return to WCA Archive Index
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Truth or not?
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Truth or not?
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: Truth or not?
By pkcompany netzero.net
Re: Unredeemed thinking vs Christlike wisdom [Part 3]
By jmnguyen wanadoo.fr
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 11:39:36 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Truth or not?
Dottie wrote:
)With Peter S. he has been told many times and showed
)many times that he had a wrong connection to a book
)and just like the way he is stubbornly sticking to the
)idea that The Philosophy of Freedom has nothing to do
)with Anthroposphy even though time and time again Jean
)Marc, Charlie and others have brought forth work that
)disagrees clearly with his understanding, he sticks
)his head in the sand.
Don't know what others make of this, but I think Jean-Marc and Charlie keep
bringing forth work that agrees with my understanding and disagrees with
their own. My position is that PoF is a philosophical work, and not an
anthroposophical or even generally esoteric one, and that after 1900 Steiner
changed his mind about this and presented PoF as not just an esoteric work
but an anthroposophical one. Charlie's posts consistently confirm my
position regarding the philosophical and non-esoteric nature of PoF, and
Jean-Marc's posts consistently confirm my position regarding Steiner's
post-1900 re-interpretation of the book. Charlie has said virtually nothing
about Steiner's post-1900 perspective, and Jean-Marc has said virtually
nothing about PoF itself.
)The boys have shown him time and time again about the
)root race understanding in line with epochs and how
)that is related to Rudolf Steiners understandings.
Since Sune hasn't said anything on the topic in five years, I'm guessing
Dottie has Joel et al in mind here. Joel's understanding of the root race
doctrine and the racial-ethnic epochs isn't significantly different from
mine, as the exchange from this summer showed. What we disagree about is not
whether Steiner propagated these teachings, but whether some of these
teachings are racist.
)Detlef Hardcorp checkmated him clearly but just like
)Sune showing him where he had gone wrong on that book
)he was trying to use to show a thing his own way, he
)stubbornly sticks to the idea that it existed.
I do think that PoF exists, and that Steiner's racial and ethnic doctrines
exist as well. It's also true that Detlef Hardorp explicitly defends
Steiner's racial teachings, including the ones about whites as the
spiritually creative race of the future and so forth. I agree that Steiner
said these things. Where Detlef and I disagree is whether these things are
racist.
Greetings to all,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Get FREE Web site and company branded e-mail from Microsoft Office Live
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 23:33:51 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Truth or not?
Hi Peter,
I think Dottie is still stuck on the reference to the lecture that Sune
has been accusing you of forging... i.e. the "wrong connection to a
book" and that you are stubborn for not admitting that you invented a
lecture and then to cover your tracks forged the lecture yourself.
Personally, I can't see why you don't just admit to doing all of this
(sarcasm of course). I guess in the spirit world, repetition of a good
lie is as good as truth. Now, you are being equally stubborn by not
admitting, despite no actual evidence, that you are wrong about PoF and
that underlying Anthroposophy is "thinking" and Steiner talks about
thinking in PoF - therefore he was talking about Anthroposophy. The
boys have shown this to be true - as well as that Steiner couldn't have
been a racist because root-races don't count.
I think Dottie directed a post to me a ways back... beings as I don't
have a lot to do right now, I'll have a look at it.
Thanks for patiently wading through all this stuff Peter.
Pete
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
)
)
)
) Dottie wrote:
)
)
) )With Peter S. he has been told many times and showed
) )many times that he had a wrong connection to a book
) )and just like the way he is stubbornly sticking to the
) )idea that The Philosophy of Freedom has nothing to do
) )with Anthroposphy even though time and time again Jean
) )Marc, Charlie and others have brought forth work that
) )disagrees clearly with his understanding, he sticks
) )his head in the sand.
)
)
) Don't know what others make of this, but I think Jean-Marc and Charlie
) keep
) bringing forth work that agrees with my understanding and disagrees with
)
) their own. My position is that PoF is a philosophical work, and not an
) anthroposophical or even generally esoteric one, and that after 1900
) Steiner
) changed his mind about this and presented PoF as not just an esoteric
) work
) but an anthroposophical one. Charlie's posts consistently confirm my
) position regarding the philosophical and non-esoteric nature of PoF, and
)
) Jean-Marc's posts consistently confirm my position regarding Steiner's
) post-1900 re-interpretation of the book. Charlie has said virtually
) nothing
) about Steiner's post-1900 perspective, and Jean-Marc has said virtually
) nothing about PoF itself.
)
)
) )The boys have shown him time and time again about the
) )root race understanding in line with epochs and how
) )that is related to Rudolf Steiners understandings.
)
)
) Since Sune hasn't said anything on the topic in five years, I'm guessing
)
) Dottie has Joel et al in mind here. Joel's understanding of the root
) race
) doctrine and the racial-ethnic epochs isn't significantly different from
)
) mine, as the exchange from this summer showed. What we disagree about is
) not
) whether Steiner propagated these teachings, but whether some of these
) teachings are racist.
)
)
) )Detlef Hardcorp checkmated him clearly but just like
) )Sune showing him where he had gone wrong on that book
) )he was trying to use to show a thing his own way, he
) )stubbornly sticks to the idea that it existed.
)
)
) I do think that PoF exists, and that Steiner's racial and ethnic
) doctrines
) exist as well. It's also true that Detlef Hardorp explicitly defends
) Steiner's racial teachings, including the ones about whites as the
) spiritually creative race of the future and so forth. I agree that
) Steiner
) said these things. Where Detlef and I disagree is whether these things
) are
) racist.
)
)
) Greetings to all,
)
)
) Peter S.
)
) _________________________________________________________________
) Get FREE Web site and company branded e-mail from Microsoft Office Live
) http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/
)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 01:02:38 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Truth or not?
dottie zold wrote:
)
) Pete:
) ) Not obvious to me.
)
) Well, maybe if you stepped back from the mirror you
) might be able to see if there was anyone else that met
) that discription or if it was the one staring back at
) you.
Ooo... what if my double was staring at me through the mirror - that
could get really confusing.
) Pete:
) ) You have lost me. What underaged person? You have
) ) been stalking
) ) underaged persons who participate on this list?
)
) See, that's what I love about you Pete, you always
) show your true colors.
Apparently, my true colors are shown when I ask you a simple question.
Who are you talking about? Alex? If so, you say you contacted "him" -
Alex is not a "him".
) Thank you thank you thank you:)
You're welcome.
) You just never seem to know how to keep your foot out
) of your mouth: lucky for those that you slime with
) slanderous gossip.
I'm still lost. How have I put my foot in my mouth. I've never
slandered anyone that I know of.
) Pete:
) ) I should hope so. If I thought I came across
) ) sounding the way Sune
) ) does, I'd shoot myself.
)
) I know, being an honorable man of integrity just
) doesn't seem to suit your personality to well it
) seems.
You're right - we're talking about two different people. My integrity
is without question.
) Pete:
) My accusations are true,
) ) Dottie, every single
) ) one of them. Sune's simply are not.
)
) Yeah, Pete, from your writings here and your hiding on
) the other list I don't really know if you can separate
) what is true from what is false in your experiences
) anymore. They seem to be so clouded by anger.
Nope. Perfectly clear - and each one documented. I don't have the
fuzzies - unlike some people. I don't know what other list you seem to
think I am hiding on. You didn't address the dishonesty of Sune's
accusations. Do you contend that his accusations are honest?
) I'm starting to wonder when the real Pete will stand
) up and leave this other one behind.
It has already happened. The Waldorf Dazed Pete is no longer with us.
Others here have experienced the same feeling of freedom and finding
themselves on the other side of Waldorf. If you think the real Pete is
waiting to find Anthroposophy, I'll ask you nicely to please give up on
that idea. I've climbed out of that hole forever.
) Everyone can see
) through their dealings with you and with Sune, who the
) real gentleman is. Sune has always been well regarded
) by those he has debated even if they disagreed.
Somehow I doubt this. Nobody has had "dealings" with me that have not
been honest and straightforward. Sune, BTW, has publicly threatened me
with physical violence. You may want to ask him about that one. I
don't know where you get your gentlemen, but you should try a different
source.
) Pete:
) ) Well, its not surprising that you believe this.
) ) Maybe integrity has a
) ) meaning I'm not familiar with.
)
) I think you would be bored with integrity Pete. It's
) just not your style.
It's exactly my style Dottie. That's why I can't do Waldorf - I can't
lie through my teeth to people. That's apparently a prerequisite for
Waldorf people, lying to others. Lying is not my style.
) Dottie:
) ) ) One need not look any
) ) ) further than many of your own posts for low
) ) standards on the internet in
) ) )
) ) ) a discussion.
Feel free to point them out.
) Pete:
) ) That would also depend on who you ask, I suppose.
)
) Ah, not really. Your flippant, raging, bullying posts
) are pretty clear to see even with those that agree
) with you on the issues. It's pretty much seen by
) everyone.
I'm not the one who got booted for namecalling, dear.
) Dottie:
) ) ) Good. So where is he dishonest Pete.
)
) Pete:
) ) For one thing, his label of PLANS as a "hate group".
) ) For another, his
) ) claims of "forgery" against Peter Staudenmaier.
)
) Ahhh, so here we go. He is lying if he says that PLANS
) is a hate group?
Yes - he is. AWSNA says it too. That's just plain dishonest. PLANS
has never done anything CLOSE to an activity that would be considered a
hate-motivated activity. It's just a lie - and it comes from the top of
Waldorf.
) Or can that be his opinion through
) watching the fear mongering that has gone on at PLANS
) headquarters on this list?
Nope. It can't be just his opinion, because he ascribes that opinion to
Americans for Waldorf Education - and indeed the claim is also on their
website. So clearly it is not just Sune's opinion - it is a libelous
statement from Sune, to AWE, to AWSNA - and frankly, it seems to
represent more "hate-group" activity than PLANS has ever been accused
of. Falsely labeling a group as a "hate group" and comparing them to
"Jew Watch" is pretty hateful stuff. And it's coming from your side of
the fence.
) I mean it gets to be like
) Jew Watch with Dan posting the things he does about
) anthros.
There you go! Join in. What in the world do you believe Dan or PLANS
has ever said about the Anthros that is comparable to Jew Watch - or any
hate group? Frankly, I'm surprised at Dan's patience in allowing you
back in just a week.
) He's not concerned whether or not a thing is
) true, as long as its anti waldorf or anthroposophy he
) puts it up.
Can you support that statement?
) He's connected a young man who killed
) someone who was a jewish boy, if my memory serves me,
) to the Nazis because his parents were anthroposophists
) or waldorf teachers.
So the parents weren't Waldorf teachers or Anthroposophists?
) PLANS seems committed through Dan
) to connect Steiner's teachings to a racist cosmology
) that Walden brings forth and says the words 'spiritual
) genocide'.
They can't make a case where there isn't one. Problem is - that's where
all the arrows are pointing. The only unbelieveable part is that you
and others don't see it.
) One can see where one might hold that
) opinion due to the outragious claims against Waldorf
) that include being called a cult to having people on
) this list connect it to these former hippies who were
) wanted for molesting children.
Sometimes reading your posts is like having someone else control the
remote. What former hippies?
) I mean it is a disgrace
) to have allowed this type of demon/hate bating to
) occur.
Wait... wasn't Steiner the demon guy? What's more of a disgrace -
pretending none of this happened, or pointing out that it did?
) Dan's work is found along side a group that
) speaks about waldorf in line with children stealing.
I don't know who you are talking about.
) With Peter S. he has been told many times and showed
) many times that he had a wrong connection to a book
) and just like the way he is stubbornly sticking to the
) idea that The Philosophy of Freedom has nothing to do
) with Anthroposphy even though time and time again Jean
) Marc, Charlie and others have brought forth work that
) disagrees clearly with his understanding, he sticks
) his head in the sand.
Peter has answered this one for himself. Sune is mistaken about the
"connection" and I have pointed it out to him - but he never gets tired
of telling the tale.
) The boys have shown him time and time again about the
) root race understanding in line with epochs and how
) that is related to Rudolf Steiners understandings.
So, they agree that Steiner was a racist?
) Detlef Hardcorp checkmated him clearly but just like
) Sune showing him where he had gone wrong on that book
) he was trying to use to show a thing his own way, he
) stubbornly sticks to the idea that it existed.
You're right. I think the right thing to do is to jump off the nearest
bridge if someone makes a point in a debate. How dare Peter not shrivel
up and die. I read where Peter explained ad nauseum, to Sune about the
article you are referring to. If there is someone being stubborn about
this subject, it's Sune.
) If that's what you have for a case of Sune lying I
) think your in a wee bit of quick sand there. Ooops
) there you go.
That's one of many - but one of the most serious ones. To be quite
honest, I can't follow what Sune is talking about half the time and
having followed some of his long-winded discussions to their eventual
point, it is pretty clear to me that taking the time to follow them is a
clear waste of time.
) Pete:
) ) Actually, no. People who support Waldorf truthfully
) ) have my
) ) appreciation.
)
) Your full of baloney Pete. You got this jeckly and
) hide personality that just bullys people.
It's my double, I keep telling you.
) THose that
) are sweet to your face and let you keep on talking are
) okay in your book, those that call you on your shit
) are liars.
No, not at all. There are lots of people who call me on my shit.
Baandje is one, Keith is another. I don't recall calling them liars.
One reason is that they haven't lied. But, in any case, we do do
name-calling here - it's against the rules.
) Pete:
) No, he has brought a spotlight on himself, not this
) list.
)
) Nope, again you were not on this list to know so Pete.
) You've only been here for a few years since your
) separation. Sune goes back almost 8 or so years now.
I read this list for a long time before participating. I've been
separated/divorced seven years. Thing is, he has shown the world what
Anthroposophy has to offer... and that's what I keep telling people -
look at Anthroposophists and tell me if they seem happy to you. They
don't seem very happy to me.
) He was kicked off by Dan on a false charge way back
) when.
I know what you mean. I was kicked off of AT on false charges.
) He was fine to be on this list and had been so.
Yeah, it would be great if he were back here - with every third word a
reference to his own research. Those were the good ole days.
) From there he created a really good informative
) website that looks to highlight the inconsistancies of
) PLANS.
Yeah, his website is the greatest. Just the place for people to get
straight information. His offshoot - AWE is also a good one.
) Pete:
) He has shown
) ) the extremes (hopefully) to which Waldorf teachers
) ) will go to convince
) ) people away from the truth.
)
) Not really Pete.
Too bad then - I guess the extremes are yet to be found.
) People can double check all of his
) work to see where it is met by PLANS propaganda.
Amazingly, all his references are TO HIMSELF. It's very easy to check
his work - just ask him and he'll tell you. Makes perfect sense to me.
) If PLANS had stuck to their original state against church
) point of view there would of been regular debates.
But then there wouldn't be as much public discussion would there.
) Once they started talking about Steiner as a
) forerunner to the nazis and believing in karma means
) its okay if your child dies, waldorf as a cult due to
) school fundraising and so forth, battle lines were
) drawn. And rightly so.
Sometimes, I think there's a game of "telephone" going on between your
computer screen and your brain. Who has said Steiner is a forerunner to
the Nazis? Who has said believing in karma means it's ok of your child
dies? Who has said Waldorf is a cult due to fundraising? If this is
what you get when you read the posts here, then it's no wonder you are
so filled with hate. Nobody has said these things Dottie. I know what
you are referring to and what was actually said in each case was NOTHING
like what you have presented here. Feel free to produce references to
what you believe you read.
)
) His site is a really good clean site that shows
) timelines of things that happened here.
Incredible. If that's what you truly believe, there will never be any
common ground. Sune is an extremist who has twisted what was actually
said and pointed out how his twisted version is not true. Look at his
"myths" page, for example. It is a page full of strawman arguments.
) I know good
) and clean don't appeal to you and that you find it
) boring, but that has always been the way Sune has
) brought his self. Even the girls here were complaining
) all the time how boring he was with his facts.
Not a fact in there anywhere - Dottie. And judging by what you have
said above, you don't seem to know the facts either. I deal with Sune
every single day - and his appetite for distorting the truth is
insatiable. Don't even get me started. Facts are just some things that
get in the way of the story he is trying to present.
)
) Pete:
) His page of "Myths" or
) ) his Q&A page for
) ) example, should send any parent screaming away from
) ) Waldorf. He doesn't
) ) realize how much he is hurting the Waldorf movement.
)
) Good, thanks for that. I shall check to see what you
) are commenting on.
Good - take your time.
) Pete:
) ) And AWSNA is
) ) supporting this nonsense. That's where the problems
) ) with Waldorf start
) ) - AWSNA. They are too closed-minded to see that
) ) lying isn't work FOR
) ) Waldorf - it is exactly what keeps critics going.
)
) Oh, okay, so their all lying but you guys right? OKay
) yeah we get the story.
Gee... is it so hard to believe. It's not like they are some hugely
diverse organization. They are nothing more than hard-nosed Anthropops
- they are pretty much all cut from the same cloth. They are very
motivated (financially and spiritually) to ensure that a particular view
of history is more popular. They are very motivated (financially and
spiritually) to ensure that evidence about the problems in Waldorf is
covered up. They are very motivated (financially and spiritually) to
stick to their guns - lest their guru be shown for a fraud, their
schools shown to be cultish, their spiritual philosophy shown to be
racist. There is NO such motivation on this side of the fence to make
stuff up - or to cover stuff up.
) Pete:
) ) If Waldorf would stop
) ) lying about everything, they wouldn't have the
) ) problems they have.
)
) Waldorf is doing really fine Pete.
No, not really. Several reports have come back showing Waldorf schools
to be racist, doing poorly in science, Waldorf students to be having
problems getting into college. There is a huge turn-over rate (25% per
year at Highland Hall) and lots of parents are becoming very vocal about
Waldorf's problems - not just here but all over the internet. They are
not doing fine.
) It is growing and
) growing and people are looking for ways for more
) schools and more highschools to be created.
Actually, the growth isn't that great. There aren't that many more
schools than there were 15 years ago.
) Whereas
) this list seems not to be growing. In fact it still
) has the same 4 or 5 people, or maybe that is 3 or 4
) people criticizing.
This list doesn't recruit anyone.
) So if we have to look at the
) static numbers of this list with that which is
) happening out there in the real world I think we can
) have a pretty good idea that Waldorf is doing well.
The comparison is ridiculous.
) And it can only get better. There is a want for
) schools like Waldorf. It is also recognized that
) Waldorf has problems as any school will.
No, people want Waldorf without the Anthroposophy. They don't want
Waldorf. They want what Waldorf SAYS it is, not what it really is. Big
difference. That's why Waldorf hides the Anthroposophy - they know
people don't want it. And that's why they have problems - they are
trying to sugar-coat a very nasty tasting pill - and people are spitting
it out when they get a taste of the truth.
) Pete:
) ) I don't think I ever accused anyone of child
) ) stealing. I don't think
) ) all Anthroposophists are racist either. There are
) ) many who have
) ) discarded Steiner's racist ideas.
)
) Boy oh boy Pete. Do you not recall the story that you
) shared here when you were just beginning or a little
) afterwords that said a Waldorf teacher was trying to
) take your kid from you? Do you remember that?
No - you're confused (as I thought). The teacher very inappropriately
told my child that she wanted to adopt her. This was during a difficult
divorce. It was not about "child stealing" - it was about making
inappropriate suggestions to a child. You are running around claiming
that I said a teacher tried to steal my child from me? Amazing...
) And you
) haven't related that because Waldorf is teaching a
) racist agenda and that Steiner is a racist according
) to your mind that we are all in that boat who follow
) him? You must be kidding.
I think you're the one who must be kidding - except I sense you are
serious. Waldorf DID teach a racist agenda to my child. And Steiner's
teachings ARE a racist. You are free to follow him or not - to
acknowledge his racism or not - it's your choice.
) Pete:
) ) (giggle)... Yes, Anthroposophists should strive to
) ) be like Sune.
)
) I think many do. I know I do.
Good - I think you've got his communication skills down. I'm sure many
are just like him. That's how I know I would never want to be an
Anthroposophist.
) He has always held
) himself above the nasty name calling that goes on here
) at PLANS headquarters. Always. He is a great model of
) integrity and how to maintane equalibrium when dealing
) with bullies like you.
)
) Pete:
) ) We should erect a statue or something...
)
) You wouldn't be having people say these things about
) you now would you Pete?
People say nice things about me all the time. I don't expect to get any
recognition from Highland Hall, but it has become a much better school
through my sacrifice. The honest people there will admit it - the
dishonest ones, the "undercurrent" as I like to call them, will continue
to gossip and say horrible things about me. Again, I suggest it depends
on who you ask. I get people coming up to me all the time telling me
they admire my courage for standing up to the undercurrent at Highland
Hall. I'm actually well-respected by everyone except the few who have
their heads stuck up their asses.
) Yeah, you picked the wrong guy
) to make a statement about lack of integrity.
Naw... I know him for what he is. But it's been a very interesting post
by you. I guess you guys have to stick together.
) But hey,
) that came from Dan putting up a stupid accusation from
) people he hasn't even interacted with and doesnt' even
) know if what they are saying is true or even who they
) are. More unsubstantiated accusations that are used
) here for nothing other than to create a lie about
) waldorf.
I haven't a clue what you're talking about here Sune... Um... I mean
Dottie...
Happy New Year to you...
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 05:52:49 +0100
From: "Jean-Marc Nguyen" (jmnguyen wanadoo.fr)
Subject: Re: Unredeemed thinking vs Christlike wisdom [Part 3]
Dan Dugan wrote:
) Jean-Marc Nguyen quoted Steiner:
)
))And this is why the fate of the *Philosophy of Freedom* was that
))it was too intellectual to the mystics: too many thoughts, from
))their perspective. The others on the other hand, who were the
))contemporary rationalists and scientists and also philosophers,
))couln't do anything with it either, because it led to the domain of
))clairvoyance [das Gebiet des Schauens] that they did not want
))to enter (...)
)
) Sorry, Jean-Marc, but that sounds to me like a really lame excuse
) that his devotees would believe, but other philosophers would simply
) laugh at. Of course he wouldn't have cared, having withdrawn from the
) real world.
)
) -Dan Dugan
Well Dan, I guess the *living dead* are inherently doomed to perceive
the truly living spirit - as a mere unholy ghost haunting the graveyard
they
blasphemously refer to as the real world...
But since you seem to be concerned for people who are out of touch
with reality, I'm sure that you and other members of this Waldorf-Critics
list will be especially delighted by the following...
Rudolf Steiner [GA 172 - Dornach, 27 November 1916]:
(At one point of his lecture, Steiner is talking about exorcism and demons,
but I'll skip that part - it would sound too spooky to some of you guys :-)
"That which the ancient Christian rituals pursued symbolically must seize
hold of the entire world; that which was accomplished on the altar must
seize hold of the entire world. Mankind must learn to handle nature the
way the Gods themselves handled nature: not to build machines without
interest, but to carry out all deeds as a service, to bring sacramentalism
into everything.
One will be able to get started in various fields. Nowadays, people
can begin developing sacramentalism in two fields above all. The first
field is that of teaching and education. When we regard each person
born in the world as someone coming with his power of Christ [seine
Kraft des Christus] and we therefore hold in proper respect the being
growing up, and consequently arrange the entire education and
particularly teaching, i.e. realize sacramentalism in teaching - more
precisely, when we realize a sacramental, when we not only consider
education and teaching as a service - but perform them as a service,
then we are beginning to spiritualize what the religions call: baptism.
And when we attempt to bring to our consciousness that which we
call our knowledge, when our soul is filled with ideas about the spiritual
world and we are fully aware that the spiritual is penetrating us, that we
are merging with the spiritual - when we consider that as a communion,
when we are able to realize true knowledge --- *thinking is the true
communion of mankind*, (...), when we are able to realize that, then
that which was the symbolic sacrament on the altar becomes a common
sacramental experience of knowledge [zu einem allgemeinen
sakramentalen Erleben der Erkenntnis]. The Christianization of man
must go in that direction; you will then become aware that everywhere
in life, and for everything Christ-related, reality indeed penetrates Maya
[illusion] - and that to view reality as modern science does with its
worldview - is unchristian, eminently unchristian."
Now, I'm sincerely hoping that our atheistic expert in anthroposophical
spiritual science - Peter Staudenmaier, who else? - will not fall off from
the precarious pile of philosophical treatises he is sitting on --- but I
simply must add, for the sake of accuracy: Rudolf Steiner put this
absolutely essential and central anthroposophical truth into words long
before the year 1916, actually long before 1900...
"The perception of the idea in reality [Merriam-Webster: the totality of
real things and events] is the true communion of man.
[Das Gewahrwerden der Idee in der Wirklichkeit ist die wahre
Kommunion des Menschen.]
Rudolf Steiner wrote that in 1887...in his Introduction(s) to the scientific
papers of Goethe. [GA 1]
Er...that's seven years before the publication of his *Philosophy of
Freedom*. 1887 + 7 = 1894 :-)
Jean-Marc
PS [postscriptum]: You're welcome, Deborah! ;-)
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 2409
-- Topica Digest --
Re: The Philosophy of Freedom and Archangel Michael
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Waldorf succeeding across the board
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 10:14:35 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: The Philosophy of Freedom and Archangel Michael
Franky, you wrote:
)Thanks for describing a process towards universal truth.
)
)Seeing how much one is influenced by society, and the value of
)thinking by oneself.
)
)I quite agree that being a Steiner critic or a Steiner follower can
)be a very intellectual trip with apparently no end in view. It is
)very important to take a similar journey towards truth. It can be
)done out of life experience: grief brought Joan Didion somewhere to
)some knowledge she can feel at home with.
)
)Life in sorrow or grief brings us to reconsider our concepts, and
)also puts us in front of perceptions, 'life-experience, which
)becomes a starting point for knowledge, for a knowledge we make
)ourselves.
Yes, a traumatic experience often inspires life changes. I became
interested in philosophy after our family was expelled from our
Waldorf school, in which we had a significant investment.
)The interesting thing for me is that the lesson of life is that
)starting points exist for me to get free in my thinking about things.
)
)Now if I do not want to be a slave of my biography, of what life
)brings to me, I can also decide I will take a starting point myself,
)I will create it. I can take a percept, a thought as my starting
)point. And give it all the attention that the prodding of life urges
)me to have when life confronts me.
)
)When life urges me relentlessly to do this or that according to life
)timetable, or to my job timetable, I can also decide to apply the
)same rigour to time table myself to do an act of my own choosing,
)relentlessly, rhythmically.
Acting, rather than reacting. Admirable, if the outcome is viewed as
beautiful or useful; foolish, if one goes "off on a tangent" and
one's work has no impact on society.
)Could it be that if I admire or criticise the intellectual games of
)anthroposophists, I only join in the societatal game of
)intellectualising when I only criticise or admire with the power of
)my intellect and playful reasoning., all too happy to categorise
)what I am thinking about.
I'm certainly guilty of trivial criticism of Anthroposophy. It has so
many absurd beliefs that it's easy to make fun of it rather than
engage it seriously.
)Or do I take in a disgusting or appealing thought and chew it up to
)the end, going through all the motions and the consequences it could
)have if it was true or not, exercising a lot of mental force. Then I
)can also observe that mental force that grinds and cultivates the
)thought, and see where it takes me, what concept I can unite with
)that object of attention. How other concepts come to link with this
)evolving force in my own consciousness. Then I will have to find
)words for these concepts, these truths. They will not be politically
)correct or not words; they will be truths, not assumptions.
)Assumptions grow stales or sterile, truths grow towards universality.
I don't agree that an intense individual study of anything leads to
universal or even particular truths. I think the path to truth is
found better through testing of ideas against the physical world
and/or against the opinions of peers.
This is where 19th-century philosophers like Steiner got lost,
spending too much time in their own heads and not recognizing the
communal and external nature of knowledge.
)Truth do nit mind if a human consciousness found their seeds in
)assumptions found in a dump or in a revered writing,
Agreed. It doesn't matter where a proposition comes from; its
validity is determined by testing it.
)truths are created by an individual who take the time, effort and
)reflection to cultivate/create them. Once we have created a truth,
)regarding something, or our own perception of ourselves, we can also
)perceive the same truth living as truth, not as assumption in some
)one else, etc The road for that truth to become universal?
No, what you're describing is too individual a process to be a
reliable path to knowledge.
)I do not think that the famous mythological battle is between
)different truths and to find which one is universal. I think the
)question is what will prevail Truth or assumptions. Truth are very
)weak by nature and need to be created and strengthen by individual
)consciousnesses. Assumptions are very prevalent by nature, and in
)some cases rule entire societies and groups of societies.
That last is unfortunately true, but I don't see truth as weak. Truth
is what's left when you've tested the ideas and discarded those that
fail. Truthful propositions are the stronger propositions, not frail
at all. And I have to add, any "truth" is subject to revision in the
light of new evidence.
Now to my view the Anthroposophical Society is ruled by a false
assumption: that Rudolf Steiner had supernatural abilities.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 19:14:54 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf succeeding across the board
Franky, you wrote:
)Dear Dan, and all,
)To follow the argument of Dan, just in keeping with the quote of the
)academic report chosen by Dan.
)
)1-'This brief note addressing..Issue .the reality of racism in
)Waldorf education as well as, apparently, in the teachings of Rudolf
)Steiner.'
)
)A brief note: not at all on the same level as the academic study.
)The question of the reality in the School: and only apparently in
)the teaching. It would require much more investigation to bring the
)reality of the existence of racism in Rudolf Steiner work, and it is
)not part of the remit of a note, which is brought as a note, not as
)an element of the report.
Agreed. It wasn't a deep study. It was occasioned by racism having
hit them in the face. Some of the scholars felt it would be dishonest
to not include that in the report. The majority, being strongly
enough in favor of Waldorf to bend the truth, ruled against it. A
compromise was struck, a minority report would be published in an
obscure journal.
)2- 'One of our team members, on the basis of her time at the Urban
)Waldorf School, has written glowingly about the promise of Waldorf
)education for African American children (Dillard, 1996).
)
)It is not said if this writing was part of the final report, or
)written in a separate article where the colleague, while expressing
)an assessment.
No, it's clear from the reference (Dillard, 1996) that a separate
publication is being referred to.
)But the emphasis here is that only that colleague was present for a
)relevant time in the Urban School and that no other member of the
)team did go to that school. So they point out that this assessment
)is based on the only person who was there and is not a team
)assessment.
No, that's not what the article said at all. They were all there.
Please read the article before rendering your opinion!
)2-'If that promise is to be realized, all members of the Waldorf
)community will have to appraise critically whatever racism might be
)inherent in their world view.'
)
)'whatever racism might be inherent' further studies need to be don
)to see if it is or is not inherent., and it was not felt important
)for this report to do them.
They're properly not drawing conclusions beyond their evidence.
)It also points out that instance of racism could be due to the
)individual teacher and has nothing to do with Rudolf Steiner
Of course, but then they go on to illustrate how the observed
attitudes were completely consistent with what Steiner taught.
)4-"In an early version of the large report, we included an account
)of a racially charged discussion brought to the school by visiting
)representatives of the international Waldorf community. In a
)conversation in an office at the school (for which no one from the
)school was present), Steiner's racist speculations about Africans as
)close to the body and new to the rational and spiritual heights
)achieved by whites on the evolutionary ladder were cited as possibly
)relevant to the education of African American children in Milwaukee.
)There, in a school using Steiner's ideas in the best possible way,
)we were treated to a full display of what we would have to worry
)about if we were to invoke Waldorf without reservation as a model
)for American education."'
)
)What was said was not said by members of the school, was not said
)with school members present. It had nothing to do with the present
)report.
It did, too. What representatives of the international Waldorf
movement said certainly had relevance to a school founded on the
movement's principles. That's what the scholars said--watch out, this
stuff will bite you.
)The authors of the report left it at that with some personal
)questions. They did not follow in investigating how the school
)community would react to the way Rudolf Steiner sayings were
)reported. They did not assess at the time or afterwards the
)relevance of the Rudolf Steiner few sentences quoted..
They didn't report precisely what the visiting Waldorf teachers said,
there's no mention of a quotation. They did indeed address the
relevance of it; read the article.
)5- '"[I]t is time to consider the possibility that some naive forms
)of racism are endemic to those who embrace anthroposophy without a
)strong critical sense for the real possibility that Steiner's
)speculations about the racial organization of culture and
)consciousness were wrong."
)
)Possibility used twice here means that is it not an affirmation of
)the racism. These researchers are only asking for some one to be
)commissioned a further or separate report.
So you're going to use the cautious academic language as an excuse to
ignore what they said. That, indeed, is what the Waldorf movement did
and continues to do--ignore it's race problem.
)Dear Dan, could you be reading this report without the sense of how
)academic people write?
I think that applies more to you.
)According to some it seems that they warned that their academic way
)of writing was not being read on it sown merit, but used for polemic
)purposes.
That's what Ray McDermott said after the report had been publicized
by PLANS. He should be ashamed for trying to weasel out of something
so important.
Of course we used it for polemic purposes. It cries out for wider
exposure, if you have a sense of morality.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 2410
-- Topica Digest --
RE: www.waldorfcritics.org feedback
By Diana.Winters verizon.net
Re: Waldorf succeeding across the board
By eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk
Re: Unredeemed thinking vs Christlike wisdom [Part 3]
By eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk
the idiom of German Idealism
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Waldorf succeeding across the board
By pkcompany netzero.net
Admin: quirks of list server
By dan dandugan.com
RE: waldorf for homeschool?
By dan dandugan.com
RE: www.waldorfcritics.org feedback
By dan dandugan.com
RE: I think, therefore I am.
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 14:35:18 +0000
From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: www.waldorfcritics.org feedback
Sgreen, if you don't mind my asking, are you a Wesleyan student? (I'm an
alum.)
Diana
sgreen wesleyan.edu wrote:
)To Dan,
)Scroll down for a few responses.
)Thanks.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 13:22:26 -0000
From: "eurythmy" (eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Waldorf succeeding across the board
2007-01-02
Dear Dan, and all,
The whole school report was a rather hot topic and I merely wanted to bring
a sober pedestrian reading of your quotes of it. Thanks for your comments
and clarification. I appreciate the extent of your efforts to further your
convictions.
Franky:))What was said was not said by members of the school, was not said
with school members present. It had nothing to do with the present report.
Dan:)It did, too. What representatives of the international Waldorf movement
said certainly had relevance to a school founded on the movement's
principles. That's what the scholars said--watch out, this stuff will bite
you.
Franky: 'will bite you' a comment, about a future which they assert is not
certain at all. They do not urge for a new report on that topic. Of course
common sense on the ground should prevail anyway.
)From my experience of Waldorf Schools on the continent, they rarely delegate
authority, if ever. My guess: Some people from abroad turned up, with no
authority on the school. Most probably to collect information on the school?
They were never asked by the inspected school to talk to the researchers,
etc, etc. Nothing too official in what they say.
This does not mean that I am trying to water own the issues. I am only
trying to read the parts of the document you most often quote. It is now
clear what they say, how they asses the school, that some of the researchers
wanted to quote outside publication, and out of remit remarks. They call for
further study, and seem to hope to get further funding themselves, as it is
usually the case.
I would be very interested to know if any one else found further study worth
funding?
What happened next at the school? You have been watchful, has anyone else?
Has anything happened at the school which would bring concern?
Kind Regards,
Franky
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Dugan" (dan dandugan.com)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Monday, January 01, 2007 3:14 AM
Subject: Re: Waldorf succeeding across the board
)
) Franky, you wrote:
))Dear Dan, and all,
)
))To follow the argument of Dan, just in keeping with the quote of the
))academic report chosen by Dan.
))
))1-'This brief note addressing..Issue .the reality of racism in Waldorf
))education as well as, apparently, in the teachings of Rudolf Steiner.'
))
))A brief note: not at all on the same level as the academic study. The
))question of the reality in the School: and only apparently in the
))teaching. It would require much more investigation to bring the reality of
))the existence of racism in Rudolf Steiner work, and it is not part of the
))remit of a note, which is brought as a note, not as an element of the
))report.
)
) Agreed. It wasn't a deep study. It was occasioned by racism having hit
) them in the face. Some of the scholars felt it would be dishonest to not
) include that in the report. The majority, being strongly enough in favor
) of Waldorf to bend the truth, ruled against it. A compromise was struck, a
) minority report would be published in an obscure journal.
)
))2- 'One of our team members, on the basis of her time at the Urban Waldorf
))School, has written glowingly about the promise of Waldorf education for
))African American children (Dillard, 1996).
))
))It is not said if this writing was part of the final report, or written in
))a separate article where the colleague, while expressing an assessment.
)
) No, it's clear from the reference (Dillard, 1996) that a separate
) publication is being referred to.
)
))But the emphasis here is that only that colleague was present for a
))relevant time in the Urban School and that no other member of the team did
))go to that school. So they point out that this assessment is based on the
))only person who was there and is not a team assessment.
)
) No, that's not what the article said at all. They were all there. Please
) read the article before rendering your opinion!
)
))2-'If that promise is to be realized, all members of the Waldorf community
))will have to appraise critically whatever racism might be inherent in
))their world view.'
))
))'whatever racism might be inherent' further studies need to be don to see
))if it is or is not inherent., and it was not felt important for this
))report to do them.
)
) They're properly not drawing conclusions beyond their evidence.
)
))It also points out that instance of racism could be due to the individual
))teacher and has nothing to do with Rudolf Steiner
)
) Of course, but then they go on to illustrate how the observed attitudes
) were completely consistent with what Steiner taught.
)
))4-"In an early version of the large report, we included an account of a
))racially charged discussion brought to the school by visiting
))representatives of the international Waldorf community. In a conversation
))in an office at the school (for which no one from the school was present),
))Steiner's racist speculations about Africans as close to the body and new
))to the rational and spiritual heights achieved by whites on the
))evolutionary ladder were cited as possibly relevant to the education of
))African American children in Milwaukee. There, in a school using Steiner's
))ideas in the best possible way, we were treated to a full display of what
))we would have to worry about if we were to invoke Waldorf without
))reservation as a model for American education."'
))
))What was said was not said by members of the school, was not said with
))school members present. It had nothing to do with the present report.
)
) It did, too. What representatives of the international Waldorf movement
) said certainly had relevance to a school founded on the movement's
) principles. That's what the scholars said--watch out, this stuff will bite
) you.
)
))The authors of the report left it at that with some personal questions.
))They did not follow in investigating how the school community would react
))to the way Rudolf Steiner sayings were reported. They did not assess at
))the time or afterwards the relevance of the Rudolf Steiner few sentences
))quoted..
)
) They didn't report precisely what the visiting Waldorf teachers said,
) there's no mention of a quotation. They did indeed address the relevance
) of it; read the article.
)
))5- '"[I]t is time to consider the possibility that some naive forms of
))racism are endemic to those who embrace anthroposophy without a strong
))critical sense for the real possibility that Steiner's speculations about
))the racial organization of culture and consciousness were wrong."
))
))Possibility used twice here means that is it not an affirmation of the
))racism. These researchers are only asking for some one to be commissioned
))a further or separate report.
)
) So you're going to use the cautious academic language as an excuse to
) ignore what they said. That, indeed, is what the Waldorf movement did and
) continues to do--ignore it's race problem.
)
))Dear Dan, could you be reading this report without the sense of how
))academic people write?
)
) I think that applies more to you.
)
))According to some it seems that they warned that their academic way of
))writing was not being read on it sown merit, but used for polemic
))purposes.
)
) That's what Ray McDermott said after the report had been publicized by
) PLANS. He should be ashamed for trying to weasel out of something so
) important.
)
) Of course we used it for polemic purposes. It cries out for wider
) exposure, if you have a sense of morality.
)
) -Dan Dugan
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 14:49:35 -0000
From: "eurythmy" (eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Unredeemed thinking vs Christlike wisdom [Part 3]
2007-01-02
Dear Jean-Marc,
Thanks to bring us back to everyday simple experience with these quotes,
away from the boredom of intellectualism..
I had them in mind but could not find the time to look them up in books.
Bonne année,
Franky
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jean-Marc Nguyen" (jmnguyen wanadoo.fr)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 4:52 AM
Subject: Re: Unredeemed thinking vs Christlike wisdom [Part 3]
)
)
) Dan Dugan wrote:
)
)
)) Jean-Marc Nguyen quoted Steiner:
))
)))And this is why the fate of the *Philosophy of Freedom* was that
)))it was too intellectual to the mystics: too many thoughts, from
)))their perspective. The others on the other hand, who were the
)))contemporary rationalists and scientists and also philosophers,
)))couln't do anything with it either, because it led to the domain of
)))clairvoyance [das Gebiet des Schauens] that they did not want
)))to enter (...)
))
)) Sorry, Jean-Marc, but that sounds to me like a really lame excuse
)) that his devotees would believe, but other philosophers would simply
)) laugh at. Of course he wouldn't have cared, having withdrawn from the
)) real world.
))
)) -Dan Dugan
)
)
) Well Dan, I guess the *living dead* are inherently doomed to perceive
) the truly living spirit - as a mere unholy ghost haunting the graveyard
) they
) blasphemously refer to as the real world...
)
) But since you seem to be concerned for people who are out of touch
) with reality, I'm sure that you and other members of this Waldorf-Critics
) list will be especially delighted by the following...
)
) Rudolf Steiner [GA 172 - Dornach, 27 November 1916]:
)
) (At one point of his lecture, Steiner is talking about exorcism and
) demons,
) but I'll skip that part - it would sound too spooky to some of you guys
) :-)
)
) "That which the ancient Christian rituals pursued symbolically must seize
) hold of the entire world; that which was accomplished on the altar must
) seize hold of the entire world. Mankind must learn to handle nature the
) way the Gods themselves handled nature: not to build machines without
) interest, but to carry out all deeds as a service, to bring sacramentalism
) into everything.
) One will be able to get started in various fields. Nowadays, people
) can begin developing sacramentalism in two fields above all. The first
) field is that of teaching and education. When we regard each person
) born in the world as someone coming with his power of Christ [seine
) Kraft des Christus] and we therefore hold in proper respect the being
) growing up, and consequently arrange the entire education and
) particularly teaching, i.e. realize sacramentalism in teaching - more
) precisely, when we realize a sacramental, when we not only consider
) education and teaching as a service - but perform them as a service,
) then we are beginning to spiritualize what the religions call: baptism.
) And when we attempt to bring to our consciousness that which we
) call our knowledge, when our soul is filled with ideas about the spiritual
) world and we are fully aware that the spiritual is penetrating us, that we
) are merging with the spiritual - when we consider that as a communion,
) when we are able to realize true knowledge --- *thinking is the true
) communion of mankind*, (...), when we are able to realize that, then
) that which was the symbolic sacrament on the altar becomes a common
) sacramental experience of knowledge [zu einem allgemeinen
) sakramentalen Erleben der Erkenntnis]. The Christianization of man
) must go in that direction; you will then become aware that everywhere
) in life, and for everything Christ-related, reality indeed penetrates Maya
) [illusion] - and that to view reality as modern science does with its
) worldview - is unchristian, eminently unchristian."
)
)
)
)
) Now, I'm sincerely hoping that our atheistic expert in anthroposophical
) spiritual science - Peter Staudenmaier, who else? - will not fall off from
) the precarious pile of philosophical treatises he is sitting on --- but I
) simply must add, for the sake of accuracy: Rudolf Steiner put this
) absolutely essential and central anthroposophical truth into words long
) before the year 1916, actually long before 1900...
)
) "The perception of the idea in reality [Merriam-Webster: the totality of
) real things and events] is the true communion of man.
)
) [Das Gewahrwerden der Idee in der Wirklichkeit ist die wahre
) Kommunion des Menschen.]
)
) Rudolf Steiner wrote that in 1887...in his Introduction(s) to the
) scientific
) papers of Goethe. [GA 1]
)
) Er...that's seven years before the publication of his *Philosophy of
) Freedom*. 1887 + 7 = 1894 :-)
)
)
) Jean-Marc
)
) PS [postscriptum]: You're welcome, Deborah! ;-)
)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 09:15:46 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: the idiom of German Idealism
Hello listmates,
one of the disputed points in the exchange over Steiner's early
philosophical works is whether these works display clear affinities with the
established philosophical discourse of the time or are instead previews of
the later esoteric style that marks Steiner's mature teachings. (This
needn't be an either-or question, but that is how it has developed in the
course of the exchange, and this simplified contrast may be a useful way of
determining which position makes more sense.) My argument is that Steiner's
early philosophical works are written in the idiom of nineteenth century
German Idealism. Jean-Marc and others deny this, and insist that Steiner's
pre-1900 writings are not conventional philosophical treatises and are not
cast in the established idiom of nineteenth century German Idealism, and
that his viewpoint before 1900 was emphatically esoteric.
These claims can be examined against the background of 19th century
philosophical texts from other German thinkers, as well as Steiner's own
post-1900 works. For this purpose, Jean-Marc's latest post provides a
helpful comparison of two strikingly different passages from Steiner. One of
these passages, Jean-Marc tells us, is from a 1916 discussion of demons and
exorcism (for those who are able to do so, it's worth reading Jean-Marc's
excerpt in context; Steiner's following paragraph, for example, discusses
"esoteric exercises" etc.). Here Steiner adresses sacramentalism, merging
with the spiritual, the world of Maya or illusion, the Christianization of
humanity, and so forth.
None of these themes is present in the other Steiner passage, from 1887.
That passage, in Jean-Marc's rendering, reads as follows:
)"The perception of the idea in reality [Merriam-Webster: the totality of
)real things and events] is the true communion of man.
)
)[Das Gewahrwerden der Idee in der Wirklichkeit ist die wahre
)Kommunion des Menschen.]
Here the context is once again helpful; see pp. 125-126 of Steiner's
Einleitungen zu Goethes Naturwissenschaftlichen Schriften. There is no
mention here (or anywhere in the book) of Maya, demons, sacramentalism, the
power of Christ, and so on. There are no esoteric teachings in the 1887
text. What there is in abundance is 19th century German Idealist philosophy,
and the sentence Jean-Marc quotes is a prime example. The book is about
Goethe's scientific works, and its terminology is throughout drawn directly
from that of Hegel et al.; it is a classic instance of the idiom of German
Idealism, with a bit of Romanticism mixed in. Indeed without too much
trouble the above sentence could, mutatis mutandis, find a comfortable home
in Fichte's collected works, and it wouldn't even be terribly out of place
in Marx's 1844 manuscripts.
If there are folks out there who genuinely believe that the above sentence
from Steiner in 1887 is *not* an example of the idiom of German Idealism, I
heartily encourage them to speak up.
New Year's greetings to all,
Peter Staudenmaier
)
)Rudolf Steiner [GA 172 - Dornach, 27 November 1916]:
)
)(At one point of his lecture, Steiner is talking about exorcism and demons,
)but I'll skip that part - it would sound too spooky to some of you guys :-)
)
)"That which the ancient Christian rituals pursued symbolically must seize
)hold of the entire world; that which was accomplished on the altar must
)seize hold of the entire world. Mankind must learn to handle nature the
)way the Gods themselves handled nature: not to build machines without
)interest, but to carry out all deeds as a service, to bring sacramentalism
)into everything.
)One will be able to get started in various fields. Nowadays, people
)can begin developing sacramentalism in two fields above all. The first
)field is that of teaching and education. When we regard each person
)born in the world as someone coming with his power of Christ [seine
)Kraft des Christus] and we therefore hold in proper respect the being
)growing up, and consequently arrange the entire education and
)particularly teaching, i.e. realize sacramentalism in teaching - more
)precisely, when we realize a sacramental, when we not only consider
)education and teaching as a service - but perform them as a service,
)then we are beginning to spiritualize what the religions call: baptism.
)And when we attempt to bring to our consciousness that which we
)call our knowledge, when our soul is filled with ideas about the spiritual
)world and we are fully aware that the spiritual is penetrating us, that we
)are merging with the spiritual - when we consider that as a communion,
)when we are able to realize true knowledge --- *thinking is the true
)communion of mankind*, (...), when we are able to realize that, then
)that which was the symbolic sacrament on the altar becomes a common
)sacramental experience of knowledge [zu einem allgemeinen
)sakramentalen Erleben der Erkenntnis]. The Christianization of man
)must go in that direction; you will then become aware that everywhere
)in life, and for everything Christ-related, reality indeed penetrates Maya
)[illusion] - and that to view reality as modern science does with its
)worldview - is unchristian, eminently unchristian."
)
)
)"The perception of the idea in reality [Merriam-Webster: the totality of
)real things and events] is the true communion of man.
)
)[Das Gewahrwerden der Idee in der Wirklichkeit ist die wahre
)Kommunion des Menschen.]
)
)Rudolf Steiner wrote that in 1887...in his Introduction(s) to the
)scientific
)papers of Goethe. [GA 1]
_________________________________________________________________
Your Hotmail address already works to sign into Windows Live Messenger! Get
it now
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://get.live.com/messenger/overview
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 16:18:59 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Waldorf succeeding across the board
eurythmy wrote:
)
) 2007-01-02
)
I've tried to stay out of this, but...
) Dear Dan, and all,
)
)
)
) The whole school report was a rather hot topic and I merely wanted to
) bring
) a sober pedestrian reading of your quotes of it. Thanks for your
) comments
) and clarification. I appreciate the extent of your efforts to further
) your
) convictions.
Boy, passive agressiveness at its best...
)
) Franky:))What was said was not said by members of the school, was not
) said
) with school members present. It had nothing to do with the present
) report.
)
) Dan:)It did, too. What representatives of the international Waldorf
) movement
) said certainly had relevance to a school founded on the movement's
) principles. That's what the scholars said--watch out, this stuff will
) bite
) you.
)
) Franky: 'will bite you' a comment, about a future which they assert is
) not
) certain at all. They do not urge for a new report on that topic. Of
) course
) common sense on the ground should prevail anyway.
)
)
)
) From my experience of Waldorf Schools on the continent, they rarely
) delegate
) authority, if ever. My guess: Some people from abroad turned up, with no
)
) authority on the school. Most probably to collect information on the
) school?
) They were never asked by the inspected school to talk to the
) researchers,
) etc, etc. Nothing too official in what they say.
You understand that your "guess" is absolutely meaningless - right?
There is nothing AT ALL to support it. Is it your experience that
Waldorf schools generally allow strangers to walk their hallways? Sit
in on classes?
) I would be very interested to know if any one else found further study
) worth
) funding?
I think studies to determine the extent to which racism is rampant in
Waldorf schools are well worth funding. I think the funding should come
from Waldorf as it behooves them to get this under control.
) What happened next at the school? You have been watchful, has anyone
) else?
Well, the first, and most obvious thing that happened next was that the
school and other Anthroposophists pressured McDermott to suppress the
report and recant his findings. That seems pretty clear. This is
consistent with what I know of the behavior of Waldorf people - so I
don't find it too surprising.
) Has anything happened at the school which would bring concern?
)
Besides promoting racism?
Pete
)
)
)
)
) ----- Original Message -----
)
) From: "Dan Dugan" (dan dandugan.com)
)
) To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
)
) Sent: Monday, January 01, 2007 3:14 AM
)
) Subject: Re: Waldorf succeeding across the board
)
)
)
) )
) ) Franky, you wrote:
) ))Dear Dan, and all,
) )
) ))To follow the argument of Dan, just in keeping with the quote of the
) ))academic report chosen by Dan.
) ))
) ))1-'This brief note addressing..Issue .the reality of racism in Waldorf
) ))education as well as, apparently, in the teachings of Rudolf Steiner.'
) ))
) ))A brief note: not at all on the same level as the academic study. The
) ))question of the reality in the School: and only apparently in the
) ))teaching. It would require much more investigation to bring the reality
) ))of
) ))the existence of racism in Rudolf Steiner work, and it is not part of
) ))the
) ))remit of a note, which is brought as a note, not as an element of the
) ))report.
) )
) ) Agreed. It wasn't a deep study. It was occasioned by racism having hit
) ) them in the face. Some of the scholars felt it would be dishonest to not
) )
) ) include that in the report. The majority, being strongly enough in favor
) )
) ) of Waldorf to bend the truth, ruled against it. A compromise was struck,
) ) a
) ) minority report would be published in an obscure journal.
) )
) ))2- 'One of our team members, on the basis of her time at the Urban
) ))Waldorf
) ))School, has written glowingly about the promise of Waldorf education for
) ))
) ))African American children (Dillard, 1996).
) ))
) ))It is not said if this writing was part of the final report, or written
) ))in
) ))a separate article where the colleague, while expressing an assessment.
) )
) ) No, it's clear from the reference (Dillard, 1996) that a separate
) ) publication is being referred to.
) )
) ))But the emphasis here is that only that colleague was present for a
) ))relevant time in the Urban School and that no other member of the team
) ))did
) ))go to that school. So they point out that this assessment is based on
) ))the
) ))only person who was there and is not a team assessment.
) )
) ) No, that's not what the article said at all. They were all there. Please
) )
) ) read the article before rendering your opinion!
) )
) ))2-'If that promise is to be realized, all members of the Waldorf
) ))community
) ))will have to appraise critically whatever racism might be inherent in
) ))their world view.'
) ))
) ))'whatever racism might be inherent' further studies need to be don to
) ))see
) ))if it is or is not inherent., and it was not felt important for this
) ))report to do them.
) )
) ) They're properly not drawing conclusions beyond their evidence.
) )
) ))It also points out that instance of racism could be due to the
) ))individual
) ))teacher and has nothing to do with Rudolf Steiner
) )
) ) Of course, but then they go on to illustrate how the observed attitudes
) ) were completely consistent with what Steiner taught.
) )
) ))4-"In an early version of the large report, we included an account of a
) ))racially charged discussion brought to the school by visiting
) ))representatives of the international Waldorf community. In a
) ))conversation
) ))in an office at the school (for which no one from the school was
) ))present),
) ))Steiner's racist speculations about Africans as close to the body and
) ))new
) ))to the rational and spiritual heights achieved by whites on the
) ))evolutionary ladder were cited as possibly relevant to the education of
) ))African American children in Milwaukee. There, in a school using
) ))Steiner's
) ))ideas in the best possible way, we were treated to a full display of
) ))what
) ))we would have to worry about if we were to invoke Waldorf without
) ))reservation as a model for American education."'
) ))
) ))What was said was not said by members of the school, was not said with
) ))school members present. It had nothing to do with the present report.
) )
) ) It did, too. What representatives of the international Waldorf movement
) ) said certainly had relevance to a school founded on the movement's
) ) principles. That's what the scholars said--watch out, this stuff will
) ) bite
) ) you.
) )
) ))The authors of the report left it at that with some personal questions.
) ))They did not follow in investigating how the school community would
) ))react
) ))to the way Rudolf Steiner sayings were reported. They did not assess at
) ))the time or afterwards the relevance of the Rudolf Steiner few sentences
) ))
) ))quoted..
) )
) ) They didn't report precisely what the visiting Waldorf teachers said,
) ) there's no mention of a quotation. They did indeed address the relevance
) )
) ) of it; read the article.
) )
) ))5- '"[I]t is time to consider the possibility that some naive forms of
) ))racism are endemic to those who embrace anthroposophy without a strong
) ))critical sense for the real possibility that Steiner's speculations
) ))about
) ))the racial organization of culture and consciousness were wrong."
) ))
) ))Possibility used twice here means that is it not an affirmation of the
) ))racism. These researchers are only asking for some one to be
) ))commissioned
) ))a further or separate report.
) )
) ) So you're going to use the cautious academic language as an excuse to
) ) ignore what they said. That, indeed, is what the Waldorf movement did
) ) and
) ) continues to do--ignore it's race problem.
) )
) ))Dear Dan, could you be reading this report without the sense of how
) ))academic people write?
) )
) ) I think that applies more to you.
) )
) ))According to some it seems that they warned that their academic way of
) ))writing was not being read on it sown merit, but used for polemic
) ))purposes.
) )
) ) That's what Ray McDermott said after the report had been publicized by
) ) PLANS. He should be ashamed for trying to weasel out of something so
) ) important.
) )
) ) Of course we used it for polemic purposes. It cries out for wider
) ) exposure, if you have a sense of morality.
) )
) ) -Dan Dugan
) )
) )
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 17:12:16 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Admin: quirks of list server
Franky, you wrote,
)I sent the message
)http://lists.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1720732908&sort=d&start=35969
)
)On 10th December and it appears in the list 21 Dec. Can you tell me
)how it is possible?
)
)It is not the first time that messages are delayed, some list
)members complain that some do not appear at all.
Long delays seem to happen often to certain posters, e.g. Diana. It's
been going on for years and I have no idea why.
)If it is due to the way topica runs its course, have you considered
)changing to a reliable system like yahoo!?
Yes.
-Dan Dugan
Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 17:12:35 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: waldorf for homeschool?
Frank Smith wrote:
)This is hardly the place to go to get any kind of reliable information
)about Waldorf education, home schooling or otherwise.
I'd like to think that this is a more reliable place to get
information about Waldorf education. Here the controversies are
acknowledged, and you can hear both sides.
The Waldorf establishment initially discouraged homeschooling; of
course they think education is done best by Waldorf-trained teachers
in approved Waldorf schools. But the homeschooling movement can't be
held back, and its constituency overlaps Waldorf's. The reality has
to be acknowledged and embraced. Besides, it's a market for Waldorf
products.
)Try instead:
)http://www.waldorfhomeschoolers.com/
Rahima Baldwin writes on http://www.waldorfhomeschooling.org/ (a
different site from that noted above):
)Dates for the Spring Waldorf in the Home conference are April 21-22,
)2007 in Fair Oaks, California (near Sacramento).
)
)Keynote speakers include: Joseph Cornell, internationally known
)author of Sharing Nature with Children; Suzanne Down, master
)storyteller and puppeteer and founder of Juniper Tree School of
)Storytelling and Puppetry; Cythia Hoven, Eurythmist and frequent
)conference presenter on Anthroposophy; and Betty Peck, master
)kindergarten teacher and gardener, with over 50 years experience
)working with young children and consulting on children's gardening
)in the schools.
)A full brochure and secure online registration will be available in
)January, 2007.
)
)Audio and video recordings from the fall 2006 conferences in both
)Fair Oaks and Boulder are available for sale and listed below. More
)can be found in our online store--simply click on the botton on the
)right, a bit below the conference brochures.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 17:12:43 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: www.waldorfcritics.org feedback
DAN DUGAN:
) ) Shawn Green, thanks for writing feedback on the PLANS web site. I'm
)) responding to you on the waldorf-critics discussion list. Please
)) subscribe to the list if you wish to continue the dialogue.
))
)) you wrote:
))
)) )What's wrong with teaching about planetary influences on plants?
))
)) Because it's nonsense.
SHAWN GREEN:
)--------If something is not recognized by current mainstream science,
)that makes it nonsense???
If it's about the natural world, yes. Science is the way to make sense of it.
) ) Isn't there a lot about nature spirits in the lower grades? Gnomes,
) ) for example?
)--------------------How would you teach imagination?
Teach art and literature.
) ) )The moon causes the tides!
))
)) The sun and the moon. Tides aren't what Anthroposophy is talking
)) about with "planetary influences."
)
)-------------------My point is that if the moon and the sun can effect
)the movement of water here on earth, why is it so unfathomable that the
)other celestial bodies (planets) can also affect things.
The effect of celestial bodies on the earth is predictable and
measurable. The planets are too far away to affect natural processes
on the earth.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 17:12:19 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: I think, therefore I am.
Dottie Zold, you wrote,
)Anthroposophy kind of works by itself and doesn't have
)this social impulse to be taken out to man yet. Not as
)a whole. It does from individuals but as far as from
)an authoritave position or one that is decided by
)higher ups for the rest of the world, this doesn't
)exist.
What do you think the departments of the Goetheanum do? What does the
Pedagogical Section do? The Medical Section?
)And if it did I wouldn't be a part of it
)either. It really is all individualistic in all ways.
)That's why the term cult can't be applied to
)Anthroposophy.
Better get your resignation letter ready.
KEITH:
)This is
)) more than inner
)) dvelopment of the individual self, but a social
)) program for change that
)) claims to bring the spiritual world into social
)) consciousness.
DOTTIE:
)You would think so wouldn't you, but it's actually not
)a truth as far as I have experienced. And that is
)really what makes it so different than the other
)groups. Those who join are doing this for their own
)selves and not something they look to put onto the
)world per se. However just like any single person
)looking for enlightment of self they recognize that it
)is through the world that this is able to happen
)through their relations with others.
Your personal experience may be limited. Active work intended to
reform society distinguishes Anthroposophy from most other occultist
groups.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 2411
-- Topica Digest --
RE: anthroposophy by association 1
By charlie morrison5.fsnet.co.uk
RE: "it should not call itself anthroposophy"
By charlie morrison5.fsnet.co.uk
RE: anthroposophy by association 1
By charlie morrison5.fsnet.co.uk
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 23:20:32 +0000
From: charles morrison (charlie morrison5.fsnet.co.uk)
Subject: RE: anthroposophy by association 1
Charlie M:
Hi Peter and all. I hope everyone had a good Christmas and that the new
year brings happy times.
You.Peter, say, "anthroposophy is merely one branch of occultism", then
you say, "anthroposophy really is among other things a branch of
occultism". So which is it, merely one branch of occultism or more than
that? You admit that anthroposophy doesn't just consist of esotericism,
but, you stipulate that in order for someone to prove that P of F is
anthroposophical it must have esoteric content.You're not being very
consistant.
I made an analogy between anthroposophy and mathematics.
"Esotericism is related to anthroposophy in a similar way that algebra
is related to mathematics."
I do not think that substituting algebra for mathematics in the analogy
makes anywhere near as good an analogy, and you argue as if this was the
analogy that I was making.
I see you are still arguing that PoF does not contain esotericism.
Here's a quote from God is my Adventure by Rom Landau:
"Both ordinary and occult knowledge were for Steiner necessities,
designed to enrich each other, but also to be used only in their proper
places. When Dr. Rittlemeyer asked him one day: 'Why was it that in
spite of all you must have known, even in your early years, you were so
completely silent about occult matters until your forthieth year?'
Steiner replied: 'I had to make a certain position for myself in the
world first. People may say nowadays that my writings are mad, but my
earlier work is also there, and they cannot ignore it. And moreover, I
had to bring things to a certain clarity in myself, to a point where I
could give them form, before it was possible to talk about them. That
was not easy. And then - I admit it frankly - it needed courage to speak
openly about such things. I had first to aquire that courage.'"
Slainte,
Charlie M.
Original message:
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
)
)
) Hi Charlie,
)
)
) )In that quote, did I say what
) )that relationship was?
)
)
) The later Steiner says quite a lot about what that relationship was
) (aside
) from the passages I've shown you, Jean-Marc has compiled lots and lots
) of
) quotes on the matter); I think this exchange would make more sense if
) you
) could pay a little more attention to that material. Your argument is
) that
) this relationship was one of identity: PoF is an anthroposophical work,
) in
) your view. My argument is that the relationship was one of development
) and
) difference: PoF is not an anthroposophical work, in my view, it is a
) philosophical work that Steiner later adopted into anthroposophy.
)
)
) )The fact that
) )they are both linked to Steiner provides some sort of relationship.
) )Wouldn't you agree?:)
)
)
) Yes, a relationship of association, which is exactly how this thread
) began.
) You believe that the mere fact that Steiner wrote PoF somehow makes it
) an
) anthroposophical work. That is the logic of anthroposophy by
) association. It
) makes no sense historically. Not just in Steiner's case, but in the case
) of
) many, many authors, whether the worldview in question is anthroposophy,
) theosophy, atheism, existentialism, marxism, etc.
)
)
) )
) )(PS):
) ) ) Indeed, anthroposophy is merely one branch of occultism, and there are
) ) ) lots and lots of non-anthroposophical branches of occultism.
) )
) )Charlie M:
) )Wrong. Anthroposophy contains occultism sure enough. But anthroposophy
) )is not contained by occultism.
)
)
)
) Sorry, Charlie, anthroposophy really is among other things a branch of
) occultism. You could just look it up.....
)
)
) )
) )(CM):
) ) ) )and because I happen to agree with him, I don't need to search for any
) ) ) )occult or esoteric terms in the P of F in order to class it as
) ) ) )anthroposophical.
) )
) )(PS):
) ) ) Not terms, just content. If you can't find any anthroposophical content,
) ) ) it isn't an anthroposophical work.
) )
) )Charlie M:
) )There is plenty of anthroposophical content.
)
)
) Strangely, you can't point to any of it. Not a single passage. Not a
) single
) page. Where exactly is this content hiding? Have you, like Franky, mixed
) up
) PoF with The Da Vinci Code?
)
)
) )How about thinking beyond
) )the senses as a first step on the path?
)
)
) Okay with me. A first step on the path isn't the end of the path, or
) even
) the middle. Several of Hegel's works and several of Adam Smith's and
) David
) Ricardo's works can be seen as first steps on the path toward marxism.
) This
) scarcely turns Hegel, Smith or Ricardo into marxists, much less makes
) their
) books marxist books.
)
)
) )Charlie M:
) )By your logic, if it doesn't hold up that the human body (
) )anthroposophy) is an organ such as the heart (esoteric belief system),
) )then the lungs, kidneys, etc (Leading Thoughts, etc) cannot be part of
) )the human body ( anthroposophy).
)
)
) I'm not sure what that means, but it sounds like you are saying that an
) esoteric belief system is the heart of anthroposophy, which sounds
) accurate
) enough to me, though you also seem to be saying that Anthroposophical
) Leading Thoughts is not an esoteric work, which is goofy. In any case,
) the
) body of anthroposophy has many parts. The bodies of more general
) categories,
) such as philosophy or esotericism, have even more parts. To find out
) whether
) a specific book belongs to one or two or three or more of these
) categories,
) you need to look at the content of the book itself.
)
)
) )I've argued that anthroposophy is a path of knowledge. It doesn't
) )require anyone to believe anything they have not experienced for
) )themselves.
)
)
) And you thought that other belief systems required this? Belief systems
) are
) just belief systems. They're not prisons. People move back and forth
) among
) them all the time (even people like Rudolf Steiner, amazingly enough).
) That
) anthroposophy is a belief system says nothing about anthroposophists
) being
) required to believe things they haven't experienced for themselves etc.
) If
) this for some reason trips you up, just replace "esoteric belief system"
)
) with "esoteric path of knowledge"; to many of the rest of us, those are
) the
) same thing.
)
)
) )Don't forget there are many, many
) )anthroposophists working in various communities who work quietly away
) )without drawing any attention to themselves.
)
)
) You mean without writing or saying anything in public about their
) beliefs,
) er, knowledge? Those aren't the people we're discussing here. We're
) talking
) about the public phenomenon of anthroposophy.
)
)
) )Can you say what their
) )beliefs are without just guessing?
)
)
) One very good way to tell what other people's beliefs are is to read
) what
) they write. There are hundreds and hundreds of books, articles, essays,
) lectures etc etc by many many anthroposophists, for a hundred years now,
) not
) to mention public discourse of all kinds. That's the anthroposophy under
)
) discussion in any public exchange about anthroposophy.
)
)
) )CM:
) )Math guru: "There [in the arithmetic text book) I wanted to show how
) )mathematical novice must practice arithmetic if he wants to gradually
) )learn algebra.
)
)
) Uh, Charlie? If it's an arithmetic text book, and contains no algebra,
) then
) it really and truly isn't an algebra textbook. If PoF is a philosophical
)
) text and contains no anthroposophy, then it really and truly isn't an
) anthroposophical text. Despite the fact that arithmetic plays a big role
) in
) algebra. Despite the fact that philosophy plays a big role in
) anthroposophy.
) Is something unclear about that?
)
)
) )Peter Studymore (famous historian of mathematics ;)):
) )To test that claim, all you need to do is find any reference to algebra
) )in the arithmetic book.
)
)
) Yes indeed, if the claim in question is that the book is an algebra
) textbook
) rather than an arithmetic book that includes general stuff that shows up
) in
) algebra too. Your claim is that PoF is an anthroposophical book. My
) claim is
) that PoF is a philosophical book that includes general stuff that later
) shows up in anthroposophy.
)
)
) )Math guru: Excuse me! Why would that be necessary?
)
)
) Because you just claimed that the book was an algebra textbook, not an
) arithmetic textbook. I claimed that it was an arithmetic textbook, not
) an
) algebra textbook. If the content of the book is arithmetic and not
) algebra,
) then the math guru's claim is mistaken.
)
)
) )Surely a better test
) )would be to observe someone practicing algebra to see if they use
) )arithmetic whilst doing so.
)
)
) No, that would be a foolish way to 'test' the content of the book
) itself.
) The way to 'test' that is to look at the text. We weren't talking about
) your
) practice of anthroposophy, Charlie. We were talking about the content of
)
) PoF.
)
)
) )Getting back to my original mathematical analogy. You (PS) said (RE:
) )Steiner vs Staudenmaier (round 1) 12/18/2006.
) )
) )That's a fine analogy. Algebra is a branch of mathematics. It is thus
) )different from, say, geometry or calculus, though these are certainly
) )'related', to use Frank's newfound term. It is also different from
) )non-mathematical fields, although some of these fields also use
) )mathematical concepts. Anthroposophy is a branch of western esotericism
) )in very much the same way. To conflate it with German Idealism because
) )they both use the vocabulary of spirit and thinking is to make a
) )straightforward classification error.
) )
) )Charlie M:
) )To put my analogy (which you turned on its head) back on its feet, I was
) )talking about anthroposophical esotericism and not esotericism in
) )general.
)
)
) Western esotericism is a broad category ("esotericism in general " is
) broader still), and anthroposophy is only one of its elements, albeit an
)
) important one, particularly in Germanophone Europe. If you want to
) distinguish anthroposophy from other forms of esotericism, not to
) mention
) from non-esoteric belief systems/paths of knowledge, you'll need to pay
) attention to the concrete characteristics of anthroposophy.
)
)
) )"Anthroposophy is a branch of western esotericism". Only someone with
) )very little understanding of anthroposophy is could make this assertion.
)
)
) That makes sense if you mean 'Charlie's personal practice of
) anthroposophy'
) rather than actually existing anthroposophy, the kind that has a public
) face
) and a concrete history and numerous publications and so forth. Actually
) existing anthroposophy is in fact a branch of western esotericism. You
) can
) check this for yourself by consulting pretty much any study of western
) esotericism, many of which are in English. I'll offer some good starting
)
) points in my following post.
)
)
) )Anthroposophy contains esotericism, yes: Anthroposophy is esotericism,
) )no.
)
)
) I'm glad to agree that anthroposophy contains esotericism; what you seem
) to
) be missing is that PoF does not contain esotericism. Anthroposophy isn't
)
) just an esoteric worldview -- belief system -- path of knowledge, it's
) also
) a movement, a set of social institutions, a historical phenomenon, a
) constellation of ideas and an ensemble of practical endeavors, including
)
) Waldorf, biodynamic farming, and others. PoF is not a movement or an
) institution, it's a book, and you can find out whether it's
) anthroposophical
) (and whether it was anthroposophical when it appeared) by looking at the
)
) content of the book, by looking at the text itself.
)
)
) Cheers,
)
)
) Peter S.
)
) _________________________________________________________________
) The MSN Entertainment Guide to Golden Globes is here. Get all the
) scoop.
) http://tv.msn.com/tv/globes2007/
)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 23:34:55 +0000
From: charles morrison (charlie morrison5.fsnet.co.uk)
Subject: RE: "it should not call itself anthroposophy"
Charlie M:
I don't think anyone would dispute the fact that anthroposophy plays a
part, some would say a large part, in western esotericism.
You, Peter, say that we should confine ourselves to a descriptive
conception of anthroposophy, anthroposophy as it actually is. So I had a
quick look through some of the non-anthroposophical books in my
possession to see what they say about anthroposophy. Below I've quoted
from a variety of sources some more worthwhile than others.
Here's a summary of how the writers of these books view anthroposophy:
A "philosophy of life", "a spiritual philosophy and set of teachings ",
"a kind of mystical humanism", "a structured admixture of spiritualism,
oriental and pseudo-scientific myth", something that is "structurally
similar to Western esotericism", a "social philosophy" and a "spiritual
system".
The New Caxtons Encyclopedia (1977):
German philosopher, writer and educationalist (1861-1925). Rudolf
Steiner was at one time leader of the theosophical movement in Germany
but, later initiated his own philosophy of life which he called
"anthroposophy" This presented human perception and experience as
central to human understanding and the growth of personality. Spiritual
development was seen as springing from man himself, and the nourishment
of spiritual development, in this sense, as fundamental to all good
education.
A Dictionary of Mind and Spirit by Donald Watson (1993):
Under "Anthroposophy":
As a spiritual philosophy and set of teachings anthroposophy was founded
by Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925).
Rhythms of Vision, The Changing Patterns of Belief by Lawrence Blair
(1976).
In this book Blair divides believers into six groups. These are 1.
Empirical/scientific. 2. Magical/occult. 3. Philosophical/systematic. 4.
Spiritualist. 5. Orientalist. 6. Eclectic/submissive. He classes
anthroposophy under number 3. Philosophical/systematic.
I would be careful about accepting anything this man says at face value
as he introduces Steiner thus:
"...another remarkable man, an Austrian Jew named Rudolf Steiner, rose
from the ranks of Theosophy to challenge its world-view. Reacting
against its 'God-oriented' other-worldliness, Steiner sought to see
things from a more practical, man-oriented perspective, and he led the
breakaway movement of Anthroposophy, a kind of mystical humanism which
sought to find God within man himself, rather than seeking man in God.
"Steiner accepted, and sought to integrate into his spiritual system,
every step which science had taken...
"As a structured admixture of spiritualism, oriental and
pseudo-scientific myth, Anthroposophy - like Theosophy, the 'work' and
other movements - now fall into this heading of Philosophical/Systematic
groups."
The Occult Establishment by James Webb
P67
"What is important to notice is that Steiner could find in such diverse
quarters as Theosophy, philosophical idealism, and the possibly Tantric
magic of the O.T.O., material for his hoped-for revolution in
consciousness."
P68
"If his sources were varied, his applications were equally so. For he
intended Anthroposophy to be an all-embracing science that would provide
answers both spiritually and materially satisfying in every branch of
life."
P349
"Nothing, he felt, should remain unconscious. Steiner's deduction was
that he should find some way of making conscious the unconscious
processes - which is what his 'spiritual perception' amounts to.
Sun at Midnight by Geoffrey Ahern
P68
"Admittedly, his Anthroposophy is structurally similar to Western
esotericism and doctrinally often closely resembles Theosophy and many
other contemporary systems of thought; yet Rudolf Steiner stated that
everything Anthroposophical derives from his own, original spiritual
research. But by itself this does not make his revelation necessarily
mistaken, let alone dishonest. (Jesus, unlike modern scholars, was
almost certainly unaware that his convictions probably owed as much to
Zoroastrianism as to the ancient Judaism of the `chosen' people.) That
Steiner was true to himself is also suggested by his frank admission
that he had diffiiculty 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 people do the kitchen table. Thus he thought spiritual
`science' was possible, as have many other modern people."
Dictionary of the Occult - Geddes & Grosset:
Under "Steiner, Rudolf (1861 - 1925)":
Austrian philosopher, scientist, artist and educator who was the
originator of the social philosophy called anthroposophy.
God is my Adventure by Rom Landau
P66
"Steiner naturally believed in ancient knowledge which had been hidden
either in esoteric schools or in ancient mysteries. In several of his
books and several of his lectures he referred to such a knowledge, and
for a number of years there existed an esoteric group within the
Anthroposopical Society. Steiner lectured to the members of the group
about subjects which were too advanced for the uninitiated. Outsiders
used to invent stories about mystical rites and ceremonies within the
esoteric group, but this was pure invention. Steiner often insisted that
knowledge of that kind should not be imparted to the public at large,
since it might be treated without the necessary respect.
"On the other hand he believed that the moment had come when such a
knowledge should no longer be confined to a few initiates, and that
humanity was able to approach hidden knowledge through conscious
thought."
P72
"Once you began to study anthroposophy you realised the great difference
between it and other, spiritual systems. Its lack of emotionalism and
its scientific character enabled it to be studied from books and
lectures. While Keyserling's philosophy, though clearly of an ethical
kind, was, at its best, without a clear system, Steiner created a
scientific system that like any other could be studied and applied.
Stefan George, most decidedly a poet, appealed foremost to the emotional
faculties that are stored up in our subconscious; and these cannot
easily be applied through a conscious and systematic study. Steiner
tried to give to anthroposophy the exactness of mathematics."
Charlie M:
As can be seen from these excerpts, the reading public is being shown
various views of anthroposophy that, although it includes esotericism,
is not bounded by it. To say that it is a branch of the western esoteric
tradition would seem to me to set unrealistic and inacccurate limits on
it.
I would say that, just like esotericism, anthroposophy is not easy to
define.
I said previously, through thinking we can have inner experiences that
are as objective as the world of nature. I'll ask again, do you deny
that Steiner stated this both in the P of F and Knowledge of the Higher
Worlds?
Slainte,
Charlie M.
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
)
)
) From Charlie's post:
)
)
) )
) )(PS):
) ) but if that is indeed your stance, then you're not talking about
) )actually existing anthroposophy. You're talking about your own personal
) )preferred version of 'anthroposophy'. In the real world, that word
) )refers to an esoteric belief system and the various movements organized
) )around it. That's what the rest of us are talking about
) ) ) when we talk about anthroposophy.
) )
) )Charlie M:
) )At last you have a valid argument. But if this is the case, it isn't the
) )anthroposophy that Steiner envisaged. In which case it should not call
) )itself anthroposophy. And besides that, have you done any research to
) )back up this claim, or is it something you've assumed from your limited
) )dealing with anthroposophists.
)
)
)
) I'm not sure if Charlie followed the exchange between me and "M" (or
) Val, or
) whoever that was) about the difference between normative and descriptive
)
) claims, but I think now would be a good time to look at that discussion
) again. What Charlie argues for here is an explicitly normative
) conception of
) anthroposophy: he talks about what should and should not be called
) anthroposophy. That is a perfectly legitimate way to talk with other
) anthroposophists (when I talk with other anarchists, for example, I
) frequently invoke normative conceptions of anarchism, that is, we argue
) about what anarchism should be and shouldn't be, what things should and
) shouldn't be called anarchism, and so forth).
)
) This sort of discussion is out of place in a public exchange with
) non-anthroposophists. When folks with different perspectives talk about
) a
) far-flung and varied phenomenon like anthroposophy, we're talking about
) anthroposophy as it actually exists, not anthroposophy as it should be.
) Anthroposophists disagree among themselves about what anthroposophy
) ought to
) be; the rest of us usually adress the movement as a whole rather than
) picking out one version of it as the best one or most authentic one or
) truest one.
)
) Actually existing anthroposophy is indeed a branch of the western
) esoteric
) tradition. There is a large literature on the topic, much of it in
) English.
) For Charlie's benefit, and for anybody who would like to learn more
) about
) this wider field and anthroposophy's roles within it, here are a variety
) of
) worthwhile sources:
)
)
) Wouter Hanegraaff et al., Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism
) (Leiden 2005); I particularly recommend the entries on "Anthroposophy"
) and
) "Steiner, Rudolf".
)
) Antoine Faivre, Access to Western Esotericism (Albany 1994)
)
) Antoine Faivre, Theosophy, Imagination, Tradition: Studies in Western
) Esotericism (Albany 2000)
)
) Wouter Hanegraaff, New Age Religion and Western Culture: Esotericism in
) the
) Mirror of Secular Thought (Leiden 1996)
)
) Faivre and Hanegraaff (eds), Western Esotericism and the Science of
) Religion
) (Leuven 1998)
)
) Antoine Faivre and Karen-Claire Voss, ‘Western Esotericism and the
) Science
) of Religions’, Numen, Vol. 42 (1995), 48-77
)
) Edward Tiryakian, ‘Towards the Sociology of Esoteric Culture’, The
) American
) Journal of Sociology, Vol.78 (1972), 491-512
)
) Edward Tiryakian (ed.), On the Margin of the Visible: Sociology, The
) Esoteric, and the Occult (New York 1974)
)
) Mikael Rothstein (ed.), New Age Religion and Globalization (Aarhus 2001)
)
) Aries: Journal for the Study of Western Esotericism
)
)
)
) I welcome contributions on the topic from everybody interested.
) Greetings to
) all,
)
)
) Peter S.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 10:44:21 +0000
From: charles morrison (charlie morrison5.fsnet.co.uk)
Subject: RE: anthroposophy by association 1
Hi Walden and all,
Walden wrote:
)
)
) This ongoing discussion is fascinating. The entire thing could be used
) somewhere - a course in linguistics or sociology, perhaps?
)
) This pretty well sums it for me and I'm glad it was an Anthroposophist's
)
) example:
Charlie M:
What the exchange below sums up (I like the pun by the way) is that
Peter twisted my analogy. I wasn't saying that arithmetic is algebra,
but that both arithmetic (P of F) and algebra (anthroposophical
esotericism) are branches of mathematics (anthroposophy).
)
) CM wrote::
) ))Math guru: "There [in the arithmetic text book) I wanted to show how
) ))mathematical novice must practice arithmetic if he wants to gradually
) ))learn algebra.
)
) Peter Staudenmaier replied:
)
) ) Uh, Charlie? If it's an arithmetic text book, and contains no algebra,
) ) then it really and truly isn't an algebra textbook. If PoF is a
) ) philosophical text and contains no anthroposophy, then it really and
) ) truly
) ) isn't an anthroposophical text. Despite the fact that arithmetic plays a
) )
) ) big role in algebra. Despite the fact that philosophy plays a big role
) ) in
) ) anthroposophy. Is something unclear about that?
)
) And . . .
)
) CM wrote:
) ))Anthroposophy contains esotericism, yes: Anthroposophy is esotericism,
) ))no.
)
) Peter replied:
) ) I'm glad to agree that anthroposophy contains esotericism; what you seem
) )
) ) to be missing is that PoF does not contain esotericism. Anthroposophy
) ) isn't just an esoteric worldview -- belief system -- path of knowledge,
) ) it's also a movement, a set of social institutions, a historical
) ) phenomenon, a constellation of ideas and an ensemble of practical
) ) endeavors, including Waldorf, biodynamic farming, and others. PoF is not
) ) a
) ) movement or an institution, it's a book, and you can find out whether
) ) it's
) ) anthroposophical (and whether it was anthroposophical when it appeared)
) ) by
) ) looking at the content of the book, by looking at the text itself.
Charlie M:
Peter says above that anthroposophy isn't just esotericism, but the P of
F needs to have esoteric content to be classed as anthroposophical.
Can't you see the contradiction?
)
) Mirriam-Webster Online:
) Main Entry: an·thro·pos·o·phy
) Pronunciation: "an(t)-thr&-'pä-s&-fE
) Function: noun
) : a 20th century religious system growing out of theosophy and centering
) on
) human development
)
) Does this sound anything like PoF? If nobody can provide any quotes from
) PoF
) to show Anthroposophical content, can we not simply agree that Steiner's
)
) early book was NOT one about or involving Anthroposophy? What's the big
) deal
) here, anyway?
)
) -Walden
Charlie M:
There's no big deal here. But you did say that you found this discussion
fascinating, so it must have some merit. It's just that I prefer to
dance with Franky's anthroposophy than to watch Peter dissecting a
corpse.
Couldn't we just agree that some people have found that the P of F IS
anthroposophical while others haven't found this (yet;)).
Slainte,
Charlie M.
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 2412
-- Topica Digest --
RE: I think, therefore I am.
By eltrigal78 yahoo.com
RE: I think, therefore I am.
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: "it should not call itself anthroposophy"
By pstaud hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 14:20:33 +0000
From: Frank Smith (eltrigal78 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: I think, therefore I am.
Dan Dugan wrote:
)
) Dottie Zold, you wrote,
)
) )Anthroposophy kind of works by itself and doesn't have
) )this social impulse to be taken out to man yet. Not as
) )a whole. It does from individuals but as far as from
) )an authoritave position or one that is decided by
) )higher ups for the rest of the world, this doesn't
) )exist.
)
) What do you think the departments of the Goetheanum do? What does the
) Pedagogical Section do? The Medical Section?
As Dottie has been demobbed (by you)from the WC, she is not able to
answer; so as her chief of Staff I will do so: No one in any of the
sections mentioned above has any authority whatsoever
Frank
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 15:58:55 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: I think, therefore I am.
Frank Smith wrote:
)
)
) Dan Dugan wrote:
) )
) ) Dottie Zold, you wrote,
) )
) ) )Anthroposophy kind of works by itself and doesn't have
) ) )this social impulse to be taken out to man yet. Not as
) ) )a whole. It does from individuals but as far as from
) ) )an authoritave position or one that is decided by
) ) )higher ups for the rest of the world, this doesn't
) ) )exist.
) )
) ) What do you think the departments of the Goetheanum do? What does the
) ) Pedagogical Section do? The Medical Section?
)
) As Dottie has been demobbed (by you)from the WC, she is not able to
) answer; so as her chief of Staff I will do so: No one in any of the
) sections mentioned above has any authority whatsoever
)
) Frank
Plausible deniability... cool!
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 20:59:41 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: "it should not call itself anthroposophy"
Hi Charlie,
)You, Peter, say that we should confine ourselves to a descriptive
)conception of anthroposophy, anthroposophy as it actually is. So I had a
)quick look through some of the non-anthroposophical books in my
)possession to see what they say about anthroposophy. Below I've quoted
)from a variety of sources some more worthwhile than others.
Webb and Ahern are particularly good, as English-language sources go,
despite the various criticisms of each I've voiced on this list before. Do
you think that they help support your claim that Steiner was an
anthroposophist in the 1890s?
)Here's a summary of how the writers of these books view anthroposophy:
)A "philosophy of life", "a spiritual philosophy and set of teachings ",
)"a kind of mystical humanism", "a structured admixture of spiritualism,
)oriental and pseudo-scientific myth", something that is "structurally
)similar to Western esotericism", a "social philosophy" and a "spiritual
)system".
Sounds hunky dory to me, but too general to distinguish anthroposophy as
such from other social philosophies and spiritual systems. For our purposes,
we need more specificity than that. Also, you might note that the
encyclopedia entry you cite says that Steiner initiated anthroposophy after
his stint as a theosophist, which makes PoF a pre-anthroposophical work.
Let's look at the Webb and Ahern passages:
)The Occult Establishment by James Webb
)P67
)"What is important to notice is that Steiner could find in such diverse
)quarters as Theosophy, philosophical idealism, and the possibly Tantric
)magic of the O.T.O., material for his hoped-for revolution in
)consciousness."
Yes indeed, Steiner found lots of material in philosophical idealism that he
adopted into anthroposophy. This doesn't magically transform philosophical
idealism into anthroposophy.
)P68
)"If his sources were varied, his applications were equally so. For he
)intended Anthroposophy to be an all-embracing science that would provide
)answers both spiritually and materially satisfying in every branch of
)life."
Yep. Among his sources were Goethe, Fichte, Blavatsky, and lots and lots of
other non-anthroposophists.
)P349
)"Nothing, he felt, should remain unconscious. Steiner's deduction was
)that he should find some way of making conscious the unconscious
)processes - which is what his 'spiritual perception' amounts to.
If you're trying to say that making the unconscious conscious is
anthroposophical, then Freud would be an anthroposophist.
)Sun at Midnight by Geoffrey Ahern
)P68
)"Admittedly, his Anthroposophy is structurally similar to Western
)esotericism and doctrinally often closely resembles Theosophy and many
)other contemporary systems of thought; yet Rudolf Steiner stated that
)everything Anthroposophical derives from his own, original spiritual
)research. But by itself this does not make his revelation necessarily
)mistaken, let alone dishonest.
Let's hope Baandje et al are reading this...
)(Jesus, unlike modern scholars, was
)almost certainly unaware that his convictions probably owed as much to
)Zoroastrianism as to the ancient Judaism of the `chosen' people.) That
)Steiner was true to himself is also suggested by his frank admission
)that he had diffiiculty 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 people do the kitchen table. Thus he thought spiritual
)`science' was possible, as have many other modern people."
Yep. You thought maybe all those "many other modern people" were
anthroposophists too?
)Charlie M:
)As can be seen from these excerpts, the reading public is being shown
)various views of anthroposophy that, although it includes esotericism,
)is not bounded by it. To say that it is a branch of the western esoteric
)tradition would seem to me to set unrealistic and inacccurate limits on
)it.
Yes, that's the normative conception of anthroposophy to which you seem
particularly attached. It is of no concern in a public discussion with
non-anthroposophists.
)I would say that, just like esotericism, anthroposophy is not easy to
)define.
Yes indeed.
)I said previously, through thinking we can have inner experiences that
)are as objective as the world of nature. I'll ask again, do you deny
)that Steiner stated this both in the P of F and Knowledge of the Higher
)Worlds?
No, I don't deny this (who do you think *does* deny this, by the way?), any
more than I deny that PoF and KHW are both about epistemology. They present
strikingly different epistemologies: KHW is esoteric and PoF isn't, PoF's
epistemology is this-wordly and KHW's is other-worldly, and so forth. If we
take KHW as a reasonable standard for an anthroposophical work -- a fine
choice, in my view -- then PoF doesn't hold up at all. There is nothing
about the higher worlds anywhere in the book. Perhaps I can repeat what I
wrote to you some time ago in this thread:
The point is to figure out which views are selected and how they are put
together. Steiner's anthroposophical works themselves are the best standard
for this. Take a look at Anthroposophical Leading Thoughts, for instance.
You won't simply find general stuff there about human self-knowledge and man
as a being who thinks and remembers, you'll find lots and lots about the
cosmic mission of Michael, the machinations of Ahriman, the mystery of
Golgotha, the astral body, reincarnation, the spiritual hierarchies, and so
forth. Try to keep in mind that this text is not one of the more overtly
occultist ones, but one that fits your own preferred terminology -- its
subtitle is Anthroposophy as a Path of Knowledge. The mature Steiner did not
simply posit any old path of knowledge, he posited a specific one with
distinctive markings along the path. Those markings are the elements that
help differentiate anthroposophy from other philosophies. If you find any of
those markings in PoF, let me know.
Cheers,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Get FREE Web site and company branded e-mail from Microsoft Office Live
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 2413
-- Topica Digest --
RE: anthroposophy by association 1
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: anthroposophy by association 1
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: anthroposophy by association 1
By pstaud hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 15:58:57 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: anthroposophy by association 1
Hi Charlie,
)You.Peter, say, "anthroposophy is merely one branch of occultism", then
)you say, "anthroposophy really is among other things a branch of
)occultism". So which is it, merely one branch of occultism or more than
)that?
It's both. (It's a number of other things, too.) Anthroposophy is an
esoteric worldview / belief system / path of knowledge, as well a movement,
a set of social institutions, a constellation of ideas and an ensemble of
practical endeavors, including Waldorf, biodynamic farming, and others;
Anthroposophy is a prominent stream within contemporary western esotericism
and the most successful branch of the modern German occult revival, a
spinoff of theosophy and a continuation of many of its core themes. It isn't
merely some nondescript "social philosophy", it has specific content.
)You admit that anthroposophy doesn't just consist of esotericism,
)but, you stipulate that in order for someone to prove that P of F is
)anthroposophical it must have esoteric content.You're not being very
)consistant.
It would be interesting to learn what you find inconsistent about the above
summary. Historical phenomena are often complex, Charlie, with lots of
different facets. If anthroposophy only “consisted of esotericism”, it would
be impossible to distinguish it from any other variety of esoteric thought
and practice. One of the facets of anthroposophy – a central one,
historically speaking – is its ideas, its teachings, its specific content.
That is one thing that books do: they convey ideas, they propound teachings,
they present specific content. If you want to classify the content of a
particular book as belonging to a particular worldview, what you need to do
is show how the text includes elements that distinguish that particular
worldview from other worldviews.
You haven't done anything like this with PoF. What you have done so far is
demonstrate that the content of PoF is philosophical, which is something I
certainly don't dispute, but which is about as helpful as pointing out that
the content of a mathematics textbook is mathematical, when what you
actually claimed is that the content was about algebra, not about
arithmetic. Algebra is a specific kind of mathematics. Anthroposophy is a
specific kind of philosophy. Merely noting the philosophical content of PoF
won't show that the book is anthroposophical.
)I made an analogy between anthroposophy and mathematics.
)
)"Esotericism is related to anthroposophy in a similar way that algebra
)is related to mathematics."
)
)I do not think that substituting algebra for mathematics in the analogy
)makes anywhere near as good an analogy, and you argue as if this was the
)analogy that I was making.
I didn’t substitute anything in your analogy. Your analogy itself fails to
distinguish arithmetic from algebra, in a way that is very similar to your
mixing up of Steiner’s pre-1900 works with anthroposophy. Nobody disagrees
that in order to do algebra, you first need to learn something about
arithmetic. But learning arithmetic is itself hardly the same thing as
learning algebra. If you're trying to say that in order to do anthroposophy,
you first need to learn something about philosophy, I'm glad to agree. Alas,
this does not mean that philosophy and anthroposophy are the same thing.
)I see you are still arguing that PoF does not contain esotericism.
Yes, I am indeed arguing that. You could very easily disprove this argument
by simply quoting any esoteric passage from the book.
)What the exchange below sums up (I like the pun by the way) is that
)Peter twisted my analogy. I wasn't saying that arithmetic is algebra,
)but that both arithmetic (P of F) and algebra (anthroposophical
)esotericism) are branches of mathematics (anthroposophy).
I didn’t twist your analogy. According to your reasoning, arithmetic and
algebra are essentially the same thing – after all, they’re both branches of
mathematics – just as Steiner’s early philosophical works and his later
anthroposophical works are essentially the same thing – after all, they’re
both written by Rudolf Steiner. That's anthroposophy by association.
)Peter says above that anthroposophy isn't just esotericism, but the P of
)F needs to have esoteric content to be classed as anthroposophical.
)Can't you see the contradiction?
There is no contradiction between those two claims. A biodynamic farm is
part of anthroposophy, right? And a Waldorf school is part of anthroposophy,
right? But a biodynamic farm isn't a book, and a Waldorf school isn't a
book. Philosophy of Freedom is a book. It's a collection of ideas in textual
form. In order to figure out how to class those ideas, how to class the book
as a text, you'll have to look at the specific content, not simply observe
that the ideas are in some way vaguely philosophical. As it happens,
anthroposophy's core ideas are esoteric. If you want to show that PoF
contains anthroposophical content and not merely philosophical content, then
yes, you do indeed need to show that it contains esoteric content, at the
very least some tendentially esoteric content.
)There's no big deal here. But you did say that you found this discussion
)fascinating, so it must have some merit. It's just that I prefer to
)dance with Franky's anthroposophy than to watch Peter dissecting a
)corpse.
I think most of us probably share that preference; dancing is more fun than
providing evidence and reasoning in a public discussion. For better or
worse, however, this is a public discussion, not a dance floor, and yes, you
really do need to provide evidence and reasoning for your claims if you want
others to be able to assess them.
)Couldn't we just agree that some people have found that the P of F IS
)anthroposophical while others haven't found this (yet;)).
We already agree on that. You and Franky and Jean-Marc and Frank and several
others believe that PoF is anthroposophical. The next step in the dance is
to offer some evidence and some reasoning to support and substantiate that
notion.
It's worth noting that the dance consistently grinds to a halt at exactly
this point. Back in October, for example, I wrote the following to Frank:
"Other than the fact that they were written by the same author, in what
sense do you consider the meditative practices outlined in KoHW to be a
further development of the intuitive thinking discussed in PoF? What
substantive relationship do you discern between the two?"
And a month ago I wrote to you:
"I really am indifferent to what you get out of PoF. If it works for you as
a secretly coded guide to the higher worlds, that's cool with me. But we
weren't discussing what the book means to you personally. We were discussing
what the book actually says and does not say, what positions Steiner held
and did not hold at the time he wrote it, how it fits in to his intellectual
development in the course of the 1890s and beyond.”
(That was in the “anthroposophy by association 2” thread, which never went
anywhere)
And before that I wrote:
"Steiner in the 1890s tried out all sorts of different philosophies and
worldviews, and didn't settle on theosophy\anthroposophy until the turn of
the century. [...] I'd still be mildly interested in hearing just what it is
in PoF or any of Steiner's pre-1900 published works that they [the
proponents of the PoF-is-anthroposophical line] consider implicitly esoteric
or in some way influenced by esotericism or tending toward esotericism. It
is more than a little odd that this straightforward question should prove so
difficult for anthroposophists to answer; lots of prominent figures in the
history of philosophy and the history of science and the history of
literature and art were strongly interested in and influenced by various
forms of esotericism and occultism and dabbled quite a bit in these
phenomena, and it isn't difficult to trace those influences and dabblings.
How come none of the folks who insist so loudly that Steiner was an
esotericist in 1894 can come up with any evidence whatsoever for this
notion?”
I would be delighted to get meaningful replies to those queries. The
question isn't an especially important one to me, and I am wide open to
changing my mind on the matter (for what it's worth, I've changed my mind on
it before), and this list seems like a fine place to carry out the debate,
er, dance, so if there is some aspect of PoF that strikes you as
distinctively anthroposophical and not just generally philosophical, the
floor is yours, and I'll follow your lead.
Cheers,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Type your favorite song. Get a customized station. Try MSN Radio powered
by Pandora. http://radio.msn.com/?icid=T002MSN03A07001
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 11:30:59 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: anthroposophy by association 1
Hi Charlie,
)You.Peter, say, "anthroposophy is merely one branch of occultism", then
)you say, "anthroposophy really is among other things a branch of
)occultism". So which is it, merely one branch of occultism or more than
)that?
It's both. (It's a number of other things, too.) Anthroposophy is an
esoteric worldview / belief system / path of knowledge, as well a movement,
a set of social institutions, a constellation of ideas and an ensemble of
practical endeavors, including Waldorf, biodynamic farming, and others;
Anthroposophy is a prominent stream within contemporary western esotericism
and the most successful branch of the modern German occult revival, a
spinoff of theosophy and a continuation of many of its core themes. It isn't
merely some nondescript "social philosophy", it has specific content.
)You admit that anthroposophy doesn't just consist of esotericism,
)but, you stipulate that in order for someone to prove that P of F is
)anthroposophical it must have esoteric content.You're not being very
)consistant.
It would be interesting to learn what you find inconsistent about the above
summary. Historical phenomena are often complex, Charlie, with lots of
different facets. If anthroposophy only “consisted of esotericism”, it would
be impossible to distinguish it from any other variety of esoteric thought
and practice. One of the facets of anthroposophy – a central one,
historically speaking – is its ideas, its teachings, its specific content.
That is one thing that books do: they convey ideas, they propound teachings,
they present specific content. If you want to classify the content of a
particular book as belonging to a particular worldview, what you need to do
is show how the text includes elements that distinguish that particular
worldview from other worldviews.
You haven't done anything like this with PoF. What you have done so far is
demonstrate that the content of PoF is philosophical, which is something I
certainly don't dispute, but which is about as helpful as pointing out that
the content of a mathematics textbook is mathematical, when what you
actually claimed is that the content was about algebra, not about
arithmetic. Algebra is a specific kind of mathematics. Anthroposophy is a
specific kind of philosophy. Merely noting the philosophical content of PoF
won't show that the book is anthroposophical.
)I made an analogy between anthroposophy and mathematics.
)
)"Esotericism is related to anthroposophy in a similar way that algebra
)is related to mathematics."
)
)I do not think that substituting algebra for mathematics in the analogy
)makes anywhere near as good an analogy, and you argue as if this was the
)analogy that I was making.
I didn’t substitute anything in your analogy. Your analogy itself fails to
distinguish arithmetic from algebra, in a way that is very similar to your
mixing up of Steiner’s pre-1900 works with anthroposophy. Nobody disagrees
that in order to do algebra, you first need to learn something about
arithmetic. But learning arithmetic is itself hardly the same thing as
learning algebra. If you're trying to say that in order to do anthroposophy,
you first need to learn something about philosophy, I'm glad to agree. Alas,
this does not mean that philosophy and anthroposophy are the same thing.
)I see you are still arguing that PoF does not contain esotericism.
Yes, I am indeed arguing that. You could very easily disprove this argument
by simply quoting any esoteric passage from the book.
)What the exchange below sums up (I like the pun by the way) is that
)Peter twisted my analogy. I wasn't saying that arithmetic is algebra,
)but that both arithmetic (P of F) and algebra (anthroposophical
)esotericism) are branches of mathematics (anthroposophy).
I didn’t twist your analogy. According to your reasoning, arithmetic and
algebra are essentially the same thing – after all, they’re both branches of
mathematics – just as Steiner’s early philosophical works and his later
anthroposophical works are essentially the same thing – after all, they’re
both written by Rudolf Steiner. That's anthroposophy by association.
)Peter says above that anthroposophy isn't just esotericism, but the P of
)F needs to have esoteric content to be classed as anthroposophical.
)Can't you see the contradiction?
There is no contradiction between those two claims. A biodynamic farm is
part of anthroposophy, right? And a Waldorf school is part of anthroposophy,
right? But a biodynamic farm isn't a book, and a Waldorf school isn't a
book. Philosophy of Freedom is a book. It's a collection of ideas in textual
form. In order to figure out how to class those ideas, how to class the book
as a text, you'll have to look at the specific content, not simply observe
that the ideas are in some way vaguely philosophical. As it happens,
anthroposophy's core ideas are esoteric. If you want to show that PoF
contains anthroposophical content and not merely philosophical content, then
yes, you do indeed need to show that it contains esoteric content, at the
very least some tendentially esoteric content.
)There's no big deal here. But you did say that you found this discussion
)fascinating, so it must have some merit. It's just that I prefer to
)dance with Franky's anthroposophy than to watch Peter dissecting a
)corpse.
I think most of us probably share that preference; dancing is more fun than
providing evidence and reasoning in a public discussion. For better or
worse, however, this is a public discussion, not a dance floor, and yes, you
really do need to provide evidence and reasoning for your claims if you want
others to be able to assess them.
)Couldn't we just agree that some people have found that the P of F IS
)anthroposophical while others haven't found this (yet;)).
We already agree on that. You and Franky and Jean-Marc and Frank and several
others believe that PoF is anthroposophical. The next step in the dance is
to offer some evidence and some reasoning to support and substantiate that
notion.
It's worth noting that the dance consistently grinds to a halt at exactly
this point. Back in October, for example, I wrote the following to Frank:
"Other than the fact that they were written by the same author, in what
sense do you consider the meditative practices outlined in KoHW to be a
further development of the intuitive thinking discussed in PoF? What
substantive relationship do you discern between the two?"
And a month ago I wrote to you:
"I really am indifferent to what you get out of PoF. If it works for you as
a secretly coded guide to the higher worlds, that's cool with me. But we
weren't discussing what the book means to you personally. We were discussing
what the book actually says and does not say, what positions Steiner held
and did not hold at the time he wrote it, how it fits in to his intellectual
development in the course of the 1890s and beyond.”
(That was in the “anthroposophy by association 2” thread, which never went
anywhere)
And before that I wrote:
"Steiner in the 1890s tried out all sorts of different philosophies and
worldviews, and didn't settle on theosophy\anthroposophy until the turn of
the century. [...] I'd still be mildly interested in hearing just what it is
in PoF or any of Steiner's pre-1900 published works that they [the
proponents of the PoF-is-anthroposophical line] consider implicitly esoteric
or in some way influenced by esotericism or tending toward esotericism. It
is more than a little odd that this straightforward question should prove so
difficult for anthroposophists to answer; lots of prominent figures in the
history of philosophy and the history of science and the history of
literature and art were strongly interested in and influenced by various
forms of esotericism and occultism and dabbled quite a bit