return to WCA Archive Index
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Completely stifled?
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: Linda on AT - Wiechoczek
By dan dandugan.com
RE: Linda on AT - Wiechoczek
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Linda on AT - Wiechoczek
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: Linda on AT - Wiechoczek
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Linda on AT - Wiechoczek
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: Linda on AT - Wiechoczek
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Linda on AT
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Completely stifled?
By diana.winters verizon.net
Re: Linda on AT
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 14:20:33 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Completely stifled?
Michael Murphy wrote:
)
) Pete - Thank you for this. These are issues I will bring up with our
) teachers.
Michael, I can tell you prophetically - they will say I'm full of crap.
You see, that's the thing about Waldorf, denial and dishonesty - your
teachers already feel they have a karmic destiny with your child, and
are not about to let the truth stand in the way of this. The dishonesty
of Waldorf is exactly why we critics are here - day in and day out. Our
friend Charlie (Lemuria), knows what I'm saying is true, and he knows
this is what Waldorf teachers do (although he will tell you that HE
doesn't). And, as you witnessed in his argument, Waldorf teachers will
bring in irrelevant information to make their point - in this case
Charlie brought extreme sex and violence to make his point while we were
talking about ordinary questions. Please pay careful attention to how
your Waldorf teachers "handle" the questions you pose to them.
Good luck!
Pete
)
) 1. But when a child asks where rainbows come from, why LIE to the child
) and say that fairies bring them? Maybe the child isn't ready for the
) full scientific answer (many Waldorf teachers don't know the answer) but
) some truthful answer would be better than lying to the child. Don't you
) agree? It's not "holding back" to say fairies bring rainbows, it's
) LYING - and no, that type of education doesn't suit me and probably
) doesn't suit many parents who don't realize the extent to which this
) happens on a daily basis.
)
) 2. In the lower grades, NO questions are answered... NO intellectual
) thinking is allowed. An inquisitive child IS stifled. And this process
) has to do with Steiner's ideas about the child's incarnation and soul
) development, not about anything to do with education or child
) development or brain function or the appropriateness of a particular
) subject.
)
) 3. Nobody is suggesting "pushing" children into intellectualism, but
) rather letting each child "unfold" at their own time - even if this
) means a child will be the undesirable (to you) "egghead". When a child
) asks a question, the child is ready for some kind of answer. I know, as
) a parent, that an age-appropriate answer (that isn't a lie) can be
) provided for ANY question a child asks. So, why not provide some
) truthful answers when children have demonstrated they are ready? Oh, I
) forgot - it's because Steiner said not to. So, I could say (to use the
) phrasing of your statement above) - If you believe lying to children on
) a daily basis is good for them, then Waldorf IS for you.
)
) 4. It's dedication to and honoring of STEINER'S ideas about childhood.
) Nothing is being preserved by lying to children who ask questions -
) especially gifted children who ask questions early in their development.
) There is nothing nobel about lying to children every day of their lives
) until they are 14.
)
) 5. The danger in this approach is that you STIFLE children when you
) don't answer their questions, or lie when you do, and also when you
) insist that each child paints the same picture, or copies exactly what
) the teacher has written on the blackboard. This is the OPPOSITE of what
) gifted children need - and really, when you think about it Charlie,
) aren't ALL children gifted?
)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 21:53:42 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: Linda on AT - Wiechoczek
Linda Clemens wrote on Anthroposophy Tomorrow:
)"It was Dan Dugan himself who featured a link on the "articles" page on
)PLANS website which took visitors to a website strewn with antisemitic
)remarks. The website was dedicated to attacking anthroposophy, however,,,,
)so you know how that 100% assures to put a smilie on Dan's face.
That was a web site by Reinhard Wiechoczek, German astronomer and
skeptic. The page was titled "Initiative zur Anthroposophie-Kritik,"
"IzAK" for short.
In 1999, Wiechoczek contacted PLANS:
)Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 08:15:21 -0800
)To: plans dandugan.com
)From: Wiechoczek aol.com (by way of Debra Snell)
)Subject: Anthroposophy
)
)Reinhard Wiechoczek
)Hohefeld 24
)D-33100 Paderborn
)Tel.: 00495293-512 Fax: 00495293-8132
)Internet: http://members.aol.com/Wiechoczek/index.htm
)
)Hi Debra,
)I'm very glad getting information about your activities and your website
)which I've just visited.
)Let me explain my position in some detail: I am a teacher and also founder
)(1971) and chairman of the Paderborn Public Observatory (Internet:
)http://members.aol.com/astroobspb).
)Since the early 1980's I've been debunking astrology (published two books,
)countless articles in newspapers, magazines, and I took part in many TV
)talkshows concerning the paranormal). Investigating the star occultism I had
)no chance to fail the occult-guru R. Steiner, but I hesitated to attack
)Anthroposophy, knowing about the social-political power of this sect. When
)parents of a Paderborn Waldorfschule reported pupils' mistreatments I was
)upset and offered to put in my media-experience for an initiative angainst
)Anthroposophy. Together with some insider people we founded the "Initiative
)zur Anthroposophie-Kritik (IzAK)". Although I had been aware of strange
)reactions by the sect, finally I couldn't stand the massive aggressions in
)behalf of my family and the members of our observatory. The occultists
)started a press campaign against my person, and the media didn't present my
)defendings nor the letters of my supporters. Some members of our small IzAK
)who had gone through the Steiner education declared themselves as being
)damaged for their lives, not bearable all these confrontations.
)So I decided to keep in the background, but there is still a small group
)around two women in Southern Germany who keep the flag upright.You find their
)e-mail adresses in my website under "links" (IzAK-Buero Muenchen and
)IzAK-Buero Augsburg).
)I can tell you that Germany is totally infiltrated by the Anthroposophen, if
)not to say, all important spots in society are under their control.
)My status is even more "delicious" as I am free from any religion. I created
)the philosophy of Kosmonomie (Cosmonomy) which means pacifism, consequent
)non-capitalistic humanism and global - not regional - citizenship.
)My own homepage (in German, perhaps soon in English also - but my English
)isn't professional) shows my ideas. Of course Anti-Anthroposophy is a part of
)this concept.
)Referring to your mail I'm afraid we can't offer you significant help,
)because the IzAK position is too weak. But you should contact the bureaus in
)Munich and Augsburg.
)
)I'd like to propose a link exchange to our websites, because I appreciate
)your work very much.
)If you agree, my link could be announced as follows:
)"Cosmonomy - free from any religion and paranormal - a not-so-new philosophy
)by Reinhard Wiechoczek (still only in German language, English version is on
)the way)" - Again my website: http://members.aol.com/Wiechoczek/index.htm
)
)Looking foreward to your reply
)
) Yours sincerely
)
) Reinhard Wiechoczek
His site was in German and I couldn't read it. On the basis of his
presentation above, I linked to his site from PLANS and he linked his
to ours.
It is no longer on the web, and I can't find it in the Wayback Machine either.
Linda on AT (continued):
)It sat
)there months, and after a very hush hush secret conference with some of his
)"advisors", the link silently disappeared. No public disavowal, no apology,
)no warning against the antisemitic anti-anthroposophy website. It was all
)very hush hush at PLANS.
In October of 2000 Peter Zegers pointed out remarks that Wiechoczek
made on that site that appeared to be anti-Semitic. In other articles
(not about Anthroposophy) Wiechoczek made the following statements,
translated by my correspondents:
"Antifascism in Germany is usually confined to the warnings of the
jewish lobby"
"the entire worldwide diamond trade is concentrating itself in Jewish
hands (with headquarters in Antwerp)"
"One should bear in mind what orthodox Jews believe--that they are
God's chosen people--and be alerted when such a representative may
become the vice-president of the most powerful state in the world."
Wiechoczek denied being anti-Semitic. After checking with several
people fluent in German I removed the link because of statements like
the above.
) If the whole thing wasn't revealed on the
)antisemitic website itself, the embarassing secret would have stayed that
)way."
Um, Linda, what were -you- doing following an "antisemitic web site"
in German? How come -you- didn't notify PLANS?
I don't think you actually knew anything about it. I suspect you were
just passing on something you heard that you thought you could smear
PLANS with. Something 100% assured to put a smilie on Linda's face.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 12:52:08 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Linda on AT - Wiechoczek
Thanks Dan and note the lameness of this sort of comeback in the first
place. Each of them (Tarjei, Linda etc) is ignoring most of the examples
given of blatant antisemitism posted on their list (I listed 5 examples in
the post they're so hot about, including "Jews dressed as Arabs" responsible
for 9/11; "greedy Jew" stories from Steve Hale; Dottie's admiration for the
antisemite Manly Hall etc.).
They reply that they didn't notice, and now Linda's triumphant announcement
that Dan once linked to a web site that had critical material on
anthroposophy, but which he didn't know contained antisemitic remarks - they
were in German, which he doesn't read. That is her comeback.
News flash Linda: Bradford can read the material he's posting. There's no
mistake. Are you reading his follow-ups, or planning to miss those, too? It
doesn't bother him that the material is antisemitic, and he isn't taking it
back.
No - the latest responses from Anthroposophy_Tomorrow are to call Diana some
more Very Bad Names ("cocksucker" if you really want to know). Tarjei says
of Diana Winters:
"I'm not sticking my dick out here, because Diana is likely to drag it
through the mud in the Hole and chew on it, like she's probably doing
with yours as we speak. She gives the word "cocksucker", the meaning
of which I believe we've discussed earlier after Joel's suggestion, a
whole new significance. She's aleady been raging in jealousy over
women that Bradford and I may have slept with in the remote past, and
she's got the hots for Frank. For this reason, we should keep our
dicks - and their respective secrets - to ourselves."
And:
"Come to think of it, there's only one person I've called all of the
above that you mention, and that's Diana, because she *is* all of the
above: Screwed up, stupid, ignorant, and constipated! I also think
I've solved the deep Mystery of Evil, and that's Diana too. Stupidity
breeds evil in certain cases, and that's her. This is meant as a
diagnosis, not an endeavor to change her behavior, convince her of
anything, or make her change her mind. She's the personification of
stupidity and evil, probably paving the way for Ahriman's incarnation
by making a path of ignorance and confusion."
-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Dugan [mailto:dan dandugan.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 11:54 PM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: RE: Linda on AT - Wiechoczek
)Linda Clemens wrote on Anthroposophy Tomorrow:
)"It was Dan Dugan himself who featured a link on the "articles" page on
)PLANS website which took visitors to a website strewn with antisemitic
)remarks. The website was dedicated to attacking anthroposophy, however,,,,
)so you know how that 100% assures to put a smilie on Dan's face.
)That was a web site by Reinhard Wiechoczek, German astronomer and
)skeptic. The page was titled "Initiative zur Anthroposophie-Kritik,"
)"IzAK" for short.
(snip)
)His site was in German and I couldn't read it. On the basis of his
)presentation above, I linked to his site from PLANS and he linked his
)to ours.
(snip)
)In October of 2000 Peter Zegers pointed out remarks that Wiechoczek
)made on that site that appeared to be anti-Semitic. In other articles
)(not about Anthroposophy) Wiechoczek made the following statements,
)translated by my correspondents:
)"Antifascism in Germany is usually confined to the warnings of the
)jewish lobby"
)"the entire worldwide diamond trade is concentrating itself in Jewish
)hands (with headquarters in Antwerp)"
)"One should bear in mind what orthodox Jews believe--that they are
)God's chosen people--and be alerted when such a representative may
)become the vice-president of the most powerful state in the world."
)Wiechoczek denied being anti-Semitic. After checking with several
)people fluent in German I removed the link because of statements like
)the above.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 18:12:20 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Linda on AT - Wiechoczek
I still can't imagine why people wouldn't want their children surrounded
by the likes of these people. If these are the people that represent
the outlook for Anthroposophy tomorrow, I guess Anthroposophy tomorrow
is just more of the same nonsense that we find in Anthroposophy today.
Pete
Diana Winters wrote:
)
) Thanks Dan and note the lameness of this sort of comeback in the first
) place. Each of them (Tarjei, Linda etc) is ignoring most of the examples
) given of blatant antisemitism posted on their list (I listed 5 examples
) in
) the post they're so hot about, including "Jews dressed as Arabs"
) responsible
) for 9/11; "greedy Jew" stories from Steve Hale; Dottie's admiration for
) the
) antisemite Manly Hall etc.).
)
) They reply that they didn't notice, and now Linda's triumphant
) announcement
) that Dan once linked to a web site that had critical material on
) anthroposophy, but which he didn't know contained antisemitic remarks -
) they
) were in German, which he doesn't read. That is her comeback.
)
) News flash Linda: Bradford can read the material he's posting. There's
) no
) mistake. Are you reading his follow-ups, or planning to miss those, too?
) It
) doesn't bother him that the material is antisemitic, and he isn't taking
) it
) back.
)
) No - the latest responses from Anthroposophy_Tomorrow are to call Diana
) some
) more Very Bad Names ("cocksucker" if you really want to know). Tarjei
) says
) of Diana Winters:
)
) "I'm not sticking my dick out here, because Diana is likely to drag it
) through the mud in the Hole and chew on it, like she's probably doing
) with yours as we speak. She gives the word "cocksucker", the meaning
) of which I believe we've discussed earlier after Joel's suggestion, a
) whole new significance. She's aleady been raging in jealousy over
) women that Bradford and I may have slept with in the remote past, and
) she's got the hots for Frank. For this reason, we should keep our
) dicks - and their respective secrets - to ourselves."
)
)
) And:
)
) "Come to think of it, there's only one person I've called all of the
) above that you mention, and that's Diana, because she *is* all of the
) above: Screwed up, stupid, ignorant, and constipated! I also think
) I've solved the deep Mystery of Evil, and that's Diana too. Stupidity
) breeds evil in certain cases, and that's her. This is meant as a
) diagnosis, not an endeavor to change her behavior, convince her of
) anything, or make her change her mind. She's the personification of
) stupidity and evil, probably paving the way for Ahriman's incarnation
) by making a path of ignorance and confusion."
)
)
)
)
)
)
) -----Original Message-----
) From: Dan Dugan [mailto:dan dandugan.com]
) Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 11:54 PM
) To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Subject: RE: Linda on AT - Wiechoczek
)
)
) )Linda Clemens wrote on Anthroposophy Tomorrow:
)
) )"It was Dan Dugan himself who featured a link on the "articles" page on
) )PLANS website which took visitors to a website strewn with antisemitic
) )remarks. The website was dedicated to attacking anthroposophy,
) )however,,,,
) )so you know how that 100% assures to put a smilie on Dan's face.
)
) )That was a web site by Reinhard Wiechoczek, German astronomer and
) )skeptic. The page was titled "Initiative zur Anthroposophie-Kritik,"
) )"IzAK" for short.
)
) (snip)
) )His site was in German and I couldn't read it. On the basis of his
) )presentation above, I linked to his site from PLANS and he linked his
) )to ours.
)
) (snip)
)
) )In October of 2000 Peter Zegers pointed out remarks that Wiechoczek
) )made on that site that appeared to be anti-Semitic. In other articles
) )(not about Anthroposophy) Wiechoczek made the following statements,
) )translated by my correspondents:
)
) )"Antifascism in Germany is usually confined to the warnings of the
) )jewish lobby"
)
) )"the entire worldwide diamond trade is concentrating itself in Jewish
) )hands (with headquarters in Antwerp)"
)
) )"One should bear in mind what orthodox Jews believe--that they are
) )God's chosen people--and be alerted when such a representative may
) )become the vice-president of the most powerful state in the world."
)
) )Wiechoczek denied being anti-Semitic. After checking with several
) )people fluent in German I removed the link because of statements like
) )the above.
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 15:03:44 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Linda on AT - Wiechoczek
Bradford wrote of me:
"I had a chance to look at the picture of Diana....and she is a far less
dangerous snake in her dullness than having a soul who can pal up to a
sympathetic heart and slowly stir up a mob with rich unconscious hidden
sentient cheerleading. You know that one who yells, "Crucify Him" at a
tender moment when Pilate and Caiaphas are tensely holding the destiny of
Earth and mankind on tenterhooks."
Actually now that I take another look at this I think it means I am not as
bad as Christ-deniers or Christ-killers. I would not actually yell "Crucify
him!" at the crucial moment.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 19:36:46 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Linda on AT - Wiechoczek
Diana Winters wrote:
)
)
) Bradford wrote of me:
)
) "I had a chance to look at the picture of Diana....and she is a far less
) dangerous snake in her dullness than having a soul who can pal up to a
) sympathetic heart and slowly stir up a mob with rich unconscious hidden
) sentient cheerleading. You know that one who yells, "Crucify Him" at a
) tender moment when Pilate and Caiaphas are tensely holding the destiny
) of
) Earth and mankind on tenterhooks."
)
)
) Actually now that I take another look at this I think it means I am not
) as
) bad as Christ-deniers or Christ-killers. I would not actually yell
) "Crucify
) him!" at the crucial moment.
)
)
I'm thinking Bradford may have you confused with Cecil B. DeMille.
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 14:39:33 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Linda on AT - Wiechoczek
Here are some updates from Bradford.
Lauding Tarjei, overall, for how he has dealt with the episode:
"The above is a rich heroic example of how the Consciousness soul defuses
its defenses and raises the collective insights to a new level of
biographical warmth."
Yes . . . a new level of biographical warmth. That's Tarjei for you.
Tarjei is later described as "magnanimous, munificent, big-hearted and
knightly." (Let's let bygones be bygones, in other words; you were mad at me
for posting links to Aryan nation web sites but surely it will all blow
over?)
About Diana;
"I had a chance to look at the picture of Diana....and she is a far less
dangerous snake in her dullness than having a soul who can pal up to a
sympathetic heart and slowly stir up a mob with rich unconscious hidden
sentient cheerleading. You know that one who yells, "Crucify Him" at a
tender moment when Pilate and Caiaphas are tensely holding the destiny of
Earth and mankind on tenterhooks."
I am not sure I understand that paragraph, but I think he doesn't like my
looks. I look too dull and plain a person to stir up mobs.
Here is his summation of the recent disputes he has had with his listmates:
"Were we honest with each other? That is the beauty of it isn't it?
Did we locate a real source of Treachery that existed and set a
standard from the bickering of the first Anthro-society divisions?
We did. We hit upon something very important that is written into
the opposing powers ability to attack us from within."
Still, he chastises his listmates for misunderstanding his noble purpose in
linking to racist and antisemitic articles:
"Sometimes I marvel how spin works. If we focus say on the numbers of
murdered in Russia and compare them to the Holocaust we end up not
mentioning how those dates just at the breaking years of the 1930's
were frought with all out opposing power attacks aimed at disrupting
the dawning Christ Event, we skip that, we literally avoid it, and
instead we spin our way to some trivial insight as to where I got
those numbers from and what I was looking for and how dare I read
such and such an insight."
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 13:49:21 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Linda on AT
I think Linda’s post contains several points worth pondering. For those
interested, it can be read here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/28446
As usual, I’m not sure that I have entirely understood what Linda is trying
to say, but it sounds like the main thrust of her argument is that critics
of anthroposophy direct all of their attention to the antisemitic elements
within the anthroposophical tradition while ignoring expressions of
antisemitism within our own circles. This makes her reference to the
Wiechoczek incident nonsensical, unfortunately. I was one of the people that
Dan consulted at the time, and the correspondence about the matter is rather
obviously an instance of the opposite phenomenon; indeed this is clear even
from Linda’s somewhat garbled version of events. It seems not to have been
clear to her, however.
Linda also says that anthroposophists have no trouble challenging other
anthroposophists who are “spouting reprehensible bullshit”. It seems to me
that this quite misses the point. Since the forms of racist and antisemitic
thought that are prevalent within anthroposophy do not strike
anthroposophists as reprehensible bullshit (indeed most anthroposophists
have remarkable difficulty even identifying these ideas as racist or
antisemitic in the first place), they will continue to go unchallenged under
this standard. Linda’s standard is unhelpful in any case; it would be a bad
thing, not a good thing, if folks only challenged those expressions of
racist and antisemitic belief that were obviously reprehensible and
self-evidently bullshit; all that does is reinforce conventional assumptions
and shared prejudices within the particular milieu in question, when it is
precisely these assumptions and prejudices that demand critical scrutiny.
That is what happened in the Wiechoczek discussion, and that is what has so
far been conspicuously absent from the anthroposophical movement, with
strikingly few exceptions.
Perhaps the most telling passage in Linda’s post is this paragraph:
“They subject almost nothing else to the equivalent false scrutiny.
If they were to investigate any eclectic university campus they'd
find plenty of antisemitic nonsense, including such nonsense
associated with the events of 9-11. Isn't Staudenmaier currently
enrolled in one? I wonder if he thinks this points to
a "fundamental problem in higher education", and if so, why wouldn't
he be implicated as well since he's enrolled? Certainly, he hasn't
publicly denounced it all.”
This may be even odder than the reference to the Wiechoczek affair. On the
Americans for Waldorf Education website, co-created and co-sponsored by
Linda, there is a prominently displayed quote from me that begins with the
words "I am very critical of the academic realm"; Linda and her colleagues
appear to think that this quote reflects poorly on me, though I may have
misunderstood the point of their presentation. In either case, it is hard to
square this part of their complaint about me and my work with Linda's new
complaint. The core of that new complaint seem to be that I, and by
extension other critics of anthroposophy, have failed to address
antisemitism in my own ranks and have instead focused solely on antisemitism
among anthroposophists.
As it happens, just a week ago I gave a very public presentation in New York
City on antisemitism in radical movements (that is, the movements that I am
a part of, from left ecologist circles to critics of capitalism and
globalization to the anti-war movement and opponents of Israeli policy in
the Palestinian territories as well as the war in Lebanon). The last course
that I offered at the Institute for Social Ecology was a critical
examination of antisemitism historically and today, including particularly
extensive attention to my own political and intellectual environments. I
didn't mention anthroposophists in either instance (though I did remark at
the NYC workshop that one of the longest standing antisemitic claims is that
Jews are responsible for wars, only to find this confirmed a week later by a
drunken Mel Gibson in Malibu). The critical articles that I have published
about the anarchist movement, in addition, have consistently pointed out the
antisemitic background of several prominent anarchists and urged my fellow
anarchists to take this legacy seriously. I am by no means the only
anarchist or the only leftist or the only anti-war activist (or certainly
the only academic!) to make such stances public and call on others to
reflect on their significance.
This is indeed a relatively common aspect of movements that place
significant value on critique. As anthroposophy takes the contrary view of
critique, it seems sadly unlikey that the current trend of anthroposophist
ignorance of the antisemitic elements in their own tradition will change
soon. But we can always hope. Greetings to all,
Peter Staudenmaier
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 14:50:44 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Completely stifled?
Peter F. wrote:
)I'm happy to snipe from the sidelines. Steiner's philosophy is out there in
)print.
May I just say there really are no "sidelines."
Education is everybody's concern - as is medicine, agriculture, political
agendas such as "threefolding," care of the disabled and elderly, etc.
And certainly wine (G)
It's a movement with a huge social agenda, and its methods of expanding
itself deserve a lot more observations from people on the "sidelines" than
it's gotten so far.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 17:31:06 -0700
From: Walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Linda on AT
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)Perhaps the most telling passage in Linda's post is this paragraph:
"They subject almost nothing else to the equivalent false scrutiny.
If they were to investigate any eclectic university campus they'd
find plenty of antisemitic nonsense, including such nonsense
associated with the events of 9-11. Isn't Staudenmaier currently
enrolled in one? I wonder if he thinks this points to
a "fundamental problem in higher education", and if so, why wouldn't
he be implicated as well since he's enrolled? Certainly, he hasn't
publicly denounced it all."
I find it fascinating and strange that this needs explaining and Peter has
already done it but what the hell:
If a university had, as part of it's founding philosophy, a system of
racial/spiritual hierarchy complete with racist and anti-Semitic quotes from
the founder of the university, then YES - students and faculty would most
likely raise the occasional eyebrow and ask good questions of those who run
the place these days. A discussion or two would see the light of day and
perhaps a public statement would help everyone makes sense of the matter.
The Ford Corporation dealt with Henry's anti-Semitism with a public
statement years ago. Why do Anthroposophists have such a hard time dealing
with these issues while slinging mud along the long and winding obfuscation
trail?
-Walden
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 2198
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Completely stifled?
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: Completely stifled?
By pkcompany netzero.net
FW: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] The Age of Autism: 'Amish bill' introduced
By diana.winters verizon.net
early childhood programs
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Completely stifled?
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Completely stifled?
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: early childhood programs
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: Completely stifled?
By michael ctsl.com
RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Adolf or Rudolf? (was: Hebrews)
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Adolf or Rudolf? (was: Hebrews)
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Adolf or Rudolf? (was: Hebrews)
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Linda on AT
By diana.winters verizon.net
Re: Linda on AT
By feetapparel hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 12:51:33 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Completely stifled?
Pete Karaiskos wrote:
)
)
) Michael Murphy wrote:
) )
) ) Pete - Thank you for this. These are issues I will bring up with our
) ) teachers.
)
) Michael, I can tell you prophetically - they will say I'm full of crap.
)
) You see, that's the thing about Waldorf, denial and dishonesty - your
) teachers already feel they have a karmic destiny with your child, and
) are not about to let the truth stand in the way of this. The dishonesty
)
) of Waldorf is exactly why we critics are here - day in and day out. Our
)
) friend Charlie (Lemuria), knows what I'm saying is true, and he knows
) this is what Waldorf teachers do (although he will tell you that HE
) doesn't). And, as you witnessed in his argument, Waldorf teachers will
) bring in irrelevant information to make their point - in this case
) Charlie brought extreme sex and violence to make his point while we were
)
) talking about ordinary questions. Please pay careful attention to how
) your Waldorf teachers "handle" the questions you pose to them.
Pete,
I was ABUNDANTLY CLEAR about the fact that I was bringing up extreme
examples in order to suggest that one could look at extremes and begin
to imagine that they are just the top (or bottom) of a less-noticeable
spectrum.
Your recurring insistence on twisting my words to suit your agenda is
malicious and childish.
I think that the moderator should censure you for this behaviour.
)
) Good luck!
)
) Pete
) )
) ) 1. But when a child asks where rainbows come from, why LIE to the child
) ) and say that fairies bring them? Maybe the child isn't ready for the
) ) full scientific answer (many Waldorf teachers don't know the answer) but
) ) some truthful answer would be better than lying to the child. Don't you
) ) agree? It's not "holding back" to say fairies bring rainbows, it's
) ) LYING - and no, that type of education doesn't suit me and probably
) ) doesn't suit many parents who don't realize the extent to which this
) ) happens on a daily basis.
) )
) ) 2. In the lower grades, NO questions are answered... NO intellectual
) ) thinking is allowed. An inquisitive child IS stifled. And this process
) ) has to do with Steiner's ideas about the child's incarnation and soul
) ) development, not about anything to do with education or child
) ) development or brain function or the appropriateness of a particular
) ) subject.
) )
) ) 3. Nobody is suggesting "pushing" children into intellectualism, but
) ) rather letting each child "unfold" at their own time - even if this
) ) means a child will be the undesirable (to you) "egghead". When a child
) ) asks a question, the child is ready for some kind of answer. I know, as
) ) a parent, that an age-appropriate answer (that isn't a lie) can be
) ) provided for ANY question a child asks. So, why not provide some
) ) truthful answers when children have demonstrated they are ready? Oh, I
) ) forgot - it's because Steiner said not to. So, I could say (to use the
) ) phrasing of your statement above) - If you believe lying to children on
) ) a daily basis is good for them, then Waldorf IS for you.
) )
) ) 4. It's dedication to and honoring of STEINER'S ideas about childhood.
) ) Nothing is being preserved by lying to children who ask questions -
) ) especially gifted children who ask questions early in their development.
) ) There is nothing nobel about lying to children every day of their lives
) ) until they are 14.
) )
) ) 5. The danger in this approach is that you STIFLE children when you
) ) don't answer their questions, or lie when you do, and also when you
) ) insist that each child paints the same picture, or copies exactly what
) ) the teacher has written on the blackboard. This is the OPPOSITE of what
) ) gifted children need - and really, when you think about it Charlie,
) ) aren't ALL children gifted?
) )
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 14:39:12 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Completely stifled?
Lemuria wrote:
)
)
) Pete Karaiskos wrote:
) )
) )
) ) Michael Murphy wrote:
) ) )
) ) ) Pete - Thank you for this. These are issues I will bring up with our
) ) ) teachers.
) )
) ) Michael, I can tell you prophetically - they will say I'm full of crap.
) )
) )
) ) You see, that's the thing about Waldorf, denial and dishonesty - your
) ) teachers already feel they have a karmic destiny with your child, and
) ) are not about to let the truth stand in the way of this. The dishonesty
) )
) )
) ) of Waldorf is exactly why we critics are here - day in and day out. Our
) )
) )
) ) friend Charlie (Lemuria), knows what I'm saying is true, and he knows
) ) this is what Waldorf teachers do (although he will tell you that HE
) ) doesn't). And, as you witnessed in his argument, Waldorf teachers will
) ) bring in irrelevant information to make their point - in this case
) ) Charlie brought extreme sex and violence to make his point while we were
) )
) )
) ) talking about ordinary questions. Please pay careful attention to how
) ) your Waldorf teachers "handle" the questions you pose to them.
)
) Pete,
) I was ABUNDANTLY CLEAR about the fact that I was bringing up extreme
) examples in order to suggest that one could look at extremes and begin
) to imagine that they are just the top (or bottom) of a less-noticeable
) spectrum.
) Your recurring insistence on twisting my words to suit your agenda is
) malicious and childish.
Your point was ridiculous then, and it's ridiculous now. How is it
"twisting" your words to point out what you ACTUALLY SAID? And then to
point out that it is ridiculous? Is pointing out that your example is
ridiculous the "twist"? Or do you find it uncomfortable twisting in the
wind when your argument has been exposed for what it is - nonsense.
And, I can assure you, I find the continual deception and
misrepresentation of Waldorf by Waldorf representatives extremely
malicious, but certainly not childish. The only thing childish here is
your continual whining when your arguments are exposed for what they
are.
) I think that the moderator should censure you for this behaviour.
Ah, if only we could hold Waldorf teachers accountable for THEIR
behavior in the same way - and expel them from their respective schools
when their behavior has crossed the line. But I'll bite, Charlie, what
behavior do you suggest I've exhibited that requires censure? That I
read your words and use my experience of Waldorf to help me understand
their true meaning? Or is it that I reflect them to the list in a light
you would prefer nobody unsuspecting prospective Waldorf parent sees?
Pete
) )
) ) Good luck!
) )
) ) Pete
) ) )
) ) ) 1. But when a child asks where rainbows come from, why LIE to the child
) ) ) and say that fairies bring them? Maybe the child isn't ready for the
) ) ) full scientific answer (many Waldorf teachers don't know the answer) but
) ) ) some truthful answer would be better than lying to the child. Don't you
) ) ) agree? It's not "holding back" to say fairies bring rainbows, it's
) ) ) LYING - and no, that type of education doesn't suit me and probably
) ) ) doesn't suit many parents who don't realize the extent to which this
) ) ) happens on a daily basis.
) ) )
) ) ) 2. In the lower grades, NO questions are answered... NO intellectual
) ) ) thinking is allowed. An inquisitive child IS stifled. And this process
) ) ) has to do with Steiner's ideas about the child's incarnation and soul
) ) ) development, not about anything to do with education or child
) ) ) development or brain function or the appropriateness of a particular
) ) ) subject.
) ) )
) ) ) 3. Nobody is suggesting "pushing" children into intellectualism, but
) ) ) rather letting each child "unfold" at their own time - even if this
) ) ) means a child will be the undesirable (to you) "egghead". When a child
) ) ) asks a question, the child is ready for some kind of answer. I know, as
) ) ) a parent, that an age-appropriate answer (that isn't a lie) can be
) ) ) provided for ANY question a child asks. So, why not provide some
) ) ) truthful answers when children have demonstrated they are ready? Oh, I
) ) ) forgot - it's because Steiner said not to. So, I could say (to use the
) ) ) phrasing of your statement above) - If you believe lying to children on
) ) ) a daily basis is good for them, then Waldorf IS for you.
) ) )
) ) ) 4. It's dedication to and honoring of STEINER'S ideas about childhood.
) ) ) Nothing is being preserved by lying to children who ask questions -
) ) ) especially gifted children who ask questions early in their development.
) ) ) There is nothing nobel about lying to children every day of their lives
) ) ) until they are 14.
) ) )
) ) ) 5. The danger in this approach is that you STIFLE children when you
) ) ) don't answer their questions, or lie when you do, and also when you
) ) ) insist that each child paints the same picture, or copies exactly what
) ) ) the teacher has written on the blackboard. This is the OPPOSITE of what
) ) ) gifted children need - and really, when you think about it Charlie,
) ) ) aren't ALL children gifted?
) ) )
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 10:22:19 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: FW: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] The Age of Autism: 'Amish bill' introduced
Serena posted the following on AT apparently for my attention. I would like
to remind Serena while I'm at this that I do *not* wish to begin receiving
these things in my private mail box. For the record.
http://www.scienced
(http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-200607
28-14204500-bc-ageofautism.xml)
aily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20060728-14204500-bc-ageof
autism.xml
The Age of Autism: 'Amish bill' introduced
By DAN OLMSTED
"In essence, the bill proposes the simplest way to exonerate
(http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-200607
28-14204500-bc-ageofautism.xml) vaccines as a cause of autism: If the autism
rate is about the same in never-vaccinated children, vaccines are unlikely
to play any role."
Serena, statements like the above are the reason these people's stuff is
completely ignored in medical research. It's completely wrong. I've
explained this to you several times, but you smile and pretend not to even
hear it (there's never a reply after that; a few weeks pass and then another
barrage of propaganda arrives). Even if the author's assertion was correct
(that if the autism rate in these two populations were the same, vaccines
would be exonerated; of course that's nonsense, and if you want to speak out
against vaccines, take heart that it is not going to be *that* easy to
exonerate vaccines) - but even if this proposal made any sense, it wouldn't
make the converse true: that if the autism rates *aren't* the same, vaccines
are therefore implicated. That would be even less likely to follow.
But don't let reason stand in your way, if it looks sympathetic to your
cause fling it out there.
Diana
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 10:26:46 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: early childhood programs
Serena also posted this to AT (saying it's "For Diana & Pete who
compulsively read the A_T"). This one is even funnier for being such a
tangle of misunderstandings. It's a proposal to further formalize early
childhood academic instruction, comically repackaged by Serena as a
testament to Waldorf. :O) sorry but I'm sure you can all hear me slapping my
knees. I urge people to read it.
((Johnson pointed to a number of curriculum models -- including Bank Street,
Montesorri, High/Scope and Waldorf -- that are important ingredients in the
preparation of early-childhood teachers.))
http://live.psu.edu/story/18675
It's about school readiness for pre-K children. For Serena to post it as
purportedly reflecting well on Waldorf is pretty funny since the author's
stance is the opposite of everything Waldorf stands for and vice versa.
It lauds Waldorf for having a "developmental program." So I'm sure Serena is
writing to the author to correct all the misimpressions he has received
about Waldorf's developmental program.
The author asserts, for instance, that kindergarten isn't "just for play."
It's not?
Diana
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 09:51:02 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Completely stifled?
Charlie:
)I was ABUNDANTLY CLEAR about the fact that I was bringing up extreme
)examples in order to suggest that one could look at extremes and begin
)to imagine that they are just the top (or bottom) of a less-noticeable
)spectrum.
What's interesting is that Waldorf teachers actually are at an extreme on
this spectrum - the opposite one of what they use to make their point. Most
parents, as Pete pointed out, of course don't give detailed straight answers
to very small children on sex, war and racial hatred (if I'm recalling the
examples correctly). But many Waldorf teachers DO go to the other extreme
and refuse to even answer the most mundane and everyday questions in a
normal, give-and-take fashion, because they believe even the most
straightforward questions and answers "intellectualize" children or make
them "self-conscious." You'd think Dr. Seuss was just as damaging as
pornography.
And then on the question of what should small children be exposed to
regarding violence, it's hypocrisy. Parents need to realize it's not about
protecting kids from violence - they're concerned to protect children from
*media* but not because of potentially violent images, but literally from
the media *itself*.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 16:57:15 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Completely stifled?
Diana Winters wrote:
)
)
Parents need to realize it's not about
) protecting kids from violence - they're concerned to protect children
) from
) *media* but not because of potentially violent images, but literally
) from
) the media *itself*.
)
) Diana
)
This is true.
The context can be at least as damaging as the content.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 16:57:43 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: early childhood programs
You're right Diana. A quick review of the article confirms that Waldorf
ECC programs are NOT what this author has in mind. Maybe Serena, being
a former Waldorf student herself, cannot read (something I suggested
several times in my frustrating discussions with her).
But, her fanatical intensity is always good for a laugh...
Pete
Diana Winters wrote:
)
)
)
)
) Serena also posted this to AT (saying it's "For Diana & Pete who
) compulsively read the A_T"). This one is even funnier for being such a
) tangle of misunderstandings. It's a proposal to further formalize early
) childhood academic instruction, comically repackaged by Serena as a
) testament to Waldorf. :O) sorry but I'm sure you can all hear me
) slapping my
) knees. I urge people to read it.
)
)
)
) ((Johnson pointed to a number of curriculum models -- including Bank
) Street,
) Montesorri, High/Scope and Waldorf -- that are important ingredients in
) the
) preparation of early-childhood teachers.))
)
)
)
) http://live.psu.edu/story/18675
)
)
)
)
)
) It's about school readiness for pre-K children. For Serena to post it as
) purportedly reflecting well on Waldorf is pretty funny since the
) author's
) stance is the opposite of everything Waldorf stands for and vice versa.
)
) It lauds Waldorf for having a "developmental program." So I'm sure
) Serena is
) writing to the author to correct all the misimpressions he has received
) about Waldorf's developmental program.
)
) The author asserts, for instance, that kindergarten isn't "just for
) play."
) It's not?
)
) Diana
)
)
)
)
) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 12:04:24 -0500
From: "Michael Murphy" (michael ctsl.com)
Subject: RE: Completely stifled?
Thanks, Nicole, this is the kind of detail I was looking for.
-----Original Message-----
From: Nicole Foss [mailto:nmfoss2004 hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 9:05 AM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: Completely stifled?
Michael wrote: I'm still curious about the "completely stifled" comment,
and if that is a common experience of the people on this list. Is that
inherent in Steiner's approach, or just bad implementation?
Nicole: Pretty much everything in Waldorf comes directly from Steiner's
approach. His followers believe he was clairvoyant, and so had access to
eternal truth. For this reason, they don't amend his instructions in the
light of the last 80 years of scientific progress - in fact they dismiss
the advances of the last 80 years specifically because they contradict
what Steiner said. Not only that, but in my experience (as a subject
teacher at a Waldorf school) they dismiss the very idea of a scientific
approach as 'materialistic' and therefore spiritually bereft. If Steiner
were shown to be wrong, it would undermine his claim to clairvoyance, a
prospect which devotees cannot accept. Don't make the mistake of
thinking that you don't need to read Steiner to understand what happens
in a Waldorf school - it isn't just 1920s theory to anthoposophists,
it's their religion. In other words, the more accurate the
implementation, the more there is to be concerned about IMO.
My son felt thoroughly stifled by the time he left Waldorf because they
would not let him work at his own pace and IMO subtly punished him for
even wanting to try. I did some substitute teaching in his class and was
appalled at the low level most of them were functioning at - they were
between 9 and 11 years old and a significant fraction could neither read
nor multiply two digit numbers. My son, who was doing algebra and
integers in his Kumon class at the time, would finish his math work in
under 5 minutes (out of 40) then have to sit there and be quiet for the
rest of the class with nothing to do. At first his teacher had let him
help others once he finished, but it was later decided - without
consulting us at all - that this was not appropriate. As he couldn't sit
still for 35 minutes with nothing to do, he was constantly in trouble.
At one point when he was 9, he had to explain to his innumerate teacher
how to multiply fractions as the teacher had confused it with division.
The class ended up completely confused, partly because the underlying
logic to math was downplayed so it never made sense to them.
By the time we removed him from the school, my son had become and angry
and frustrated child with no understanding of boundaries during school
time. Needless to say, his first year post-Waldorf was a very negative
experience for him and for his new teachers. Two years later and about
to enter high school, he is doing extremely well a grade ahead of where
he would normally be, but it has been a long hard slog to get to where
he should have been much earlier and with much less angst.
My youngest also felt stifled as she wished to learn to read. Her class
learned half the alphabet in grade 1 and would have learned the other
half in grade 2, had we left her there. Instead I taught her to read
myself, but she still had to spend half a year repeating grade 1 in a
mainstream school when she was actually old enough for grade 3 (Waldorf
had already held her back a year by having a different cutoff age for
entry into grade 1). She found this very depressing. She is now only a
grade behind, but still struggles academically at times thanks to having
such a slow start. It it unlikely that she will catch up with her peers
at this point.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 10:33:02 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Adolf or Rudolf? (was: Hebrews)
Well, Dottie weighs in:
)Staudenamier is not even thinking he's just an intellectual automatum that
pulls ideas together and
)makes them fit into his anti Christian way of thinking. Again,
Anthroposophy is not what he is really targeting its that people have )a
spiritual outlook and he thinks there is nothing beyond this world after
death. So he uses Anthroposophy to prove
)it. If he can prove Anthroposophy is racist he can do the same thing but
not pin it on Rudolf Steiner, next
)time he shall pin it on Christ Jesus. That's his gig.
This, in the middle of expressing her disappointment about the antisemitism
of a couple of her list mates.
Yup - next time maybe Peter Staudenmaier will go after Christ himself. Very
helpful Dottie - what clear headed thinking.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 14:34:09 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Adolf or Rudolf? (was: Hebrews)
I had to laugh because moments after I posted this, Bradford isolated and
replied to the exact same snippet, praising Dottie for this brilliant
insight.
Now when everything in your world comes down to, who accepts Christ versus
who opposes Christ, please line up on either side folks, it is not hard to
see that the Jews seem to present a unique problem, or why the Jews become a
special preoccupation, and it becomes difficult to keep a target like
antisemitism firmly in view. I can understand that this is a foggy question
to them, and I can understand why they are willing to listen to all kinds of
stuff that raises the hair on the back of the neck for the rest of us but
seems like deep theological mysteries to them. They have to be clobbered
over the head before they will understand its implications. He got it off an
Aryan Nations web site stupid!!
Now Bradford's posting stuff about Jewish comedians and their supposed
attempts to unloosen and warm the stiff Jewish etheric body or something
like that. They mean well, that's the scary part.
-----Original Message-----
From: Diana Winters [mailto:Diana.Winters verizon.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 9:33 AM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Adolf or Rudolf? (was: Hebrews)
Well, Dottie weighs in:
)Staudenamier is not even thinking he's just an intellectual automatum that
pulls ideas together and
)makes them fit into his anti Christian way of thinking. Again,
Anthroposophy is not what he is really targeting its that people have )a
spiritual outlook and he thinks there is nothing beyond this world after
death. So he uses Anthroposophy to prove
)it. If he can prove Anthroposophy is racist he can do the same thing but
not pin it on Rudolf Steiner, next
)time he shall pin it on Christ Jesus. That's his gig.
This, in the middle of expressing her disappointment about the antisemitism
of a couple of her list mates.
Yup - next time maybe Peter Staudenmaier will go after Christ himself. Very
helpful Dottie - what clear headed thinking.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 14:23:04 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Adolf or Rudolf? (was: Hebrews)
Hi Diana,
)Well, Dottie weighs in:
)
) )Staudenamier is not even thinking he's just an intellectual automatum
)that
)pulls ideas together and
) )makes them fit into his anti Christian way of thinking. Again,
)Anthroposophy is not what he is really targeting its that people have )a
)spiritual outlook and he thinks there is nothing beyond this world after
)death. So he uses Anthroposophy to prove
) )it. If he can prove Anthroposophy is racist he can do the same thing but
)not pin it on Rudolf Steiner, next
) )time he shall pin it on Christ Jesus. That's his gig.
)
)This, in the middle of expressing her disappointment about the antisemitism
)of a couple of her list mates.
)
)Yup - next time maybe Peter Staudenmaier will go after Christ himself. Very
)helpful Dottie - what clear headed thinking.
The reason Dottie thinks I am anti-Christian is that she has (once again)
mixed me up with Peter Zegers, while misremembering an exchange between
Peter Zegers and "Newpaul" (Paul Dingman) here on the Waldorf Critics list
in 2001. Newpaul was a devout Christian, and he took exception at one point
to Peter Zegers' description of the historical legacy of Christian
antisemitism. Dottie thought Peter Zegers was saying Christianity as such is
necessarily antisemitic. Peter Zegers explained at the time that this was
not at all his argument, and I have re-stated and amplified that explanation
many times over since then. By my count, I have reminded Dottie of this
incident, and corrected her faulty memory, on six distinct occasions, with
no evident effect. She still thinks I am Peter Zegers, and she still thinks
I am opposed to Christianity.
When I was on the Anthroposophy Tomorrow list I also explained to Dottie
several times, in considerable detail, that I am an admirer, not a critic,
of "spiritual outlooks", that I have my own spiritual outlook as well, that
my closest friends and colleagues are deeply spiritual people, and that in
my view the problem with anthroposophy is certainly not that it is a
spiritual outlook. All of this also to no avail. A further problem is that
English-speaking anthroposophists are usually unaware of the very extensive
Christian engagements with and critiques of anthroposophy that are extremely
common in Germanophone Europe. In fact the first serious analysis of
Steiner's racial doctrines was written by a Christian theologian. The
Dotties and Bradfords et al of the contemporary anthroposophical movement
unfortunately know nothing about such discussions.
Moving from Dottie to her cohort:
)I had to laugh because moments after I posted this, Bradford isolated and
)replied to the exact same snippet, praising Dottie for this brilliant
)insight.
)
)Now when everything in your world comes down to, who accepts Christ versus
)who opposes Christ, please line up on either side folks, it is not hard to
)see that the Jews seem to present a unique problem, or why the Jews become
)a
)special preoccupation, and it becomes difficult to keep a target like
)antisemitism firmly in view.
As far as I can tell, Bradford thinks I am Jewish, and has thought this
since my sojourn on the AT list a couple years ago. Interestingly, the same
seems to be true of Sune Nordwall. I think they believe this is the reason I
give substantial attention to Steiner's antisemitism. It's also worth noting
that even anthroposophical critics of anthroposophical antisemitism (as
anemic as their criticism may be, it is better than nothing) continue to
reject historical perspectives on their movement and its doctrines. Tarjei,
for one, still thinks that historical revisionism is a bad thing rather than
a good thing from the perspective of a historian. All of this makes
meaningful discussion of these topics very difficult indeed. But let's keep
trying...
Peter Staudenmaier
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 09:41:54 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Linda on AT
Thanks for giving the link, Peter, as well as all this information. I know
I'm making the discussion harder by quoting without linking, but when I try
to copy addresses out of my browser window, they just go pfftttt.
Peter:
)As usual, I'm not sure that I have entirely understood what Linda is trying
)to say, but it sounds like the main thrust of her argument is that critics
)of anthroposophy direct all of their attention to the antisemitic elements
)within the anthroposophical tradition while ignoring expressions of
)antisemitism within our own circles. This makes her reference to the
)Wiechoczek incident nonsensical, unfortunately.
I think she's trying to say that if Dan "didn't notice" the antisemitic
material at that web site, the AT'ers can all be forgiven for not noticing
that Bradford had developed a little habit of posting things from hate web
sites. Dan, and most of the rest of us, couldn't *read* the material in
German, of course, so it really was an honest mistake, the link posted with
good faith expectations based on the correspondence (in English) that Dan
had had with the guy, which gave no hint of some of his objectionable views.
Linda:
"The only thing such episodes here demonstrate is that anthroposophists have
no problems ripping into one of their own should he (or she) come here
spouting reprehensible bullshit."
Sure - they don't have any problem. You just have to give them 2 or 3 years
to notice, first.
And my guess? The ripping is done. Bradford has announced majestically that
he forgives everyone who criticized him, and he and Tarjei are circling back
around each other, writing long admiring posts about each other with a few
Tsk Tsk's inserted. The dynamic is really pathological but I guess I'm
veering towards ad hominem. Anyway it's already getting that protesting too
much flavor to it and they'll soon be bored with being mad at each other. I
thought originally there was some kind of big split in the works, from all
this, but I don't think they can sustain attention to the topic long enough
to split about it.
Quoting Linda:
"The Waldorf critics list has played host to far more fruitcakes than
I've seen here, including at least one person who made racist snipes to me
that none of the others watching from the sides challenged."
Now there, if Linda would care to give any details, or link to the
discussion, I'd be interested. I'm not even aware of Linda's race, so if
someone made a racist snipe I perhaps did not understand what was going on.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 05:46:36 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Linda on AT
Walden wrote:
)
)I find it fascinating and strange that this needs explaining and Peter has
)already done it but what the hell:
)If a university had, as part of it's founding philosophy, a system of
)racial/spiritual hierarchy complete with racist and anti-Semitic quotes
)from the founder of the university, then YES - students and faculty would
)most likely raise the occasional eyebrow and ask good questions of those
)who run the place these days. A discussion or two would see the light of
)day and perhaps a public statement would help everyone makes sense of the
)matter. The Ford Corporation dealt with Henry's anti-Semitism with a public
)statement years ago. Why do Anthroposophists have such a hard time dealing
)with these issues while slinging mud along the long and winding obfuscation
)trail?
)
I'd like to compare this to the actual attitudes of the scientific
community to some of the less likeable heroes. There has been a recent
biography of William Shockley, one of the inventors of the transistor and,
deservedly, a Nobel Laureate.
A review of this bigraphy is available at
http://www.newstatesman.com/Books/200607030058
from which I extract
"We can now be confident that William Shockley really was as detestable as
he always appeared.
Shockley snatched opprobrium from the jaws of glory. In 1956 he shared the
Nobel Prize for Physics for his role in the development of the transistor;
in subsequent decades he became notorious for promoting the idea that black
people were innately less intelligent than whites."
End of quote.
The scientific and engineering community honour Shockley for his valuable
work, and criticise him for his nonsense. The fact that he was detestable in
no way diminishes the value of the transistor. Nor does the value of the
transistor shield Shockley from that rightful criticism.
The trouble is that doubting or criticising anything of Steiner's leaves the
whole edifice open to doubt. I am fairly certain that no aspect of it would
survive open minded criticism. I think Steiner was aware of this since he
attempted to shield his followers from that criticism from the start.
Current followers have no choice but to attempt to defeat criticism not by
facing it and dealing with it as Walden suggests, but only by subterfuge and
obfuscation. Anything else would lead to the destruction of the guru as
guru.
See you, Peter
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 2199
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Linda on AT
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Adolf or Rudolf? (was: Hebrews)
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] those two gates (was: Rudolf Steiner - an
Active O
By diana.winters verizon.net
Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] those two gates (was: Rudolf Steiner - an Active O
By mejhowell bigpond.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 08:58:50 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Linda on AT
Sorry if I'm sending duplicates, my posts are all out of order again.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 13:59:20 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Adolf or Rudolf? (was: Hebrews)
Peter S.:
)The reason Dottie thinks I am anti-Christian is that she has (once again)
)mixed me up with Peter Zegers, while misremembering an exchange between
)Peter Zegers and "Newpaul" (Paul Dingman) here on the Waldorf Critics list
)in 2001.
Well, it does seem sometimes like most of this list is named Peter. I
remember originally confusing you and Peter Zegers also, as you seemed to
share views and were colleagues of some sort. Dottie apparently also thought
"New Paul" was Paul Newman. :))
But mainly I think the "enemy of spirituality" thing is just easier for
them, allows them to do no further work and to feel blamelessly attacked.
They've told me so many times that my real goal is to spread atheism that I
started to wonder if I really *should* go out and become some sort of public
activist for atheism. (It just doesn't really interest me.)
)When I was on the Anthroposophy Tomorrow list I also explained to Dottie
)several times, in considerable detail, that I am an admirer, not a critic,
)of "spiritual outlooks", that I have my own spiritual outlook as well, that
)my closest friends and colleagues are deeply spiritual people, and that in
)my view the problem with anthroposophy is certainly not that it is a
)spiritual outlook. All of this also to no avail.
Yes, I remember the 'Can atheists be spiritual' conversation, which left
Dottie dumbfounded, but she quickly recovered after realizing that this was
just a clever diversionary tactic by which you hide or distract people from
your hidden agenda to attack Christ or promote your atheist pinko stuff.
Of course it's even funnier when they accuse you in particular of hiding
your political views. Tarjei is still sitting over there trying to put all
those pieces together.
)As far as I can tell, Bradford thinks I am Jewish,
Again the simplest explanation for why you would have a problem with
antisemitism. Bradford is pretty certain I'm a Christian Scientist and has
worked on some theories as to why this gives me a problem with
anthroposophy, and they are just so entertaining to read I'm not tempted to
argue about it.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 01:09:28 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] those two gates (was: Rudolf Steiner - an
Active Opponent of Anti-Semitism)
Tarjei wrote on AT, a nice example of anthroposophical nonsense. Is this as
stupid as it sounds, or is it me.
)Interesting. I recall RS mentioning somewhere that there are two principal
paths to the Spirit through Anthroposophy - or two )gates so to speak: One
is "The Philosophy of Freedom"; the other is "Theosophy". The latter relies
less on thinking than the first, )and more on inner pictures in a sense. He
mentions something quite thought-provoking early in the book "Theosophy"
when he )says that the materialist, who considers permanent and real only
what he can observe with his outer senses, looks at the flowers )in the
field, which create a memory picture within him, and that he must be
confused by the fact that the flowers in the field )disappear every fall and
reappear in the spring, while his inner picture of them is permanent. So the
external comes and goes, but )the internal does not; it remains there all
the time, and thus appears more real.
What the hell. Who do you know who is confused by the flowers in the field
disappearing every fall and reappearing in the spring? Or by the flowers
coming and going, while their inner picture of flowers remains?
)If you mention this to any ordinary person, it doesn't make any sense to
them at all because they haven't thought about it.
Um - I don't think that's the problem . . .
Diana
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 18:33:11 +1000
From: "Michael Howell" (mejhowell bigpond.com)
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] those two gates (was: Rudolf Steiner - an Active O
----- Original Message -----
From: "Diana Winters" (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 3:09 PM
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] those two gates (was: Rudolf Steiner -
an Active O
) or is it me.
or is it me
or is it me.
or is it me.
or is it me.
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 2200
-- Topica Digest --
RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] those two gates (was: Rudolf Steiner - an
Active O
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] those two gates (was: Rudolf Steiner - an
By pkcompany netzero.net
the oracle speaks
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] those two gates (was: Rudolf Steiner - an
Active O
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] those two gates (was: Rudolf Steiner - an
By diana.winters verizon.net
Tarjei is on to something...
By pkcompany netzero.net
Good Waldorf information
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Linda on AT
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Linda on AT
By feetapparel hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 07:18:57 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] those two gates (was: Rudolf Steiner - an
Active O
Ah, more cryptic utterances, the oracle speaks again.
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Howell [mailto:mejhowell bigpond.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 3:33 AM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] those two gates (was: Rudolf Steiner -
an Active O
----- Original Message -----
From: "Diana Winters" (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 3:09 PM
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] those two gates (was: Rudolf Steiner -
an Active O
) or is it me.
or is it me
or is it me.
or is it me.
or is it me.
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 14:04:41 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] those two gates (was: Rudolf Steiner - an
Diana Winters wrote:
)
)
) Tarjei wrote on AT, a nice example of anthroposophical nonsense. Is this
) as
) stupid as it sounds, or is it me.
)
)
)
) )Interesting. I recall RS mentioning somewhere that there are two
) )principal
) paths to the Spirit through Anthroposophy - or two )gates so to speak:
) One
) is "The Philosophy of Freedom"; the other is "Theosophy". The latter
) relies
) less on thinking than the first, )and more on inner pictures in a sense.
) He
) mentions something quite thought-provoking early in the book "Theosophy"
) when he )says that the materialist, who considers permanent and real
) only
) what he can observe with his outer senses, looks at the flowers )in the
) field, which create a memory picture within him, and that he must be
) confused by the fact that the flowers in the field )disappear every fall
) and
) reappear in the spring, while his inner picture of them is permanent. So
) the
) external comes and goes, but )the internal does not; it remains there
) all
) the time, and thus appears more real.
)
)
)
) What the hell. Who do you know who is confused by the flowers in the
) field
) disappearing every fall and reappearing in the spring? Or by the flowers
) coming and going, while their inner picture of flowers remains?
)
)
)
)
)
) )If you mention this to any ordinary person, it doesn't make any sense to
) them at all because they haven't thought about it.
)
)
)
) Um - I don't think that's the problem . . .
)
) Diana
)
Diana, it's all quite simple:
The external is ephemeral
The internal is eternal
And the falgon with the dragon
Holds the brew that is true
Think about it...
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 09:17:52 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: the oracle speaks
)Ah, more cryptic utterances, the oracle speaks again.
I think that Michael Howell's pronouncements here have not always been so
cryptic. For example, back in March he thought he had found a professional
historian who endorses holocaust denial, evidently believing that this would
help support Robert Mason's case for anthroposophical holocaust denial. Of
course, when informed that he was mistaken about the historian in question,
he dropped out of sight again, but I suppose that's par for the course. And
just last week Howell spoke up on behalf of another anthroposophist website
that hosts a couple of holocaust deniers, apparently finding it a source of
profound spiritual wisdom. But perhaps I have misunderstood his posts? In
that case, a bit of explanation on Mr. Howell's part would do the trick.
Cheers,
Peter Staudenmaier
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 07:47:56 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] those two gates (was: Rudolf Steiner - an
Active O
I don't know if this is Tarjei's misrepresentation or Steiner's confusion,
but nobody except babies under a few months old, who haven't developed
"object permanence," believes that only things observable with the outer
sense are permanent and real. Do they honestly think that "materialists"
can't remember what the flowers look like when they're not blooming, or
aren't sure flowers are real if they can't see them blooming? I think it's a
sort of self-diagnosis, maybe some kind of problem with object permanence.
Geoffrey Ahern's book Sun at Midnight speculates that Steiner was a grown
man before he was able to reliably distinguish his internal landscape from
the external one.
"the materialist, who considers permanent and real only what he can observe
with his outer senses, looks at the flowers in the field, which create a
memory picture within him, and that he must be confused by the fact that the
flowers in the field disappear every fall and reappear in the spring, while
his inner picture of them is permanent. So the external comes and goes, but
the internal does not; it remains there all the time, and thus appears more
real."
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 15:23:37 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] those two gates (was: Rudolf Steiner - an
Pete:
)Diana, it's all quite simple:
)The external is ephemeral
)The internal is eternal
)And the falgon with the dragon
)Holds the brew that is true
Been trying to think how to add to this . . . internal, external, eternal,
infernal . . .
Quoting Ahern.
"That Steiner was true to himself is also suggested by his frank admission
that he had difficulty with sense perception. The firm sense perception that
normally consolidates during childhood and youth (in modern society) only
developed for him when he was thirty-five. His inner world seems to have
been that which most people leave behind in childhood or even infancy. Yet
as an adult he had direct access to it with his scientifically trained and
philosophically knowledgeable mind. He would have had difficulty with the
present consensus among psychologists that we perceive the world indirectly
through physiological mechanisms, so that what we see 'out there' is really
a sort of predictive description. Steiner thought he had demonstrated the
falsity of the assertion that sense-percepts are subjective. Nevertheless,
what was most real for him was the spiritual activity of thinking that
precedes the formation of subject and object. He believed he had absolute
knowledge of spirit; he took it as much for reality as normal peo ple do the
kitchen table. Thus he though spiritual 'science' was possible, as have many
other modern people.
Steiner would sometimes refer to himself impersonally to emphasize his
belief in the objectivity of his spiritual research. This puzzling man
believed that his spiritual path was entirely independent of his emotional
life, which he kept private. He would not have agreed with modern
psychologists that intuitions deriving from introspection are only
subjective, consciousness of these being located entirely in the brain and
not at all in the world. For him, the spiritual activity of thinking, or
living consciously within thoughts, is both in the brain and in the world.
Unlike most modern people, Steiner did not experience himself as essentially
set apart from his environment."
(Geoffrey Ahern, Sun at Midnight: The Rudolf Steiner Movement and the
Western Esoteric Tradition; Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, UK: Aquarian
Press, 1984. pp.68-69)
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 02:50:07 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: Tarjei is on to something...
Tarjei has decided to wrap his brain around the notion of the Waldorf
Critics site rules and offers the following parody:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/28673
"Let's imagine that Anthroposophy Tomorrow had a similar purpose and
set of rules, dedicated exclusively to "hate the other":
Anthroposophy Tomorrow (anti-WC Swat Team)
Purpose: A free-speech public forum operated by Anthro-Warriors,
Inc., as an information resource for anyone interested in in the
PLANS-WC organization who wants to hear views from outside the cult
of Dan Dugan. Subscription is open to the public, and postings are
not reviewed in advance. Not for the overly sensitive.
Typical contents include: the PLANS agenda. The role of PLANS in
anti-Anthroposophy and propaganda. Real spiritual science and
anthro-medicine vs. materialistic quack science and medicine. Sharing
of PLANS horror stories. Critics "defending the Hole" against
anthroposophical philosophy warriors. News and articles about PLANS
mischief worldwide.
There are two main rules:
1) No ad hominem arguments. This means that you speak freely about
the topics, but not about the other subscribers.
2) All posts must be about PLANS or its foundation,
anti-Anthroposophy and anti-Steinerism. Do not post non-PLANS jokes,
heart-rending appeals about the Taliban, etc.
Violation of either of these rules will result in immediate
suspension of subscription privileges for a week, and repeat
offenders may be permanently banned.
Anyone, subscribed or not, can read the list on the web at Yahoo.
(......................................)
-The Anthropos Junta and Secretary, Anthro-Warriors, Inc, sponsored
by the Taliban.
Moderator"
Would that discussions could exist on a list like AT without people
making personal attacks upon each other. Would that people on that list
could behave respectfully to people with opposing viewpoints.
Ironically, Tarjei points out that what unites our friends at AT is a
common enemy. "We get closer to the truth if
we recognize that a common opponent, a common enemy, can keep any
group together, large or small, and that such a common opponent may
have a useful role to play in a forum with free speech and choice of
topics, when picking on opponents is a voluntary thing, not mandatory."
And there we have it - the reason (in part) that people on AT and
Anthroposophists in general cannot have a reasonable discussion about
issues on a list like this one where discussion is directed toward the
issues and not the personalities of the list members. Because it isn't
the issues that are important to these petty people, it is the
personalities that they choose to identify as the common enemy that
provides them with solidarity.
Pete
P.S. (I always like toss in a little rant when I talk about AT)
Those of us who have bravely ventured into the snakepit of AT have
discovered that their reaction is to attempt to attack, ridicule,
humiliate, pester, and even nag relentlessly at people with critical
views of Anthroposophy and Waldorf until they leave. And when that
doesn't work (as with me), they just find a reason to kick you off - in
my case for correctly identifying Sune's repeated links ad nauseam to
his own website as SPAM (actually, I think Tarjei objects when people
out him as the moderator of the list). They can dish it out but they
can't take it. :p
PK
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 21:22:54 -0700
From: Walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Good Waldorf information
Here is a meaningful bit of information the Waldorf PR folks should consider
using at websites, etc. This type of thing would help parents before they
decide to enrol their kids in Waldorf. Perhaps it can be worked into the new
and improved Waldorf FAQ? It is an informative book review by "Elizabeth"
from a few years back. We see the "needs of children" from an
Anthroposophical perspective - perhaps this book should be on the suggested
reading list for Waldorf parents?
From: http://www.waldorfresources.org/readroom/hotseat/glockler.php
A Modern Perspective
A Healing Education
How Can Waldorf Education Meet the Needs of Children?
Five Lectures by Michaela Glöckler, M.D.
Rudolf Steiner College Press, ©2000
paperback, 100pp.
"This book is a series of five lectures delivered by Dr. Glöckler at the
1998 Waldorf Teachers Conference at Rudolf Steiner College. Dr. Glöckler, an
Anthroposophical physician, was addressing an audience of trained Waldorf
teachers, and her vocabulary and content reflect that. This book is not a
beginner's guide to Waldorf Education. However, the only prerequisite to
this book is an interest in the Waldorf philosophy and openness to
Anthroposophy. On the other hand, it is not a book that would appeal to
those who shun Anthroposophy - no matter their level of familiarity with
Waldorf pedagogy.
I found "A Healing Education" to be accessible, informative, and deeply
thought-provoking. Even more than that, however, I found the author's tone
to be one of hope, encouragement, and optimism. How many of us, in our
attempts to further our understanding of Waldorf Education, have encountered
a book so virulent in its dogma, so filled with hellfire and damnation, so
strong in its if-you-haven't-done-everything-
just-so-by-the-time-your-children-are-three condemnations that the reader
can only be left under the cloud of ignominious despair. While Dr. Glöckler
is no less bold than other authors, I found her tone to be much more open,
modern, and accepting of the fact that we are, most of us at least,
imperfect -- but striving.
Dr. Glöckler opened her series of lectures with the question: "Are the
principles of [Waldorf Education] still as modern as they were ...
seventy-eight years ago, at the founding of the first Waldorf School?" In
order to explore this theme, Dr. Glöckler then breaks the question into
three more specific concepts to investigate: "Does the essence of this
education really address modern times?", "What sort of health-oriented
education do we need, and how can we discover this health-orientation in
Waldorf education so that we can help the children of today?", and finally,
"Can we come to a deeper understanding of [our] time?"
Over the course of her five lectures (actually four lectures and one Q and A
session) Dr. Glöckler provides a glimpse at the deeper, philosophical
principles behind the Waldorf methodology. The first lecture looks at karma,
paints clear pictures of our ego, astral, etheric, and physical
soul-experiences, and investigates the soul-level relationship and
interaction between teacher and student. Lecture 2 "The Image Character and
Language of the Physical Body" offers a riveting overview of the physical
development of humans versus other animals and a very contra-Darwinist view
of human evolution. From there, Dr. Glöckler proceeds with information about
human growth and development and the corresponding astral, etheric, and ego
development. She describes the struggle with our "instinct deficiency" and
need to compensate with our unique human ability -- intelligence.
Many of today's social, physical, and psychological issues such as
addiction, attention-deficit disorder, depression, and physical ailments are
touched on. Even the Waldorf mainstay, rhythm, is explored. All of these
topics are discussed in light of the unique way in which Waldorf education
meets children's needs, and in some cases, heals inevitable wounds - not
just on an intellectual and physical level, but on a deep soul level."
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 21:49:06 -0700
From: Walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Linda on AT
Peter Farrell wrote:
) The scientific and engineering community honour Shockley for his valuable
) work, and criticise him for his nonsense. The fact that he was detestable
) in no way diminishes the value of the transistor. Nor does the value of
) the transistor shield Shockley from that rightful criticism.
)
) The trouble is that doubting or criticising anything of Steiner's leaves
) the whole edifice open to doubt. I am fairly certain that no aspect of it
) would survive open minded criticism. I think Steiner was aware of this
) since he attempted to shield his followers from that criticism from the
) start. Current followers have no choice but to attempt to defeat criticism
) not by facing it and dealing with it as Walden suggests, but only by
) subterfuge and obfuscation. Anything else would lead to the destruction of
) the guru as guru.
Thanks for this, Peter. It's an important lesson in "thinking critically"
while accepting something of value when and if it enters the mix.
For example, I have often posted bits of the "Waldorf "Way that I personally
think *are* valuable - especially some of what happens in the early grades;
baking bread, going for walks in nature, eating healthy food (no junk food)
in the school, etc. BUT, there is much to be critical of, as well and most
of the afore mentioned goodies are not even attached to Anthroposophy. Yet,
those same goodies seem to be perceived as belonging to Steiner. "Well,
baking healthy bread is wonderful so Steiner must be infallible . . . ."
Nonsense. But criticize the fellow and his occult beliefs in or around a
Waldorf school and be prepared for the verbal attack and/or silent
treatment. But . . .but . . . Steiner *was* a scientist, was he not? Or
*was* he a philosopher? Can we not critique science and philosophy? It seems
not in some circles.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 06:35:17 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Linda on AT
)From: Walden wrote:
)Thanks for this, Peter. It's an important lesson in "thinking critically"
)while accepting something of value when and if it enters the mix.
)For example, I have often posted bits of the "Waldorf "Way that I
)personally think *are* valuable - especially some of what happens in the
)early grades; baking bread, going for walks in nature, eating healthy food
)(no junk food) in the school, etc. BUT, there is much to be critical of, as
)well and most of the afore mentioned goodies are not even attached to
)Anthroposophy. Yet, those same goodies seem to be perceived as belonging to
)Steiner. "Well, baking healthy bread is wonderful so Steiner must be
)infallible . . . ." Nonsense. But criticize the fellow and his occult
)beliefs in or around a Waldorf school and be prepared for the verbal attack
)and/or silent treatment. But . . .but . . . Steiner *was* a scientist, was
)he not? Or *was* he a philosopher? Can we not critique science and
)philosophy? It seems not in some circles.
)
)-Walden
I find it fascinating to watch the dance around this issue by the defenders
here and the players at AT. There is all this talk about having an open mind
and how Steiner urged everyone to find out for themselves, but as soon as
there is a question there is a retreat to the great man's words. If Steiner
said it, that's the gold standard. Let's compare that with Einstein. Make no
mistake, Einstein is revered by physicists, but he is revered both for his
mistakes and for what he got right. The gold standard is not what Einstein
wrote but how what we can measure and detect. What Einstein wrote is worth
reading, but few physicists learn relativity from Einstein's writings. It is
learned from modern textbooks with improved notation, and discussions of
experiments that happened since Einstein wrote. The same is true of Newton.
I have read a tiny bit of Newton. I don't believe he has anything to tell
me. I'll go to books written in the last 50 years or so with titles like
"Classical Mechanics" to check some issue in Newtonian Mechanics or to learn
some aspect I have never learned.
You lead us to Glockler as an example of this. And I do hear others talking
about more modern renditions of Steiner's thought. But despite lots of
howling about "spiritual science" and testing the truth of it by following
the method, the test of following the method is coming to the same point as
Steiner. If you don't get there it's not a failure of the method, it's a
failure by you to apply the method sufficiently well. Perhaps you just need
a few more lives (preferably at least some with blond hair).
See you, Peter
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 2201
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Tarjei is on to something...
By pkcompany netzero.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 23:27:21 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Tarjei is on to something...
Our Friend Tarjei, moderator of Anthroposophy Tomorrow, has this to say:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/28686
)The constipated boneheads in the Hole just don't get it.
For those who haven't been following, the "Hole" is Waldorf Critics
(although it might better describe the rabbit hole of AT) - oh, and the
"constipated boneheads" - that would be anybody critical of AT or
Steiner or Anthroposophy.
) "Jesus Christ, King of Critics"
That would be me...
)who says he was crucified by the AT lynch mob,
No, it was by Tarjei - and only Tarjei... no mob involved - other
members may have complained to the moderator (again that's Tarjei) but
Tarjei single-handedly demonstrated that free speech is not allowed on
his "free speech" list and people with opposing viewpoints are not
tolerated.
)points to my suggestion above, namely that a common opponent
like the PLANS-WC cult may contribute to keeping a group like the AT
together.
And indeed I did.
)He conveniently ignores the crucial conditions, that the
forum is based upon free speech
It's not...
)and choice of topics, and that
picking on opponents is a voluntary thing, not mandatory.
Unfortunately, this is not the truth. It is mandatory for
Anthroposophists to suppress the truth. That is part of being an
Anthroposophist. When somebody points to Steiner and exclaims "the
emperor has no clothes" - it is the job of Anthroposophists to point out
that only fools cannot see the emperor's clothes. This is mandatory
because it is important to Anthroposophists that others don't notice the
emperor's nakedness.
)They're all
blind to what keeps them together, namely an organization that is
exclusively dedicated to combatting Rudolf Steiner and all his works
by all conceivable means, legal or illegal, ethical or unethical - an
organization and a discussion forum that wouldn't have existed if
there had been no anthroposophists in the world entertaining a
philosophy they hate so passionately they can't even think straight.
If by combatting Rudolf Steiner, Tarjei means ACTUALLY READING and
understanding what he said, then yes, Tarjei is correct, an
understanding of Steiner's works keeps critics together. Tarjei
apparently has as much trouble reading and understanding this list as he
does Steiner - for if he actually understood what is going on here, he
wouldn't accuse anyone here of hating Anthroposophy passionately as he
does, but would understand that if anything, it is the corrupt,
dishonest and harmful things Anthroposophists do in the name of their
philosophy that some of us are fed up with. Thinking "straight", BTW,
is not something reserved for nonsensical dogmatic spiritualists.
)The PLANS-WC cult is, ipso facto, a hate group just like "JewWatch",
regardless of how violently they protest against this comparison; it
is nevertheless true.
Tarjei is on a roll here I can see. It's easy to see why he gets so
frothing at the mouth when confronted with the truth of his own nature
and the nature of his own list and listmates. I don't think anyone here
has violently protested Tarjei's "JewWatch" comparison. That he makes
that statement says more about Tarjei than it says about anyone here.
Anyone who reads this list knows this comparison is so far from the
truth, even the most feebleminded Anthroposophist couldn't be convinced
of its accuracy... OK, well maybe one could...
)Anthroposophical study groups and email lists, on the other hand,
would have existed without the PLANS-WC cult or any other hardcore
critics (=smearmongers).
LOL! Yes, I'm sure they would. BFD...
) So the AT is not a hate group just because
it's the only forum where some of us take pleasure in shooting back
at the rodents and babysnakes.
I'm pretty sure I didn't call AT a hate group - even though there's a
lot of hate going on there. It's a place that claims to host free
discussions and then the members hide behind some warped notion of
freedom of speech to insult and personally attack anyone who cares to
debate them. We've had lots of Anthroposophists and Waldorf
representatives here, and none were personally attacked. Their ideas,
however, were "attacked" or debated. Even when holocaust denier, Robert
Mason arrived here, nobody attacked him as a person, but many people
here debated his "ideas". That's the difference between a dignified
discussion list and a childish name-calling list.
) So Pete K simply does not get the satire:
I can assure Tarjei, if one of us doesn't get what's going on, it's
certainly not me.
Pete
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 2202
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Tarjei is on to something...
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: Tarjei is on to something...
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: Tarjei is on to something...
By hartu brayco.org
RE: Tarjei is on to something...
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: Tarjei is on to something...
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: Tarjei is on to something...
By hartu brayco.org
RE: Tarjei is on to something...
By hartu brayco.org
RE: Tarjei is on to something...
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Tarjei is on to something...
By hartu brayco.org
RE: Tarjei is on to something...
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: Tarjei is on to something...
By hartu brayco.org
FW: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] those two gates
By diana.winters verizon.net
Re: FW: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] those two gates
By hartu brayco.org
RE: Tarjei is on to something...
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Tarjei is on to something...
By hartu brayco.org
RE: Tarjei is on to something...
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: Tarjei is on to something...
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: Tarjei is on to something...
By hartu brayco.org
Re: Tarjei is on to something...
By campaign ipwebdev.com
Re: Tarjei is on to something...
By hartu brayco.org
RE: Tarjei is on to something...
By hartu brayco.org
RE: Tarjei is on to something...
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: Tarjei is on to something...
By hartu brayco.org
RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] those two gates
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] those two gates
By hartu brayco.org
Ahern's Sun at Midnight
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Ahern's Sun at Midnight
By hartu brayco.org
Eloptic energy
By diana.winters verizon.net
Re: Eloptic energy
By hartu brayco.org
RE: Ahern's Sun at Midnight
By diana.winters verizon.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2006 15:20:45 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Tarjei is on to something...
And now, our friend Mike Helsher has joined in.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/28696
I'm not inclined to continue a cross-list debate with little fish, Mike.
How cowardly to snipe from the safety of a list I've been banned from -
in fact your sniping at me from AT was what prompted me to join AT years
ago, remember? If you want to debate my integrity, bring it here - or
name some other venue where we can both participate. C'mon Mike, be a
man - instead of a cheerleader for Tarjei. We both know he doesn't have
the courage to show himself here. How about you?
(Doing my best to taunt our friend. If he shows up, those with
sensitive ears should probably cover them. I think it's safe to say he
won't.)
Pete
Pete Karaiskos wrote:
)
) Our Friend Tarjei, moderator of Anthroposophy Tomorrow, has this to say:
)
) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/28686
)
) )The constipated boneheads in the Hole just don't get it.
)
) For those who haven't been following, the "Hole" is Waldorf Critics
) (although it might better describe the rabbit hole of AT) - oh, and the
) "constipated boneheads" - that would be anybody critical of AT or
) Steiner or Anthroposophy.
)
) ) "Jesus Christ, King of Critics"
)
) That would be me...
)
) )who says he was crucified by the AT lynch mob,
)
) No, it was by Tarjei - and only Tarjei... no mob involved - other
) members may have complained to the moderator (again that's Tarjei) but
) Tarjei single-handedly demonstrated that free speech is not allowed on
) his "free speech" list and people with opposing viewpoints are not
) tolerated.
)
) )points to my suggestion above, namely that a common opponent
) like the PLANS-WC cult may contribute to keeping a group like the AT
) together.
)
) And indeed I did.
)
) )He conveniently ignores the crucial conditions, that the
) forum is based upon free speech
)
) It's not...
)
) )and choice of topics, and that
) picking on opponents is a voluntary thing, not mandatory.
)
) Unfortunately, this is not the truth. It is mandatory for
) Anthroposophists to suppress the truth. That is part of being an
) Anthroposophist. When somebody points to Steiner and exclaims "the
) emperor has no clothes" - it is the job of Anthroposophists to point out
)
) that only fools cannot see the emperor's clothes. This is mandatory
) because it is important to Anthroposophists that others don't notice the
)
) emperor's nakedness.
)
)
) )They're all
) blind to what keeps them together, namely an organization that is
) exclusively dedicated to combatting Rudolf Steiner and all his works
) by all conceivable means, legal or illegal, ethical or unethical - an
) organization and a discussion forum that wouldn't have existed if
) there had been no anthroposophists in the world entertaining a
) philosophy they hate so passionately they can't even think straight.
)
) If by combatting Rudolf Steiner, Tarjei means ACTUALLY READING and
) understanding what he said, then yes, Tarjei is correct, an
) understanding of Steiner's works keeps critics together. Tarjei
) apparently has as much trouble reading and understanding this list as he
)
) does Steiner - for if he actually understood what is going on here, he
) wouldn't accuse anyone here of hating Anthroposophy passionately as he
) does, but would understand that if anything, it is the corrupt,
) dishonest and harmful things Anthroposophists do in the name of their
) philosophy that some of us are fed up with. Thinking "straight", BTW,
) is not something reserved for nonsensical dogmatic spiritualists.
)
) )The PLANS-WC cult is, ipso facto, a hate group just like "JewWatch",
) regardless of how violently they protest against this comparison; it
) is nevertheless true.
)
) Tarjei is on a roll here I can see. It's easy to see why he gets so
) frothing at the mouth when confronted with the truth of his own nature
) and the nature of his own list and listmates. I don't think anyone here
)
) has violently protested Tarjei's "JewWatch" comparison. That he makes
) that statement says more about Tarjei than it says about anyone here.
) Anyone who reads this list knows this comparison is so far from the
) truth, even the most feebleminded Anthroposophist couldn't be convinced
) of its accuracy... OK, well maybe one could...
)
) )Anthroposophical study groups and email lists, on the other hand,
) would have existed without the PLANS-WC cult or any other hardcore
) critics (=smearmongers).
)
) LOL! Yes, I'm sure they would. BFD...
)
) ) So the AT is not a hate group just because
) it's the only forum where some of us take pleasure in shooting back
) at the rodents and babysnakes.
)
) I'm pretty sure I didn't call AT a hate group - even though there's a
) lot of hate going on there. It's a place that claims to host free
) discussions and then the members hide behind some warped notion of
) freedom of speech to insult and personally attack anyone who cares to
) debate them. We've had lots of Anthroposophists and Waldorf
) representatives here, and none were personally attacked. Their ideas,
) however, were "attacked" or debated. Even when holocaust denier, Robert
)
) Mason arrived here, nobody attacked him as a person, but many people
) here debated his "ideas". That's the difference between a dignified
) discussion list and a childish name-calling list.
)
) ) So Pete K simply does not get the satire:
)
) I can assure Tarjei, if one of us doesn't get what's going on, it's
) certainly not me.
)
) Pete
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2006 15:34:45 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Tarjei is on to something...
Tarjei is getting touchy... he scolds Mike H:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/28712
"Dear Mike H.
You quoted information pertaining to an opinion on the moderator of this
list, that was written on another e-list, and then commented on it.
My I remind you that the topic of moderator on this list is "off topic"
and that violation of this one and only rule will result in in your
being permanently banned form the list.
You have been warned.
Faithfully,
Sophia (moderator)"
And Mike, Tarjei's lapdog humbly kisses his jackboot...
"My humblest appologies to you and the list.
It didn't dawn on my marble head that copying someone elses lame
opinion from another list, and then trying to defend and refute here
was bringing up the topic...
Just goes to show how emotions can run away with the moment..
Mike"
Freedom of speech - my ass...
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2006 11:35:00 -0400
From: hartu brayco.org
Subject: RE: Tarjei is on to something...
I'm sorry but the e-mail address that you have sent messages to does not exist on this server.
Please double-check the spelling of the address and try to send it again if you like.
We will try to determine who you were trying to reach but this may delay delivery of your message (and it may not even get there at all).
Thanks again and good luck.
- Webmaster
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2006 15:41:26 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Tarjei is on to something...
I didn't notice Val's response:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/28717
"Dear Sophia,
Mike's clearly been a bad boy displaying such bad form on your list-
such a violation! Personally, I am of the opinion that you suck the big
burrito in the sky.-Val"
It will be interesting to watch what happens here... Go Val!!!
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2006 20:02:14 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Tarjei is on to something...
More on the "Free-thinking" AT list:
Here's Val's warning:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/28727
"Warning
Dear Valerie Walsh,
You said to the AT moderator in a public message:
) Mike's clearly been a bad boy displaying such bad form on your list-
) such a violation! Personally, I am of the opinion that you suck the big
) burrito in the sky.-Val
Our rule against meddling in list management or making it a public
topic includes disrespectful and/or vulgar outbursts against the
moderator, especially as responses to serious reminders of this rule.
This is your final warning.
Faithfully,
Sophia (moderator)
http://www.geocities.com/anarchosophia/"
And her response:
"Re: Warning
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow yahoogroups.com, "anarchosophia"
(anarchosophia ...) wrote:
)
) Our rule against meddling in list management or making it a public
) topic includes disrespectful and/or vulgar outbursts against the
) moderator, especially as responses to serious reminders of this rule.
)
) This is your final warning.
Hmmm, well I suppose one women's trash is another's treasure.-Val"
I suspect she's outta there for that one. You don't push Tarjei's
buttons and get away with it for too long.
Steve Hale has pushed too many buttons:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/28725
"Steve H. you wrote:
) )
) ) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/1564
)
)
) Well, I also took the opportunity to look back in the archive and
) found a message of yours from the same time period: January 19,
2004.
)
) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/1349
)
) Now, please explain how your nemesis, Klaus Tues, makes it into the
) ranks of a moderator on this list? Yes, folks, the sheriff from
the
) mountain commune that guards against the evils of the drug-crazed
) Uncle Taz is now a moderator here since June.
)
) But hey, maybe you two made up for all I know. It certainly makes
) for a headline story in the Star, or National Enquirer, though.
)
) Steve
This post is meddling with list managment. You have been warned about
the only off topic. You are hereby banned form anthroposophy tomorrow.
Faithfully
Sophia
Moderator"
I guess one could project that Tarjei gets crabby when he's running out
of home-grown... BTW, the sheriff thing is pretty funny.
Anyway, it's agree with Tarjei or it's off with your head.
And suddenly the free-thinking rats are jumping ship:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/28728
"I need a change of air...
Goodbye!
Jean-Marc [FMJ]"
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/28731
)
) I need a change of air...
) Goodbye!
)
) Jean-Marc [FMJ]
"Me too, Goodbye.
Jan"
Is the stench of AT too much for free-thinking Anthroposophists to
endure? Have some of the people at AT finally realized how the
dictatorial moderation of that list by Tarjei is continually expelling
opposing viewpoints?
Tune in tomorrow for the continuing saga of "The Perils of Sophia"...
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2006 16:02:26 -0400
From: hartu brayco.org
Subject: RE: Tarjei is on to something...
I'm sorry but the e-mail address that you have sent messages to does not exist on this server.
Please double-check the spelling of the address and try to send it again if you like.
We will try to determine who you were trying to reach but this may delay delivery of your message (and it may not even get there at all).
Thanks again and good luck.
- Webmaster
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2006 11:41:45 -0400
From: hartu brayco.org
Subject: RE: Tarjei is on to something...
I'm sorry but the e-mail address that you have sent messages to does not exist on this server.
Please double-check the spelling of the address and try to send it again if you like.
We will try to determine who you were trying to reach but this may delay delivery of your message (and it may not even get there at all).
Thanks again and good luck.
- Webmaster
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 13:15:14 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Tarjei is on to something...
Pete:
)(actually, I think Tarjei objects when people out him as the moderator of
)the list).
So they booted Steve Hale - somebody had to take the fall and it sure wasn't
going to be Bradford. Steve didn't even try to be conciliatory, while
Bradford poured on the charm, fawned shamelessly on Tarjei, and (Bradford's
no dummy) played it as if it was *he* who needed to forgive *them* rather
than the other way around. Bradford sails on, passing out blessings and
anointings.
Joel reports just now that some people are unsubbing in protest of Steve
Hale's banishment, but I'm guessing Bradford's following remains loyal.
Interestingly, it was also noted - and it had been noted before, though I
had forgotten - that when Steve Hale joined the list in 2004, he apparently
introduced himself to several list members privately, and included what at
least one member considered to be offensive and gratuitous remarks about the
Jews. IOW they've all know Steve Hale's views all along, despite all the
whimpering that "But we didn't know."
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 14:17:59 -0400
From: hartu brayco.org
Subject: RE: Tarjei is on to something...
I'm sorry but the e-mail address that you have sent messages to does not exist on this server.
Please double-check the spelling of the address and try to send it again if you like.
We will try to determine who you were trying to reach but this may delay delivery of your message (and it may not even get there at all).
Thanks again and good luck.
- Webmaster
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 20:34:05 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Tarjei is on to something...
I think the public and now many of the list members have realized that
there is no such thing as a free Anthroposophical discussion list when
the moderators are Anthroposophists.
BTW, I think it's good for Waldorf when anti-Semites are treated fondly
- it demonstrates how tolerant Waldorf is. (G)
OFF TOPIC:
Can somebody who has list-managment capabilities here please
un-subscribe the Hair-brained person whose company automatically
responds to every post? Thanks!
Pete
Diana Winters wrote:
)
) Pete:
) )(actually, I think Tarjei objects when people out him as the moderator
) )of
) )the list).
)
) So they booted Steve Hale - somebody had to take the fall and it sure
) wasn't
) going to be Bradford. Steve didn't even try to be conciliatory, while
) Bradford poured on the charm, fawned shamelessly on Tarjei, and
) (Bradford's
) no dummy) played it as if it was *he* who needed to forgive *them*
) rather
) than the other way around. Bradford sails on, passing out blessings and
) anointings.
)
) Joel reports just now that some people are unsubbing in protest of Steve
) Hale's banishment, but I'm guessing Bradford's following remains loyal.
)
) Interestingly, it was also noted - and it had been noted before, though
) I
) had forgotten - that when Steve Hale joined the list in 2004, he
) apparently
) introduced himself to several list members privately, and included what
) at
) least one member considered to be offensive and gratuitous remarks about
) the
) Jews. IOW they've all know Steve Hale's views all along, despite all the
) whimpering that "But we didn't know."
)
)
) Diana
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 16:34:19 -0400
From: hartu brayco.org
Subject: RE: Tarjei is on to something...
I'm sorry but the e-mail address that you have sent messages to does not exist on this server.
Please double-check the spelling of the address and try to send it again if you like.
We will try to determine who you were trying to reach but this may delay delivery of your message (and it may not even get there at all).
Thanks again and good luck.
- Webmaster
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 13:35:19 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: FW: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] those two gates
Warning - long and tedious if you do not have any doubt that the flowers go
on existing when you cannot see them blooming, or don't feel this tells us
something deep about Man and Reality.
Tarjei was pleased to see me reprint the discussion here. He wrote:
)This crude and clumsy and potentially misleading summary of mine has made
quite a stir in the Hole, where Diana is going )ballistics over it.
Quite a stir - going ballistics - hm. Is this like how we were
"reverberating and shaking and trembling," as you proudly announced, after
your silly cocksucker post? (There was *one* reply, and I think I heard some
people stifle yawns.)
So we're directed now by Tarjei to examine this terribly important Steiner
passage again. Masochist that I am, I have examined it again! Here it is
once again for those who missed it and still think maybe some substantial
point about the nature of the universe is at stake here.
http://wn.rsarchive
(http://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA009/English/GA009_c01.html)
.org/Books/GA009/English/GA009_c01.html
****************************************************************************
***************
"I cross a meadow covered with flowers. The flowers make their colors
known to me through my eyes. That is the fact I accept as given."
Diana interjects: It actually looks to me like he's having a problem
"accepting it as given," or why state the obvious? Anyway.
"Having accepted the fact, I rejoice in the splendor of the colors.
Through this I turn the fact into an affair of my own. Through my
feelings I connect the flowers with my own existence. Then, a year
later I go again over the same meadow. Other flowers are there.
Through them new joys arise in me. My joy of the former year will
appear as a memory. This is in me. The object that aroused it in me
is gone, but the flowers I now see are of the same kind as those I
saw the year before. They have grown in accordance with the same laws
as have the others. If I have informed myself regarding this species
and these laws, I then find them again in the flowers of this year,
just as I found them in those of last year. So I shall perhaps muse,
"The flowers of last year are gone and my joy in them remains only in
my memory. It is bound up with my existence alone. What I recognized
in the flowers of last year and recognize again this year, however,
will remain as long as such flowers grow. That is something that
revealed itself to me, but it is not dependent on my existence in the
same way as my joy is. My feelings of joy remain in me. The laws, the
being of the flowers, remain outside of me in the world."
By these means man continually links himself in this threefold way
with the things of the world. One should not, for the present, read
anything into this fact, but merely take it as it stands. From this
it can be seen that man has three sides to his nature. This and
nothing else will, for the present, be indicated here by the three
words, body, soul and spirit. Whoever connects any preconceived
opinions or even hypotheses with these three words will necessarily
misunderstand the following explanations. By body is here meant that
through which the things in the environment of a man reveal
themselves to him, as in the above example, the flowers in the
meadow. By the word soul is signified that by which he links the
things to his own being, through which he experiences pleasure and
displeasure, desire and aversion, joy and sorrow in connection with
them. By spirit is meant what becomes manifest in him when as Goethe
expressed it, he looks at things as a "so to speak divine being." In
this sense man consists of body, soul and spirit."
****************************************************************************
***************
- Rudolf Steiner: "Theosophy", Chapter I, "The Essential Nature of Man", GA
9
Diana says: This is all fine by me - it's just trite. Fine, we can label
these parts of the human or types of human experience body, soul, and spirit
if you want. Why you are so certain people over here are "enemies" of such
things, or would dispute such trivialities, I don't know.
)I mentioned that Diana has gone ballistics over this particular post of
mine in the Hole, which is extraordinarily interesting for a
)change. 'll go one step farther and say with Spock that it's absolutely
fascinating! A feather in Diana's hat from Yours Truly,
)perhaps even with Peacemaker Bradford-inspired White Flag and all!
Boy, this is a switch, are you trying to apologize or something?
(Note how swiftly Bradford's reputation has been rehabilitated. Now he's a
"peacemaker" because he forgave them for daring to question him.)
)Diana is a philosopher, yes siree; I'd like to hope she's evolving from
what she used to be, but time will tell.
I'm evolving pretty doggone fast - I was a malignant lying rat just a few
days ago, I believe you even called me the "personification of evil," paving
a path for the imminent incarnation of Ahriman with my venal stupidity.
)She's hit the nail on the head with her response, and I'll explain why.
)The WC folks have a counter-doctor, an anti-doctor, namely Dr. Geoffrey
Ahern,
The "WC folks" don't "have" Dr. Geoffrey Ahern, Tarjei. I quoted his 1984
book.
)whose critique of the Doctor can be read at http://www.dci.
(http://www.dci.dk/?artikel=420) dk/?artikel=420 and elsewhere on the web. A
simple Google search )on Ahern+Steiner leads straight the PLANS website for
the two top hits, so he's really big with them.
I recommend his book. I don't agree with his perspective in every way, but
it's a very interesting book.
)I said Diana is a philosopher, but she doesn't seem to realize it. She's
never expressed an atheist worldview based upon
)natural-scientific materialism before.
I agree, I don't think I've ever made any big pronouncements here about the
nonexistence of God or proclaiming my allegiance to a "worldview based on
natural-scientific materialism."
I haven't done so now, either. You have a tendency to read into things,
Tarjei. What I said was, it's goofy to suggest that "materialists" don't
believe anything is real that cannot be immediately observed with the
senses. That's completely absurd - have you realized your mistake yet?
*Nobody* believes that, not even the dreaded materialists, except for young
infants - and possibly Rudolf Steiner, till apparently well past the normal
time when the developmental task of understanding object permanence is
usually accomplished. (Ahern suggests well into adulthood in Steiner's case.
He also suggests that Steiner at that point more or less deliberately
rejected this form of consciousness - the ability to understand oneself as
separate from the environment - in order to keep the flow of spiritual
inspiration coming.)
)Diana's attraction to Dr. Geoffrey Ahern seems to be that he's opposing
Steiner's worldview, pure and simple; he's an anti-)doctor.
You haven't read it, in other words. I recommend you actually read it if
you'd like to discuss it. Ahern doesn't oppose Steiner's worldview, he's
largely sympathetic.
I bought my copy of Sun at Midnight used, and have really enjoyed the
commentary in the margins by the previous owner, apparently an
anthroposophist who was somewhat taken aback by some of Ahern's
formulations, if the question marks and exclamation points and fierce
underlining and circling of apparently objectionable words (like "cult") are
any key. Ahern notes the problem that is always encountered attempting *any*
form of outside critique of or objective historical or anthropological
report on anthroposophy: Anthroposophists are v e r r r y touchy about
it.
I assume this is what you mean when you assert, knee jerk, that Ahern
"opposes Steiner's worldview." In fact, Ahern is sympathetic to Steiner's
world view.
)In her latest post, Diana offers the following quote by Dr. Geoffrey Ahern
as an antidote to my summary of what Steiner wrote )about flowers in the
meadow in "Theosophy".
No, it wasn't offered as an "antidote." It was offered as a possible
explanation for why the continued existence of the flowers in the meadow,
even when he couldn't see them or immediately experience them, even when
they die out and won't be back till next year, seemed so noteworthy to
Rudolf Steiner. He had trouble separating his internal experiences from the
external landscape, and figuring out in what sense each might be "real."
(According to Ahern, Steiner says this himself in his autobiography, which
I've never read.) Steiner's attempts to understand this he labeled
"spiritual insight." It's possible others with similar difficulties, or a
similar sort of porous back-and-forth thing going on between what they
perceive as "out there" versus "in here," find anthroposophy or similar
doctrines inspirational for this reason, or find it reassuring that their
unusual perceptions may actually be a special form of wisdom rather than
just dysfunctional, or of organic origin. This is just speculation, of
course.
)Pay very close attention to this:
Yes, sir.
He then repeats the quote and the Steiner passage, but I didn't get anything
deeper the second time, or is it the third, than I did the first. I'll leave
in the Ahern passage in case this is developing into something meaningful
for somebody else. Michael Howell maybe.
(I quoted Ahern):
"That Steiner was true to himself is also suggested by his frank
admission that he had difficulty with sense perception. The firm
sense perception that normally consolidates during childhood and
youth (in modern society) only developed for him when he was
thirty-five. His inner world seems to have been that which most
people leave behind in childhood or even infancy. Yet as an adult he
had direct access to it with his scientifically trained and
philosophically knowledgeable mind. He would have had difficulty with
the present consensus among psychologists that we perceive the world
indirectly through physiological mechanisms, so that what we see 'out
there' is really a sort of predictive description. Steiner thought he
had demonstrated the falsity of the assertion that sense-percepts are
subjective. Nevertheless, what was most real for him was the
spiritual activity of thinking that precedes the formation of subject
and object. He believed he had absolute knowledge of spirit; he took
it as much for reality as normal peo ple do the kitchen table. Thus
he though spiritual 'science' was possible, as have many other modern
people.
Steiner would sometimes refer to himself impersonally to emphasize
his belief in the objectivity of his spiritual research. This
puzzling man believed that his spiritual path was entirely
independent of his emotional life, which he kept private. He would
not have agreed with modern psychologists that intuitions deriving
from introspection are only subjective, consciousness of these being
located entirely in the brain and not at all in the world. For him,
the spiritual activity of thinking, or living consciously within
thoughts, is both in the brain and in the world. Unlike most modern
people, Steiner did not experience himself as essentially set apart
from his environment."
(Geoffrey Ahern, Sun at Midnight: The Rudolf Steiner Movement and the
Western Esoteric Tradition; Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, UK:
Aquarian Press, 1984. pp.68-69)
Then, god help us, Tarjei insists we repeat and compare yet *again*, but
I'll delete that.
Finally he gets to his point:
)Some time back, I mentioned in discussions here at the AT, and much earlier
in the Hole also, that there was a very interesting )cover story in Time or
Newsweek in the mid-nineties, about a couple of clever brain surgeons in San
Diego who had discovered )that consciousness, or the human "I" - and the "I"
was the precise expression they used! - was an illusion. This was something
)they could prove, because they had located the source of this illusion in
the brain, the cell or cluster of cells that produced it.
)As may be expected, there was a pile of objections in letters from the
readers all over the world in the following issue, and and )those who
objected ranged from university professors to Catholic clergy and Buddhist
monks. And this is why I question if )Diana is aware of the tremendous
philosophical importance and consequences of the position she has chosen
here.
No - it's *never occurred to me* to think about the philosophical
implications of whether the "I" is locatable in brain cells. Never once.
(sarcasm) Of course, I didn't say anything about brain cells, you're jumped
from "Do the flowers in the field still exist when I can't see and smell
them" to "Is there really such thing as an 'I' in a spiritual sense, or is
it all explainable by neurochemistry?" (Of course, for many people, those
two things are not mutually exclusive, but never mind; we can assume they
are, because making fun of people who believe the latter always helps people
who believe the former feel spiritually superior.)
)This is unlikely, because this is a crystal clear affront against the
fundamentalist members of the PLANS coalition.
I think you're a little mixed up as to what I was talking about there - I
was hardly taking a stand for materialism as you seem to think - but is it
possible you hadn't noticed before now that I don't worry about whether I
affront fundamentalists? I've been quarreling with you about this stuff
since 2001. (And you didn't used to lower yourself to obscenities, though
silly names have always been par for the course.)
Perhaps you got confused into thinking I was a Christian when I got involved
in discussing Christian theology with you?
)Linda hit the nail on the head a little earler on when she said something
to the effect that here on the AT, people argue and get )at each other's
throats because of their differences, while over in the Hole, at the WC,
there is a unity and mutual friendship and )agreement based upon falsehood.
It's not falsehood - it's always been clear that people at PLANS have a wide
variety of personal religious, philosophical, and political views. PLANS
isn't an organization with a religious doctrine or purpose, doesn't require
anyone to take a stand pro or con on scientific materialism etc. As to who
writes to the WC, it is an open list, so obviously just about any viewpoint
can be represented.
I have no idea what the point of posting the list rules for this list was
about. (But Pete seemed to have fun with it (G))
You are *just* figuring out that people over here have differing religious
views, and that I, for one, am not concerned for fundamentalist
sensitivities? That I don't care if some people who support the PLANS
lawsuit have different ideas than I do about body, soul, and spirit? Is that
the reason this got you so excited? Or am I missing your point?
Diana
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 16:40:20 -0400
From: hartu brayco.org
Subject: Re: FW: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] those two gates
I'm sorry but the e-mail address that you have sent messages to does not exist on this server.
Please double-check the spelling of the address and try to send it again if you like.
We will try to determine who you were trying to reach but this may delay delivery of your message (and it may not even get there at all).
Thanks again and good luck.
- Webmaster
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 16:51:22 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Tarjei is on to something...
Oh, be a sport, Pete (G) It creates an oddly appropriate background refrain
for this list - an anthroposophical chorus chanting in the background, Don't
be discouraged, but we must inform you