convoluted. In Steiner's lectures, the
) "hook"
) that pulls you in is often not the topic of the lecture at all. People
) read
) them and re-read them, wondering why they don't get it.
) [Keith:]
) )Isn't the colourful descriptions of children's drawings a kind of
) )doorway to the more elaborate ideas of anthroposophy, just like basic
) )maths provides a doorway to advanced maths?
)
) )Or maybe not.
) [Diana:]
) Sure. But why provide a "doorway"? Why not say simply that the theories
) applied to the children are anthroposophy? The parents are not taking a
) course in anthroposophy. The parents are trying to learn what methods a
) school uses.
)
) You're talking as if the school is *initiating* the parents (much as it
) is
) initiating the children). We are not asking for the school to lead the
) parents on an esoteric training course - and that's what this stuff is,
) where you first provide symbols and images and experiences because
) people
) "aren't ready," get people to participate in festivals or take a
) watercolor
) painting workshop, believing they "won't understand" if you tell them
) what
) it's all about beforehand.
) [Keith:]
) )I don't think one can throw out Steiner regarding his ideas about the
) )actual or specific nature of the human being as an individual -
) [Diana:]
) Who has asked you to throw out Steiner's ideas on anything?
) Diana
)
)
)
Regards,
Diana
Reason guides our attempt to understand the world about us. Both reason
and compassion guide our efforts to apply that knowledge ethically, to
understand other people, and have ethical relationships with other
people.
- Molleen Matsumura
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 14:18:07 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Steiner and scientific research
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
)
)) By the way, the notion of Steiner's "ignorance" of science was not at
)) issue
) in this exchange, contrary to Charlie's claim (the term does not appear
) in
) Pete's post, to which Charlie is ostensibly replying). The assertion
) under
) dispute was that Steiner's "scientific research into the natural world
) led
) to his founding the General Anthroposophical Society in Dornach,
) Switzerland." I recommend that Charlie re-read both posts.
)
)
I took your advice and re-read the post to which I responded.
Here's the quote from Pete:
Steiner did NO scientific research - he did spiritual research (if you
can call it that).
I stand by my response.
cl
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 14:27:52 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Steiner and scientific research
It seems that there is no respect for my request for whatever modicum of
anonymity is available to me in this forum.
Goodbye.
c
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
)
) Charlie wrote:
)
)
) )Steiners knowledge of the sciences was broad and deep.
) )He discussed mathematics, physics, chemistry, physiology, education,
) )philosophy, etc. with a great depth of understanding.
) )To confused the fact that he disagreed with much of what he had learned
) )with ignorance is the same as saying that somebody who doesn't practice
) )Anthroposophy must not know anything about it.
)
)
) It is Charlie who is confused here. Steiner did not merely "disagree
) with
) much of what he had learned" in the natural sciences. He rejected both
) the
) methods and the findings of the science of his day, even while claiming
) the
) mantle of science for his own teachings. He often denounced what he
) called
) the "scientific attitude", and sometimes he abjured "the whole of modern
)
) science" as an integral part of "the Ahrimanic deception". At other
) times he
) contrasted "modern scientific thought" unfavorably with thinking based
) on
) "the spirit". Einstein and Darwin were two of his favorite targets for
) ridicule.
)
) By the way, the notion of Steiner's "ignorance" of science was not at
) issue
) in this exchange, contrary to Charlie's claim (the term does not appear
) in
) Pete's post, to which Charlie is ostensibly replying). The assertion
) under
) dispute was that Steiner's "scientific research into the natural world
) led
) to his founding the General Anthroposophical Society in Dornach,
) Switzerland." I recommend that Charlie re-read both posts.
)
)
) Meanwhile, Keith wrote:
)
)
) )The statement isn't true from a Logical Positivist standpoint: they have
) )one view of science, Steiner had another view.
)
)
) I encourage Keith to name a single living scientist who is a Logical
) Positivist.
)
)
) )Science is a large set of ideas and hypotheses, some have which have
) )been proven with evidence, and others which haven't.
)
)
) Yep. That's why Steiner's anthroposophical endeavors were not science.
) He
) did not offer hypotheses, and he did not prove his claims with evidence.
) The
) very point of his "occult science" is to direct attention toward
) precisely
) those phenomena that are inaccessible to sensory perception and outside
) of
) the purview of scientific research.
)
)
) )...for several years during the period he was a member of the
) )Theosophical Society he conducted (or continued to conduct) his research
) )into the Occult and the spiritual world and developed ideas about social
) )issues. Whether it was scientific research according to standard modern
) )theories or not, it was still research, writing and contemplation, and
) )exposure to groups via his lectures (which means interaction with other
) )minds and personalities and ideas).
)
)
) The PR blurb from the Waldorf school did not say that Steiner engaged in
)
) occult research. It said he engaged in scientific research into the
) natural
) world.
)
)
) )He based the society on research - of course he did. He couldn't write
) )anything about the occult that would have real relevance to actual
) )occult practice unless he did read and think about it. We can see he has
) )done extensive reading on that field.
)
)
) Steiner denied this. He claimed that his descriptions of spiritual and
) supernatural realities came directly from his own clairvoyant powers.
)
)
) )He also spoke and wrote about science and different fields within it. As
) )a student in college he would been required to do some reading on the
) )subjects he was taught, which included maths and science, and of course
) )received information via lectures and tackling tasks utilising this
) )knowledge as a student.
)
)
) What does that have to do with conducting scientific research? And what
) connection are you drawing between his college studies and his much
) later
) anthroposophical phase?
)
)
) )He based the Society on philosophical tenets, which incorporated ideas
) ) about science and the occult.
)
)
) Yes indeed. Many of those ideas were explicitly opposed to scientific
) research into the natural world. They were presented as an alternative
) to
) scientific research into the natural world, an alternative premised on
) occult and supernatural procedures.
)
)
)
) )While it would be better if the
) )statement about his status on science was more precise, it is still
) )valid to talk about him as a philosopher on science to the extent he
) )delved into it. Just look at the likes of Pythagorus, Plato, Aristotle,
) )Rene Descartes, Frederich Neitsczhe, Umberto Eco, Jascques Derrida, and
) )Paul Davies: these people contemplate(-d) the meaning, nature and role
) )of science and scientific theory and it's applicability to the real
) )world. They have valid and interesting things to say about science and
) )the nature of knowledge. So it's valid in my view to cite someone who
) )talked about science as a matter of some interest as someone involved
) )with using science or conducted research on that topic.
)
)
) That would apply to every public figure of the last century and a half.
) By
) this logic, critics of feminism who talk alot about feminism are
) actually
) feminists. Opponents of the death penalty are actually supporters of the
)
) death penalty because they talk about it as a matter of some interest
) and
) engage in research on the topic. And Nietzsche and Derrida have
) belatedly
) become practitioners of scientific research into the natural world.
) Heck,
) why not call Steiner a leading materialist? After all, he talked about
) it as
) a matter of great interest and conducted lots of research on the topic.
) And
) come to think of it, this standard magically turns all of
) anthroposophy's
) critics into anthroposophists. So much for accuracy and accountability
) in
) public discourse.
)
)
) Greetings,
)
)
) Peter Staudenmaier
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 07:51:38 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: race development and epochs
Keith, looking for escape hatches as usual:
)Steiner was of German ethnicity, correct?
)Were there German communities in the Austro-Hungarian empire, (snip)
)Are we saying something about the moral status of Steiner's nationalism?
etc
The more interesting question might be why does Daniel Hindes make these
incorrect claims? Is he simply taken in by them? I repeated the party line
that "The Nazis shut down all the Waldorf schools" when I was a Waldorf
parent too, without ever really looking into it. Who would have thought a
school movement had some history other than the official version?
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 16:14:10 +0000
From: Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
Subject: RE: Steiner and scientific research
Hi Peter,
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
)
) Charlie wrote:
)
)
) )Steiners knowledge of the sciences was broad and deep.
) )He discussed mathematics, physics, chemistry, physiology, education,
) )philosophy, etc. with a great depth of understanding.
) )To confused the fact that he disagreed with much of what he had learned
) )with ignorance is the same as saying that somebody who doesn't practice
) )Anthroposophy must not know anything about it.
)
)
) It is Charlie who is confused here. Steiner did not merely "disagree
) with
) much of what he had learned" in the natural sciences. He rejected both
) the
) methods and the findings of the science of his day, even while claiming
) the
) mantle of science for his own teachings. He often denounced what he
) called
) the "scientific attitude", and sometimes he abjured "the whole of modern
)
) science" as an integral part of "the Ahrimanic deception". At other
) times he
) contrasted "modern scientific thought" unfavorably with thinking based
) on
) "the spirit".
Indeed.
[Peter:]
Einstein and Darwin were two of his favorite targets for
) ridicule.
I haven't heard a lot about this or read it in Steiner's writing as yet.
)
) By the way, the notion of Steiner's "ignorance" of science was not at
) issue
) in this exchange, contrary to Charlie's claim (the term does not appear
) in
) Pete's post, to which Charlie is ostensibly replying). The assertion
) under
) dispute was that Steiner's "scientific research into the natural world
) led
) to his founding the General Anthroposophical Society in Dornach,
) Switzerland." I recommend that Charlie re-read both posts.
)
)
) Meanwhile, Keith wrote:
)
)
) )The statement isn't true from a Logical Positivist standpoint: they have
) )one view of science, Steiner had another view.
)
) [Peter:]
) I encourage Keith to name a single living scientist who is a Logical
) Positivist.
Okay, as far as I'm aware, there are not any well known famous living
scientists/science thinkers who are Logical Positivists. What is clear,
however, is that while Logical Positivism lost popularity among
"rationalists" or science thinkers in the early to mid-Twentieth
Century, it nevertheless is still being talked about by followers and
critics of the philosophy as a present day concern:
- http://logicalpositivism.org/shweb?file=home
- http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/020606/gta-garber.shtml :
"During his tenure at Chicago he also has helped lead a successful
challenge to the modern style of teaching and doing the history of
philosophy.
“The standard modern style is from Oxbridge and the German Logical
positivists. The Oxbridge approach is very presentist and
antihistorical: you read the classics––Plato, Descartes, Hume––as if
they were written today. The logical positivists believe that the whole
history of philosophy should be taught in the history department, not
the philosophy department, just as the history of science is not in the
physics department. I think both are wrong. It’s liberating to realize
our way of looking at the world is a very recent thing. I think there’s
nothing better for science students than to study the history of
science."
- http://www.beloit.edu/~belmag/spring00/html/philosophy.html :
"“You have to understand that the philosopher’s time scales tend to be
very stretched out. Recent philosophy is the last 150 years,” notes
Prof. Vessey. The two point out that the disciplines of psychology,
sociology, and, to some degree, anthropology have spun off from what at
the end of the 19th century would have been called philosophy. “So in
that sense,” Prof. Vessey continues, “philosophy has become less
prominent this century because so many issues that philosophy
classically addressed are now being addressed in other disciplines.”
Another distinction is that the Anglo-American school of philosophy and
traditions in Continental Europe and elsewhere differ. As scholars of
the discipline’s history, the two professors say that America for many
years after World War II was dominated by European philosophers who
focused on a technical, almost scientific, approach. “The problem with
this is that some terms-for example, virtue, morality, ethics,
justice-don’t lend themselves to providing a scientific foundation,”
Prof. Vessey says.
Alas, much of the great divide in American philosophy over the last
three or four decades stems from the push to make the discipline a pure
science: logical positivists pitted against the pragmatic tradition and
its more eclectic approach."
- "THE CONTEMPORARY CRISIS IN BOURGEOIS PHILOSOPHY
1. Neopositivism: Linguistic Philosophy and Critical Rationalism",
http://www.autodidactproject.org/other/gedoco2a.html :
"Positivism and life philosophy underwent certain changes of form in the
sixties. Differing from other schools, they appeared to break completely
with the main currents although fact they represent them (such as
critical rationalism represents positivism) or maintain the thought
continuity of the history of the corresponding current (as hermeneutic
ideal continues life philosophy), while at the same time laying one or
another school open to criticism. The crisis of logical and linguistic
positivism, today quite obvious, has existed in a latent form for some
time now. Linguistic positivism was the product and symptom of the
crisis of logical positivism, and thanks to its own limitations and its
close links to logical positivism, carried the latter's burden with it.
However, it also made apparent the frustrating effects of neopositivism
which were veiled in logical positivism by the "philosophy of science"
problematic and the philosophical-antiphilosophical interpretation of
the natural sciences, mathematics, and formal logic.
It is an unavoidable antinomy of positivist "philosophies of science"
that they are founded on some aspects arising out the dialectics of
scientific reflection, while at the same time denying the idea of
reflection and dialectics. Philosophically, they have no comprehension
of dialectics in scientific reflection, which finally proves a trap for
the positivist "philosophies of
22
science." The history of logical empiricism shows the relation of
positivism to the natural sciences, to mathematics, formal logic, etc.,
to be a factor in the philosophical crisis: insofar as positivism
appears to identify itself with certain branches and directions of the
individual sciences—in fact tending to reduce itself to their positivist
interpretations—it proclaims the end of philosophy. However, the advance
of scientific knowledge leads to a crisis of the positivist schools
based on these individual sciences, and thus a change in the form of the
positivist direction becomes necessary."
- "FUNDAMENTAL CHALLENGES TO LOGICAL POSITIVISM",
http://franzjutta.com/Newsletter.html :
"Logical positivism may be considered the philosophical movement of the
twentieth century. It was an attempt to dispense with metaphysics, the
heart and soul of philosophy, and replace it with a scientifically
based" philosophy of language, to account for all human knowledge and
orientation. It may be said that Logical Positivism is "dead," that the
sun has set on the Vienna circle "disciples" who no longer have center
stage or even backstage, but this would be misleading.
Carnap and others laid down the formalities of the historical
transformation from Logical Positivism to Pragmatism, a diverse movement
from several "main arteries" whose creative leaders ranged from John
Dewey to W.V. Quine, with countless others in the continuum. Logical
Positivism was perhaps the dominant influence in the general Pragmatic
Empiricism that is the tacit position of most professional philosophers
and scientists and has made considerable inroads in the lay population.
No area of knowledge in the last 70 years has been exempt from a
positivist attack, be that Political, Religious, Social, Cultural,
Mathematical, Physical, Linguistic, Legal, etc. Some are still on the
defensive. In this sense, regardless of what nomenclature is in vogue
today, Logical Positivism is alive and well and demands a thorough,
critical investigation."
- "Reconsidering Logical Positivism" (item for sale on Amazon.com),
w.amazon.com/gp/product/0521624762/103-5421556-5945401?v=glance&n=283155
:
" Editorial Reviews
Book Description
In this collection of essays one of the preeminent philosophers of
science writing today offers a reinterpretation of the enduring
significance of logical positivism, the revolutionary philosophical
movement centered around the Vienna Circle in the 1920s and '30s.
Michael Friedman argues that the logical positivists were radicals not
by presenting a new version of empiricism (as is often thought to be the
case) but rather by offering a new conception of a priori knowledge and
its role in empirical knowledge. This collection will be mandatory
reading for any philosopher or historian of science interested in the
history of logical positivism in particular or the evolution of modern
philosophy in general."
- http://www.loyno.edu/~folse/logpos.htm :
"Logical positivists denied the soundness of metaphysics and traditional
philosophy; they asserted that many philosophical problems are indeed
meaningless. During 1930s the most important representatives of logical
positivism emigrated to USA, where they influenced American philosophy.
Until 1950s logical positivism was the leading philosophy of science;
today its influence persists especially in the way of doing philosophy,
in the great attention given to the analysis of scientific thought and
in the definitely acquired results of the technical researches on formal
logic and the theory of probability."
(snip)
) [Keith:]
) )He also spoke and wrote about science and different fields within it. As
) )a student in college he would been required to do some reading on the
) )subjects he was taught, which included maths and science, and of course
) )received information via lectures and tackling tasks utilising this
) )knowledge as a student.
)
) [Peter:]
) What does that have to do with conducting scientific research? And what
) connection are you drawing between his college studies and his much
) later
) anthroposophical phase?
Scientists start off as students in academia, and learn the techniques
which are carried out later in professional occupational science.
He was drawing comparisions between science and the occult in his
anthroposophical work, based in part on his knowledge (or lack of
knowledge) and experience as a student. For example, I'm thinking of his
writings on medicine and his views/writings on how the features of
science and mysticism should "merge" in the anthroposophist's thinking
(eg. as found in "Philosophy and Anthroposophy" [Mercury Press, New
York, 1988.]).
)
) [Keith:]
) )He based the Society on philosophical tenets, which incorporated ideas
) ) about science and the occult.
)
) [Peter:]
) Yes indeed. Many of those ideas were explicitly opposed to scientific
) research into the natural world. They were presented as an alternative
) to
) scientific research into the natural world, an alternative premised on
) occult and supernatural procedures.
)
)
) [Keith:]
) )While it would be better if the
) )statement about his status on science was more precise, it is still
) )valid to talk about him as a philosopher on science to the extent he
) )delved into it. Just look at the likes of Pythagorus, Plato, Aristotle,
) )Rene Descartes, Frederich Neitsczhe, Umberto Eco, Jascques Derrida, and
) )Paul Davies: these people contemplate(-d) the meaning, nature and role
) )of science and scientific theory and it's applicability to the real
) )world. They have valid and interesting things to say about science and
) )the nature of knowledge. So it's valid in my view to cite someone who
) )talked about science as a matter of some interest as someone involved
) )with using science or conducted research on that topic.
)
) [Peter:]
) That would apply to every public figure of the last century and a half.
) By
) this logic, critics of feminism who talk alot about feminism are
) actually
) feminists. Opponents of the death penalty are actually supporters of the
)
) death penalty because they talk about it as a matter of some interest
) and
) engage in research on the topic. And Nietzsche and Derrida have
) belatedly
) become practitioners of scientific research into the natural world.
) Heck,
) why not call Steiner a leading materialist? After all, he talked about
) it as
) a matter of great interest and conducted lots of research on the topic.
) And
) come to think of it, this standard magically turns all of
) anthroposophy's
) critics into anthroposophists. So much for accuracy and accountability
) in
) public discourse.
Hmmmm...No one said that one *had* to be a practioner of something in
order to study said something or to critique it. But it's handy to know
something about the subject, to have observed it in some manner, and the
more relevant and useful the information, the better.
Conducting research on science can include critiquing it and utilising
it for purposes other than scientific investigation itself. Many of the
thinkers mentioned above considered the status of scientific ideas and
symbols as metaphors in language and culture or in terms of the nature
of existence itself.
)
)
) Greetings,
)
)
) Peter Staudenmaier
)
)
Regards,
Keith
Reason guides our attempt to understand the world about us. Both reason
and compassion guide our efforts to apply that knowledge ethically, to
understand other people, and have ethical relationships with other
people.
- Molleen Matsumura
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 16:29:54 +0000
From: Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
Subject: RE: race development and epochs
Diana Winters wrote:
)
)
) Keith, looking for escape hatches as usual:
)
) )Steiner was of German ethnicity, correct?
) )Were there German communities in the Austro-Hungarian empire, (snip)
) )Are we saying something about the moral status of Steiner's nationalism?
) )
) etc
)
)
) The more interesting question might be why does Daniel Hindes make these
) incorrect claims? Is he simply taken in by them? I repeated the party
) line
) that "The Nazis shut down all the Waldorf schools" when I was a Waldorf
) parent too, without ever really looking into it. Who would have thought
) a
) school movement had some history other than the official version?
)
) Diana
)
Okay, Steiner was an editor of a nationalist magazine.
We take from that he is a pan-German nationalist, especially since he
wrote about those politics.
Now, I want to know what the *significance* of Steiner being a
pan-German nationalist is. Why *is* this seen as *significant*?
Is it something to do with these conclusive statements of an essay
critiquing in detail various aspects of anthroposophy?
-)
"Let us note, first, that this is a bold departure from previous
anthroposophist apologetics, which imagined that Steiner’s racism
was forgivable because it was a "product of its time" – an
interesting argument in itself, since it can be used to justify so many
twentieth century atrocities.32) Until now, the anthroposophist attitude
toward Steiner’s racism was: ignore it and it will go away. But
with the Dutch report this stance of silent complicity has given way to
one of pure and absolute denial. Rudolf Steiner, we are now told, never
uttered a racist word in his life. We are dismayed that humanists would
join in such a specious pretense. To claim that Steiner held no racist
views is simply a sign of dishonesty, ignorance, or bad faith. A person
who is free of racist views cannot possibly say things like "the Negro
race does not belong in Europe," "transplanting black people to Europe
is horrible," "the white race is the spiritually creative race," and
"concepts hurt the Asian’s brain," and cannot conceivably call
aboriginal peoples "degenerate," "decadent," and "stunted". These
statements admit of no non-racist interpretation. Steiner made each of
these statements, and expressed similar sentiments over and over again,
from a position of professed moral authority. To absolve such a practice
is incompatible with humanist values.
But even this dismal instance of willful ignorance is surpassed by the
belief that Steiner’s written works contain no racial theory. To
appreciate just how intellectually threadbare this posture is, let us
briefly recapitulate: Steiner was the chief public spokesperson for one
of the largest branches of theosophy for a full decade. The chief
original contribution theosophy made to the occult canon was the
doctrine of root races. Steiner adopted the root race doctrine wholesale
into anthroposophy. That comprehensive doctrine divides the human family
into five root races (Wurzelrassen, sometimes also named Hauptrassen or
Grundrassen, principal or primary races), with two more root races to
appear in the distant future. Each root race is further stratified into
sub-races (Unterrassen). These categories are biological (Steiner calls
them "hereditary") as well as spiritual. The racial classifications are
not normatively neutral; they are arranged in ascending order of
spiritual development, with the fifth root race, the "Aryan race," and
within that root race the "Germanic-Nordic sub-race," at the top of the
hierarchy. This hierarchy, in turn, is an integral component of the
cosmic order. All of these ideas are explicitly laid out in great detail
and with emphatic repetition in numerous books, pamphlets, articles and
lectures written and published by Rudolf Steiner. Yet somehow, Waage
assures us, they do not constitute a race theory.
To anyone who has tried to engage anthroposophists and their defenders
in dialogue and critique, such dubious apologetics are all too
recognizable. There is a growing group of voices that have raised
challenging questions about anthroposophy’s political heritage,
and these voices have for the most part not been met with an honest
response. When faced with logic and fact, anthroposophy and its
defenders have nowhere to turn but denial of what everyone else knows to
be true. When confronted with public scrutiny and scholarly inquiry,
anthroposophy and its defenders have no reply but derision and evasion.
These are the familiar habits of sectarians and cultists, and they
threaten to turn every attempt at critical debate into a travesty of
reason. To participate in such a travesty is a form of self-deception
and self-debasement unworthy of any humanist. Our hope is that a sober
assessment of the historical entwinement of anthroposophy and ecofascism
will challenge anthroposophists and their defenders to ask themselves if
the belief system they admire can be extricated from this poisonous
legacy. If it cannot, we hope they will have the courage to leave
anthroposophy behind."
(Source:
http://www.stelling.nl/simpos/anthroposophy_nazism_criticism.htm )
Regards,
Keith
Reason guides our attempt to understand the world about us. Both reason
and compassion guide our efforts to apply that knowledge ethically, to
understand other people, and have ethical relationships with other
people.
- Molleen Matsumura
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 18:13:41 +0000
From: Barnaby McEwan (barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Michaela Glockler: War of All, handling mothers, vaccination,
Diana Winters wrote:
) Hi Barnaby, to me, it wasn't the notion that the mom should stay
) home, although you're right that presenting this as if it were an
) inevitable law of nature is basically religious zealotry. But of
) course lots of moms (who can afford to) stay home and that's great.
I'd agree with you and Linda on that: I hope I didn't appear
prescriptive in the opposite way, ie 'good mothers *do* have jobs'. With
regard to the 'challenge' of male breastfeeding, I wonder whether it's
thought by anthroposophists that breast pumps might somehow be the tools
of Ahriman.
) What bothered me is the deception - TRICK the mother into staying
) home - manipulate her - provide "little experiences" for her so that
) she thinks she's decided for herself. Why not just drug her?
Yes, that's as creepy as hell.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 18:18:13 +0000
From: Barnaby McEwan (barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: race development and epochs
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
) Those claims are inaccurate.
I suspected as much: thanks for your reply, and for the pointers to
further reading.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 20:29:31 +0000
From: Barnaby McEwan (barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Michaela Glockler: War of All, handling mothers, vaccination,
I wrote:
) I'd agree with you and Linda on that:
Whoops. Sorry, Lisa.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 05:04:17 +0000
From: Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
Subject: RE: Some more info on Anthroposophy and Waldorf Education in Australia
)From below:
"...watercolor
painting workshop, believing they "won't understand" if you tell them
what
it's all about beforehand.
[Keith:]
I don't think one can throw out Steiner regarding his ideas about the
actual or specific nature of the human being as an individual -
[Diana:]
Who has asked you to throw out Steiner's ideas on anything?
Diana
Regards,
Diana"
Okay, that was mean't to be signed off by me, but in my early hours
weariness the name "Diana" appeared instead of "Keith".
Sorry about that. :-/ :)
Keith McLean wrote:
)
) Hi Diana,
)
)
) Diana Winters wrote:
) )
) )
) ) Keith was replying to the stuff I posted from a school web site
) ) describing
) ) first graders' drawings depicting things "off the ground."
) ) [Keith:]
) ) )See, small kids are away in their imagination, aren't they? Also, the
) ) )fact of the disorientation that attends this is quite real, I think, eg.
) ) )
) ) )
) ) )stumbling around, learning to walk; running and scampering around
) ) )generally oblivious to surroundings, etc.
) ) [Diana:]
) ) I'd like to point out that they're effective in getting you to view
) ) children
) ) as much less developmentally advanced than they really are (delaying and
) ) dumbing down are crucial in Waldorf). This was about first grade. First
) ) graders aren't "stumbling around learning to walk." Nor are they
) ) "oblivious
) ) to surroundings." You're talking about babies.
)
) Yeah, that makes sense.
)
)
) ) [Keith:]
) ) )Babies themselves are not fully conscious in the sense that they
) ) )identify
) ) )first and solely with the mother - their not focusing or connecting in a
) ) )clear way with other people - there's a vagueness, isn't there? It might
) ) )
) ) )be
) ) )true that in the first year or two of life human beings absorb heaps of
) ) )information from their surroundings, but they (or the brain) can't make
) ) )use
) ) )of this immediately, but over time or years. Some of this I'm vague on,
) ) )but
) )
) ) )their my impressions just now, anyway.
) ) [Diana:]
) ) Again you're replying to the passage as if it described infants. It
) ) described *first graders*. Six year olds (in Waldorf, often seven year
) ) olds). First graders are not focused exclusively on their mother and
) ) their
) ) brains are not failing to make use of the information they take in.
) ) Waldorf
) ) educators hope to find an "off" switch in first graders' brains, making
) ) them
) ) paint and sing dreamy songs all day and frolic with the gnomes, and
) ) avoid
) ) anything resembling an effort at *thought* as long as possible, but it's
) )
) ) not
) ) because this is some kind of normal state in first graders. It's not.
) ) It's
) ) closer to hypnosis.
) )
) ) Some people will recall Deby Snell's son complaining, in around second
) ) grade, that the Waldorf teacher was trying to hypnotize him. He said he
) ) would fall out of his chair hypnotized some day and hit his head and it
) ) would be her fault . . .
) )
)
) That sounds weird. Hypnosis should only be used for therapy under the
) strictist of conditions, if it all (- according to my research, mind
) control is a refined technology easily used to control/influence
) perception and thought processes. I don't want to scare anyone, but it's
)
) serious business and I think wariness about the subject is essential.
) I'm not an expert, though.)
)
)
) [Keith:]
) ) )So anyway, do you attribute all of this child behaviour to exclusively
) ) )physical brain functions and muscular development and child
) ) )socialisation, or is there a bigger role for a social and spiritual
) ) )factor - at least as a theory?
) ) [Diana:]
) ) We really weren't discussing whether child behavior is attributable to
) ) brain
) ) function or whether there may be spiritual explanations. Obviously, lots
) )
) ) of
) ) people believe in the spiritual explanations. This is a deflection from
) ) the
) ) topic of the Waldorf movement's lack of honesty in advertising.
) )
) ) [Keith:]
) ) )With the premature development aspect and consequences, I think it would
) ) )
) ) )
) ) )be obnoxious of the teachers to lay or even conceive of blame.
) ) [Diana:]
) ) I have no idea where this blame thing came from, can you clue me in?
) )
)
) Yes, you said the following:
)
) "(And an alert parent here needs to wonder what happens with the child
) who
) *doesn't* draw houses and figures floating in the air. This child is
) "prematurely awakened," and it's probably the parent's fault.)"
)
) (See:
) ists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1719707520&sort=d&start=30328
)
) )
)
) -) So you're saying here that the parent receives the blame, or has the
) blame directed at them, from the Waldorf teachers regarding this
) "prematurely awakened" child idea.
)
) [Keith:]
) ) )It doesn't make sense to me that a different art style or development in
) ) )
) ) )a
) ) )child is an indication of something bad or undesirable. If the cause is
) ) )more advanced intellectual development, then this could be a gift or
) ) )talent, or it simply shows I think that the child in question is very
) ) )receptive or observant. I reckon that there should be support of all
) ) )reasonable situations, and a kid with a talent which has occured
) ) )naturelly (ie. is real, and not forced or coerced) should be encouraged
) ) )appropriately. I'm against the idea of either parents, teachers or other
) ) )
) ) )
) ) )adults "living through" children - the kids are themselves, and are a
) ) )combination of influences. Discipline of and self-discipline in kids is
) ) )a fine art, I think, especially in consideration of all of the above.
) ) [Diana:]
) ) I can't disagree with any of the above, just don't know where this line
) ) of
) ) discussion came from.
) )
) )
) ) [Keith:]
) ) )- Would it be easier to explain the principles in technical terminology
) ) )(such as etheric, astral, etc.), or use the metaphor or intellectual
) ) )version of imagination and art?
) ) [Diana:]
) ) It is better to use the "technical terminology" because it makes clear
) ) to
) ) parents what the model or system that is being used at this school is.
) ) Parents don't have to understand it all - I'm sure I don't know anything
) ) about most of the theories or methods my child's teachers studied in
) ) their
) ) training. I do need the information, however, if they attended a
) ) specifically religious institution in preparation for teaching and will
) ) be
) ) using these theories on my child.
) )
)
) Yes.
)
)
) ) [Keith:]
) ) )The latter is supposed to be the product of the former, but is the
) ) )esoteric
) ) )too abstract for people new to Anthroposophy to absorb after just
) ) )encountering it with the Waldorf School?
) ) [Diana:]
) ) The point is to inform them what system is being used, and it is
) ) anthroposophy. It is condescending to say the parents won't understand
) ) so
) ) don't tell them.
) ) Once they know what system is being used, it's up to them how much they
) ) want
) ) to learn about it.
) ) [Keith:]
) ) )Could an expert in higher mathematics explain trigonometry and
) ) )advanced statistics ahead of basic arthemetic or geometry to a novice in
) ) )
) ) )
) ) )maths? How useful would that be?
) ) [Diana:]
) ) Let's not stretch the point. This isn't trigonometry or advanced
) ) statistics.
) ) Steiner really isn't difficult. That's a smokescreen. The theories
) ) Waldorf
) ) educators are using are actually an embarrassingly simple set of
) ) esoteric
) ) correspondences. It's a lot of details to keep straight at first, and
) ) Steiner was a very poor writer, but it isn't rocket science, Keith.
) )
)
) Yeah, that makes sense.
)
)
) ) Anthroposophy isn't intellectually challenging. It is sometimes
) ) perceived
) ) that way because Steiner was an incredibly tedious and repetitive bore
) ) as a
) ) writer. Also, I believe his writings are sometimes perceived as "deep"
) ) because they're deliberately convoluted. In Steiner's lectures, the
) ) "hook"
) ) that pulls you in is often not the topic of the lecture at all. People
) ) read
) ) them and re-read them, wondering why they don't get it.
) ) [Keith:]
) ) )Isn't the colourful descriptions of children's drawings a kind of
) ) )doorway to the more elaborate ideas of anthroposophy, just like basic
) ) )maths provides a doorway to advanced maths?
) )
) ) )Or maybe not.
) ) [Diana:]
) ) Sure. But why provide a "doorway"? Why not say simply that the theories
) ) applied to the children are anthroposophy? The parents are not taking a
) ) course in anthroposophy. The parents are trying to learn what methods a
) ) school uses.
) )
) ) You're talking as if the school is *initiating* the parents (much as it
) ) is
) ) initiating the children). We are not asking for the school to lead the
) ) parents on an esoteric training course - and that's what this stuff is,
) ) where you first provide symbols and images and experiences because
) ) people
) ) "aren't ready," get people to participate in festivals or take a
) ) watercolor
) ) painting workshop, believing they "won't understand" if you tell them
) ) what
) ) it's all about beforehand.
) ) [Keith:]
) ) )I don't think one can throw out Steiner regarding his ideas about the
) ) )actual or specific nature of the human being as an individual -
) ) [Diana:]
) ) Who has asked you to throw out Steiner's ideas on anything?
) ) Diana
) )
) )
) )
)
)
) Regards,
)
) Diana
)
)
) Reason guides our attempt to understand the world about us. Both reason
) and compassion guide our efforts to apply that knowledge ethically, to
) understand other people, and have ethical relationships with other
) people.
)
) - Molleen Matsumura
Reason guides our attempt to understand the world about us. Both reason
and compassion guide our efforts to apply that knowledge ethically, to
understand other people, and have ethical relationships with other
people.
- Molleen Matsumura
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1990
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Speaking of Camphill...
By charlie morrison5.fsnet.co.uk
Re: Michaela Glockler: War of All
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: Speaking of Camphill...
By jaquesdm msn.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 15:46:35 -0000
From: "Charlie Morrison" (charlie morrison5.fsnet.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Speaking of Camphill...
Scottish transport minister Tavish Scott has finally made a decision on the
route of the Aberdeen city bypass. I'm relieved that it is not going to be
through the Camphill communities at Newton Dee & Murtle but I feel sorry for
the people who will be affected by it. It may very well affect the Camphill
community at Milltimber Brae, but this will be nothing like the scale of
disruption which would have been caused had it gone the Murtle route.
Charlie M.
ps I'll try and reply to the recent post/s directed at me when I have the
time.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 22:33:26 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Michaela Glockler: War of All
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
*snip Steiner quotes on the future War
)It seems to me that it is incumbent on Waldorf officials and prominent
)anthroposophists like Glockler to clarify the relationship between their
own
)expressed views and the constellation of ideas just presented.
I agree. This has always disturbed me and I would appreciate any
Anthroposophically inspired listmates expressing their views on this
subject. When Joel Wendt was here last, he seemed to speak about "destiny"
as something that *took* place. For example, our exchange regarding genocide
and "Indians" had him stating the obvious: Well, it happened, did it not? I
won't go further down that path as I find Joel's views repugnant.
But what about this horrible War - and a racial war, at that? It has yet to
happen. This is a Steiner prediction and it deals with karma and destiny. Is
there nothing we can do to stop the war from happening? What if, for
example, All of Humanity strove toward Anthroposophy in the next few
centuries? Would there still be a war?
How *do* Waldorf officials and prominent Anthroposophists deal with these
issues?
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 20:17:29 +0000
From: David Dodds (jaquesdm msn.com)
Subject: RE: Speaking of Camphill...
Charlie Morrison wrote:
)
) Scottish transport minister Tavish Scott has finally made a decision on
) the
) route of the Aberdeen city bypass.
So he has. Democratic process I suppose.
I'm relieved that it is not going to be
) through the Camphill communities at Newton Dee & Murtle
Niether it is. And all to be achieved for a trifling additional
£100million (thats a bit more than U.S.$173million)
but I feel sorry for
) the people who will be affected by it.
Just as I would have had for the special needs folks had sense
prevailed.
It may very well affect the Camphill
) community at Milltimber Brae, but this will be nothing like the scale of
) disruption which would have been caused had it gone the Murtle route.
)
Ah well, at least there will still be some martyrs to celebrate.
Davy
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1991
-- Topica Digest --
RE: homeopathic satisfaction
By barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com
RE: homeopathic satisfaction
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: Steiner and scientific research
By feetapparel hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 16:25:48 +0000
From: Barnaby McEwan (barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: homeopathic satisfaction
Peter Farrell wrote:
)
) A regular topic of discussion here is satisfaction with homeopathy.
) Those of you intersted in this will enjoy the following
) http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience/ which reports a survey of
) customer satisfaction with homeopaths.
Hi Peter; that page is updated once a week. I think I made the same
mistake once with the Astronomy Picture of the Day website: its main age
is changed, erm, every day. Ben Goldacre's Bad Science columns for the
Guardian are available here
http://www.badscience.net/
and the happy-homeopaths story is here:
http://www.badscience.net/?p=189
There's a piece on the Lancet meta-analysis of homeopathy studies and
the placebo effect here, which has an interesting angle on the idea that
quack treatments are more 'patient-centred' than 'authoritarian'
conventional medicine:
http://www.badscience.net/?p=164
) Whether mainstream medics would want to go back to the old ways and
) embrace the placebo-maximising wiles of the alternative therapists
) is an easy question: no thanks. The didactic, paternalistic,
) authoritative, mystifying mantle has passed to the alternative
) therapist, and to wear it requires one thing most doctors are
) uncomfortable with, dishonesty.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 02:57:22 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: homeopathic satisfaction
G'day Barnaby,
thanks for sorting out the links.
See you, Peter
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 03:15:06 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Steiner and scientific research
Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com) wrote:
)It seems that there is no respect for my request for whatever modicum of
)anonymity is available to me in this forum.
)Goodbye.
)c
Ridiculous! One need only read Lemuria's posts to realise that his desire
for anonymity was treated with the least repect by himself.
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 1992
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Michaela Glockler: War of All
By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
RE: Michaela Glockler: War of All
By barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com
test
By Diana.Winters verizon.net
RE: Michaela Glockler: War of All
By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
RE: test
By pjstaud hotmail.com
test - ignore
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Michaela Glockler: War of All
By pjstaud hotmail.com
varieties of Aryanism
By pjstaud hotmail.com
Re: Steiner and scientific research
By pjstaud hotmail.com
Re: Steiner and scientific research
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: race development and epochs
By pjstaud hotmail.com
Re: Steiner and scientific research
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 17:00:10 +0000
From: Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
Subject: RE: Michaela Glockler: War of All
Hi Walden,
walden wrote:
)
) Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
) *snip Steiner quotes on the future War
)
) )It seems to me that it is incumbent on Waldorf officials and prominent
) )anthroposophists like Glockler to clarify the relationship between their
) own
) )expressed views and the constellation of ideas just presented.
)
) I agree. This has always disturbed me and I would appreciate any
) Anthroposophically inspired listmates expressing their views on this
) subject. When Joel Wendt was here last, he seemed to speak about
) "destiny"
) as something that *took* place. For example, our exchange regarding
) genocide
) and "Indians" had him stating the obvious: Well, it happened, did it
) not? I
) won't go further down that path as I find Joel's views repugnant.
)
) But what about this horrible War - and a racial war, at that? It has yet
) to
) happen. This is a Steiner prediction and it deals with karma and
)