(
Waldorf Critics Archive 9710 (October, 1997)
return to WCA Archive Index
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n525 --------------
001 - Per.Hallstrom mbox3.swipn - Re: Disclosure Statement
002 - Deby Snell (snell oro.net - Re: Disclosure Statement
003 - Per.Hallstrom mbox3.swipn - Re: Disclosure Statement
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n525.1 ---------------
From: Per.Hallstrom mbox3.swipnet.se
Subject: Re: Disclosure Statement
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 17:02:29 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
At 13.39 97-09-29, Deby Snell wrote:
))Deby:
))
)))It has been a couple years so my memory could very well have faded on all
)))his points of concern. He felt strong enough to take this issue to a publ=
ic
)))meeting which I attended. Personally, I believe the practice is harmless.
)))But then there _is_ this non-sectarian claim. This is another example of
)))how Anthroposophical practices can violate families spiritual belief
)))system. This father seemed pretty distressed by the practice.
))
))This story reminded me of the woman who sued Disney - successfully - for
))the traumatic effect of seeing Mickey Mouse without a head (i.e. revealing
))that there was actually a person inside).
))The ability of North Americans to invent ever new and obscure forms of
))victimisation apparently knows no end (and here surpasses itself). Didn't
))anyone suggest litigation? It could have been phenomenal...
)
)
)Sorry James, no law suit here. Just another family who removed their
)children from the school. But just because you and I do not have a problem
)with teachers meditating on our children does not mean that we are in a
)position to judge another person's spiritual beliefs. I think it is
)unacceptable to place people in violation of their spiritual practices
)without their knowledge or consent. Do you agree?
)Deby
My name is Per Hallstroem and I work as a teacher at Rudolf
Steinerseminariet in Jaerna, Sweden.
As English is not my mothertounge, please have some patience with how I
handle your language, and please tell me when you think I use it
incorrectly.
This also makes my writing pretty slow, and I=B4m not able to spend very muc=
h
time at my Macintosh, so my postings will be few and sporadic.
This list belongs to the waldorf-critics, and as I am a representative for
anthroposophy, it is to those of you who are critics whom I primarily would
like to address.
I have made one earlier posting which was a bit beside the point in
connection with the question I thought I tried to answer at that time.
Though I have only followed this list for about a month, and only read some
of the archives, I think that I understand what your incentives and
core-issues are:
You have experienced mistreatment by Waldorf teachers/anthroposophists.
You mean that they are breaking the law by inculcation and espousing of
young, defenseless human beings.
You believe they suffer from deficient thinking and pseudo science-beliefs.
Now I would like to ask what toou think ameditation is in this context:
I wonder at the implications of what you are saying Deby... can a teacher
_think_ about a child in his class whithout risking to violate the families
spiritual belief system? Shouldnt he better ask the parents first?
The kind of meditation, knomn to me, that teachers do - often on regular
basis - is an act of intense thinking over or remembering the child in
order to better understand how to be a good teacher to the child.
The general purpose being to do what is possible to further the childs
development to a free, strong and compassionate grown up.
But you really think thinking about someone is to violate this person or
his family?
Or does it only apply if the person, in your opinion, suffers from
_deficient thinking?_
Per Hallstr=F6m
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n525.2 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell oro.net)
Subject: Re: Disclosure Statement
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 20:17:28 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199709301500.IAA28594 lists1.best.com)
Per writes,
)I wonder at the implications of what you are saying Deby... can a teacher
)_think_ about a child in his class whithout risking to violate the families
)spiritual belief system? Shouldnt he better ask the parents first?
)The kind of meditation, knomn to me, that teachers do - often on regular
)basis - is an act of intense thinking over or remembering the child in
)order to better understand how to be a good teacher to the child.
)The general purpose being to do what is possible to further the childs
)development to a free, strong and compassionate grown up.
As I said, Per, *I* have _no_ problem with a teacher meditating on my
child. I think it is harmless. The term meditating [on a child] has
different connotations than the word "thinking". What I said was that
_some_ people, due to their own spiritual beliefs, may not want teachers
meditating on their children. I mentioned this because of a father who
objected to this practice at an all-school meeting _before_ he took his
children out of the school. My observation of this father's reaction is why
I felt this practice should be considered for the "full disclosure"
document.
By the way.. your english is easy to understand. I'm a native American and
often struggle with words. I'm happy that you joined the conversation.
Best,
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n525.3 ---------------
From: Per.Hallstrom mbox3.swipnet.se (Per =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hallstr=F6m?= )
Subject: Re: Disclosure Statement
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 12:44:39 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
At 20.17 97-09-30, Deby Snell wrote:
)Per writes,
))I wonder at the implications of what you are saying Deby... can a teacher
))_think_ about a child in his class whithout risking to violate the familie=
s
))spiritual belief system? Shouldnt he better ask the parents first?
))The kind of meditation, knomn to me, that teachers do - often on regular
))basis - is an act of intense thinking over or remembering the child in
))order to better understand how to be a good teacher to the child.
))The general purpose being to do what is possible to further the childs
))development to a free, strong and compassionate grown up.
)
)
)As I said, Per, *I* have _no_ problem with a teacher meditating on my
)child. I think it is harmless. The term meditating [on a child] has
)different connotations than the word "thinking". What I said was that
)_some_ people, due to their own spiritual beliefs, may not want teachers
)meditating on their children. I mentioned this because of a father who
)objected to this practice at an all-school meeting _before_ he took his
)children out of the school. My observation of this father's reaction is why
)I felt this practice should be considered for the "full disclosure"
)document.
What I tried to say is that maybe a confusion regarding the "different
connotations" of the terms "meditating" and "thinking" might have been at
least part of the problem for the father you refer to. I also tried to make
clear what is ment by meditating [on a child] as a method for teachers who
want to enhance their ability to understand their pupils.
Autumnly greetings
Per Hallstr=F6m
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n525 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n526 --------------
001 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - reporter seeking contacts
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n526.1 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: reporter seeking contacts
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 11:10:27 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I received the following:
)I am a student writer for the Daily Northwestern, the campus newspaper.
)I am doing a story for the Daily on a Waldorf school that is in
)Evanston. Since you seem to be a vocal critic of the Waldorf system I am
)wondering if you could steer me to the covered sides of the Waldorf
)system not known to the general public.
)
)We can discuss details over the phone and I can call you on the
)University account, now all I need is your phone number. If the phone is
)too inconvenient for you, other forms of communication could be set up.
)Thank you for your time and I look forward to your response.
)Aurin Squire
)a-squire nwu.edu
I talked with him on the phone. He's interviewed the head teacher at the
Waldorf school in Evanston also. He wants to talk with disgruntled former
Waldorf parents. Please email him ASAP with a brief description of your
experience. His deadline is Tuesday the 7th.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n526 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n527 --------------
001 - Deby Snell (snell oro.net - Waldorf Education and Anthroposophy 2
002 - Deby Snell (snell oro.net - English/Four Elements
003 - Deby Snell (snell oro.net - Re: English/Four Elements
004 - Brian Berns (Berns rdacon - RE: English/Four Elements
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n527.1 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell oro.net)
Subject: Waldorf Education and Anthroposophy 2
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 12:44:23 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
My 1997 edition of the Anthroposophic Press catalog has a few new
offerings.To order a book, call the Anthroposophic Press. Their phone #:
888-757-2742, fax - 313-662-1727)
One new book, 'Waldorf Education and Anthroposophy 2'(Rudolf Steiner),
includes this description: "In this collection, as in the previous one,
Steiner is outspoken with regard to the spiritual nature of human beings
and the world, including the spiritual nature of Waldorf education." It is
book # 1802, $16.95.
Another new offering, 'Christianity as Mystical Fact' (Rudolf Steiner)
includes this description: 'As Steiner writes in his Autobiography: "My
intention was not simply to present the mystical content of Christianity.
Rather my aim was to describe evolution from the ancient Mysteries to the
Mystery of Golgotha in such a way as to reveal forces at work in this
evolution that were not just earthy, historial forces, but spiritual,
extra-earthly impulses. I wanted to show that the content presented in the
ancient Mysteries took the form of ritualistic pictures of events ocuring
within the cosmos to the earth in the Mystery of Golgotha as a
sense-perceptible *fact* accomplished on the plane of history."'
'Christianity as a Mystical Fact' is a fundamental book, both in Steiner's
own development and in the development of Western esotericsm and our
understanding of the Christ event. Here readers will find the evolutionary
development from the ancient Mysteries through the great Greek philosophers
to the events portrayed in the Gospels.'
Book#1957, $16.95
Deby Snell
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n527.2 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell oro.net)
Subject: English/Four Elements
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 09:32:19 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cleaning out the closet, I ran across a third grade main lesson book which
my son copied from his Waldorf classroom's chaulk board. It begins:
"In nature we find four elements and four seasons. We also have four kinds
of sentences:"
1. Commands
2. Exclamations
3. Statements
4. Questions
Anthroposophy sneaks into most everything in a Waldorf classroom. _Four_
elements?
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n527.3 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell oro.net)
Subject: Re: English/Four Elements
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:35:21 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
)Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 10:43:04 -0700
)From: marta.hammel West.Sun.COM (Marta Hammel - PDX DSSR Sun/Portland)
)To: snell oro.net
)Subject: Re: English/Four Elements
)X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII
)
)Yes, Deby,
)
)Four elements:
) Water
) Air
) Earth
) Fire
)
)This concept is not specific to Anthroposophy; but exists in many life
)orientations. (including that of Native Americans if I'm not mistaken.)
)
)In fact there are most likely several different applications of the concept of
)"four elements", this is just the first that came to mind.
)
)
)Marta
)
)) From snell oro.net Thu Oct 9 10:24:43 1997
)) From: Deby Snell (snell oro.net)
)) Subject: English/Four Elements
)) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 09:32:19 -0700
)) BestServHost: lists.best.com
)) MIME-Version: 1.0
)) To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
))
)) Cleaning out the closet, I ran across a third grade main lesson book which
)) my son copied from his Waldorf classroom's chaulk board. It begins:
))
)) "In nature we find four elements and four seasons. We also have four kinds
)) of sentences:"
)) 1. Commands
)) 2. Exclamations
)) 3. Statements
)) 4. Questions
))
)) Anthroposophy sneaks into most everything in a Waldorf classroom. _Four_
)) elements?
)) Deby
))
))
))
)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n527.4 ---------------
From: Brian Berns (Berns rdaconsultants.com)
Subject: RE: English/Four Elements
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 15:43:48 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Please clarify. Does Waldorf teach "four elements:
water/air/earth/fire" as scientific fact? If so, I would find this
quite alarming. Or do they teach it as ancient philosophy, no longer
held true? This is what mainstream schools teach.
-- Brian
) -----Original Message-----
) From: Deby Snell [SMTP:snell oro.net]
) Sent: Thursday, October 09, 1997 2:35 PM
) To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
) Subject: Re: English/Four Elements
)
) )Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 10:43:04 -0700
) )From: marta.hammel West.Sun.COM (Marta Hammel - PDX DSSR
) Sun/Portland)
) )To: snell oro.net
) )Subject: Re: English/Four Elements
) )X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII
) )
) )Yes, Deby,
) )
) )Four elements:
) ) Water
) ) Air
) ) Earth
) ) Fire
) )
) )This concept is not specific to Anthroposophy; but exists in many
) life
) )orientations. (including that of Native Americans if I'm not
) mistaken.)
) )
) )In fact there are most likely several different applications of the
) concept of
) )"four elements", this is just the first that came to mind.
) )
) )
) )Marta
) )
) )) From snell oro.net Thu Oct 9 10:24:43 1997
) )) From: Deby Snell (snell oro.net)
) )) Subject: English/Four Elements
) )) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 09:32:19 -0700
) )) BestServHost: lists.best.com
) )) MIME-Version: 1.0
) )) To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
) ))
) )) Cleaning out the closet, I ran across a third grade main lesson
) book which
) )) my son copied from his Waldorf classroom's chaulk board. It begins:
) ))
) )) "In nature we find four elements and four seasons. We also have
) four kinds
) )) of sentences:"
) )) 1. Commands
) )) 2. Exclamations
) )) 3. Statements
) )) 4. Questions
) ))
) )) Anthroposophy sneaks into most everything in a Waldorf classroom.
) _Four_
) )) elements?
) )) Deby
) ))
) ))
) ))
) )
)
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n527 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n528 --------------
001 - Herman de Tollenaere (her - Re: English/Four Elements, and numerology
002 - RigbyL aol.com - Re: English/Four Elements
003 - spike netshel.net - Re: Four Elements
004 - Deby Snell (snell oro.net - A Waldorf teacher's task
005 - Deby Snell (snell oro.net - Children/Sleep/Reincarnation
006 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: English/Four Elements
007 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - SF State hosting cult medical course
008 - Brian Berns (Berns rdacon - RE: Four Elements
009 - Deby Snell (snell oro.net - No visuals
010 - Herman de Tollenaere (her - Re: SF State hosting cult medical course
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n528.1 ---------------
From: Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl)
Subject: Re: English/Four Elements, and numerology
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 23:00:02 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 09:32 AM 9/10/97 -0700, Deby wrote:
)Cleaning out the closet, I ran across a third grade main lesson book which
)my son copied from his Waldorf classroom's chaulk board. It begins:
)
)"In nature we find four elements and four seasons. We also have four kinds
)of sentences:"
)1. Commands
)2. Exclamations
)3. Statements
)4. Questions
)
)Anthroposophy sneaks into most everything in a Waldorf classroom. _Four_
)elements?
And _four_ seasons?, people who live in the tropics, not in central Europe,
will wonder. Btw, there is a pseudoscience called numerology. A. Sinnett,
vice president of the Theosophical Society about 1900, when Steiner joined
it, was an expert in it. Sinnett used it to advise how to gamble on horse races.
Herman
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n528.2 ---------------
From: RigbyL aol.com
Subject: Re: English/Four Elements
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 18:57:28 -0400 (EDT)
Brian asked::
(( Please clarify. Does Waldorf teach "four elements:
water/air/earth/fire" as scientific fact? If so, I would find this quite
alarming. Or do they teach it as ancient philosophy, no longer held true?
This is what mainstream schools teach.))
In my experience, the four elements are not taught as scientific
fact--certainly not in science classes per se. The best way to think of the
term "elements" when used with the air/fire/water/earth foursome is as sets
of qualities that are readily experienced in the physical world. In this
sense they are still as "true" as they ever were and there is a good deal to
be learned when approaching nature at this level of aggregation. I believe
it is fair to say (and I would certainly like to hear from Waldorf teachers
on this point) that in initial exposures of students to the ideas of science
they tend to work with phenomena at this level because they can be
experienced by the senses and thus understood deeply, before proceeding to
more abstract levels of science.
(BTW, traditionally there is a fifth "element" usually named "ether", but
sometimes in contemporary discussion named "space." In mainstream science
during the 19th century, ether was posited as the medium in which what we now
call electromagnetic waves waved. After Einstein's theories became accepted,
space--or spacetime, if you like--took over that role and the idea of ether
was dropped.)
Waldorf education does tend to use archaic terminology, much to the dismay of
literalist adults. The four temperaments, for example, can easily be
understood as clusters of personality traits, and likely would be given
credibility by contemporary child development specialists if they had
different labels. It takes a certain amount of intellectual generosity to
look behind the labels used by Waldorf educators to understand the meaning
behind them, and many critics are not willing or not able to do that.
Children are not so burdened with intellectual preconceptions, so labels
don't get in their way.
To return to elements, it is interesting to raise the question of how many
there are, really, if we all agree that four is not the proper scientific
number. By "elements" I am now referring to the most basic building blocks
of physical reality. In terms of that definition of "elements" what science
teachers still usually call the periodic table of elements is just as
misnamed as the earth/air/fire/water/(ether) rubric. We could count the
latest population of the quantum particle zoo, but even those phenomena seem
not to satisfy the search for ultimate building blocks. We might have to
conclude that any definition of "element" is arbitrary.
Rigby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n528.3 ---------------
From: spike netshel.net
Subject: Re: Four Elements
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 20:17:35 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Brian,
In regard to your request:
)
)Please clarify. Does Waldorf teach "four elements:
)water/air/earth/fire" as scientific fact? If so, I would find this
)quite alarming.
Yes, Brian, they do teach this as scientific fact. Please read the
following narrative describing an experience I had last spring in regard to
the "four elements" and Waldorf teaching methods.
I am a public school teacher that was subjected to the Waldorf "Public
School Teacher Training" at Rudolf Steiner College in Sacramento. I am a
credentialed science teacher and I found their "scientific" beliefs and
teaching methods to actually be based on occult religious beliefs and the
pedagogy designed to increase "spiritual" awareness as opposed to actual
scientific training. (The Waldorf pedagogy for all curriculum areas is
designed to increase spriritual awareness.)
My protest became more public last spring. At one point I attended a
meeting at which many members of the Rudolf Steiner College staff and the
Sacramento Waldorf School staff and Board also attended (uninvited). After
the meeting I had a conversation with a staff member from the college. She
approached me and "kindly" asked what concerns I had about the Waldorf
science methodology. I explained briefly to her some of my concerns. At
this point she stated to me, something to the effect, that the Waldorf
approach concentrated heavily on the sciences and that the "four elements"
were introduced early in the primary years. I pointed out to her that the
belief or teaching of the "four elements" was occultist, mystical belief
and not based on any accepted scientific teaching, etc., etc., and
certainly not something I would or could offer in a public school
classroom. She then attempted to convince me that "Waldorf" and I simply
labeled things differently. She told me that all things were made of
"earth, wind, fire and water" and that this was what was actually being
taught. I finally inquired if perhaps she thought these referred to the
three states of matter? She wasn't sure about this, not being clear on what
the three states of matter are - I clarified this for her, but she still
was not sure since these were only three states and seemed to be leaving
out the "fire." She also insisted that she was taught the scientific
validity of the four elements at a public elementary school here in
northern California in her youth. Since she looked younger than me I was
more than a little surprised and somewhat dubious. When I asked what school
this was she changed the subject and would not tell me. However, she
remained adamant throughout our conversation that there are four elements
and this is what all "matter" (my word) is composed of. . . and this is
scientific _and_ is part of the Waldorf curriculum.
What is your interest in this list? Are you a parent of a Waldorf student?
If so I would suggest that you engage in extensive reading on
Anthroposophy, Waldorf pedagogy, and grade level curriculum. If you are
indeed a parent of a Waldorf student I would hope that it is your _clear_
desire to have your child educated in a religious, occultist based
curriculum designed to positively aid his or her future reincarnation and
spiritual powers, including clairvoyance. If this is not your clear desire
then I would suggest that you consider other schools before you find your
child seriously lacking in present day academic skills.
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n528.4 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell oro.net)
Subject: A Waldorf teacher's task
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 20:48:25 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
"We injure the child's eternal being if we fail to cultivate in him the
right kind of feeling and will ... Education must help the child to think
properly so that he may bring over the fruits of his previous lives.
Working on the will and feeling prepares him for the live between death and
rebirth, if he does not receive what the physical world can give him in
Will and Feeling he is subsequently impoverished in the life after death."
Rudolf Steiner. Cosmic Forces in Man. Christiana Nov/Dec. 1921
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n528.5 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell oro.net)
Subject: Children/Sleep/Reincarnation
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 00:02:28 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Boy, cleaning out the closet has yielded all kinds of goodies. In Audrey E.
McAllen's book, 'Sleep', (Hawthorn Press, 1986) she says;
"The astral body and ego have a biography outside of the body in sleep as
essential and meaningful as when it is united with the physical and ether
bodies; but if the content of speech has no knowledge of the realities of
the spiritual world then the soul and spirit (astral body and ego) are
confined to the earthly material aspect of the elemental kingdoms."
Ms McAllen goes on to quote Steiner from 'The Driving Force of Spiritual
Pwers in World History', Lecture 1 :
"...[I]f our school education is not spiritually deepened, he (the child
approaching puberty and after) brings with him into sleep the rumbling
sounds of the physical mineral world, in his blood the rustling thudding
sounds of the physical part of the plant world and thus he is made
dependent on the mineralized brain made disharmonious in sleep and the
blood with hissing and rustling sounding thro' it. Thus he is confined
through the spiritual, idealistic barreness of speech to the earthly sphere
alone, whereas in other circumstances the worlds could have raised him
above the earthly to experience a higher realm."
In the next chapter, 'Sleep and Reincarnation', the author says about
("non-sectarian") Waldorf education:
"The curiculum of the Waldorf School also aids the process of the child's
development from the aspect of reincarnation. As the sleep life extends
into the elemental world, so the Akasha of the earth with its store of
memory also becomes visable. This is geographical time-memory. Just as in
earlier periods of history, the pupil of the Mysteries went from centre to
centre for his training, so in sleep the history of the earth shines up to
us from the geographical place of its happenings. In the middle school
years the great cultural epochs are recapitulated by the retelling of the
myths and legends appertaining to them. With these imaginations living in
them, the souls can re-find their reality in the in the spiritual memory of
the planet. It becomes clear to the teacher that the children in a class
have a particular affinity with one or the other of these epochs. The joy
and interest and the will engendered help the child come from the past to
the present.
Geography is also taught in the context of the peoples of the regions
described, together with their myths and customs. These graphically
described and lived in by the teacher, enable the class as a group soul to
experience in sleep the elemental areas that are so pictured. Thus the
world is experienced in the child's soul as a living
historical-geographical whole in space-time, not as a foreign body, but as
the living Mother Being who carries us during our earthly life-time.
Confidence of soul and the will to incarnate spring up from the sleep
experiences. A right teaching method enables the soul and spirit to bring
over into the present earth life the fruits of previous incarnations."
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n528.6 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: English/Four Elements
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 00:20:55 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
)Brian asked::
)
)(( Please clarify. Does Waldorf teach "four elements:
) water/air/earth/fire" as scientific fact? If so, I would find this quite
)alarming. Or do they teach it as ancient philosophy, no longer held true?
) This is what mainstream schools teach.))
And Rigby responded,
)In my experience, the four elements are not taught as scientific
)fact--certainly not in science classes per se. (snip)
Oh, yes they are. Attempted cover-up here.
My confrontation with the San Francisco Waldorf School was partly forced by
my son's having complained after a specialist teacher had given them some
chemistry lessons. He said "they're teaching us baby science." "What do you
mean?" "They say the elements are earth, air, fire and water."
In my slide show on Waldorf I have a Waldorf Organic Chemistry test in
which the teacher asks the student to discuss the relationship of sugar to
the four elements.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n528.7 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: SF State hosting cult medical course
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 00:21:38 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
People for Legal and Non-Sectarian Schools, Inc.
c/o Dan Dugan, Secretary
290 Napoleon Street
San Francisco, CA 94124
phone 415 821 9776
fax 415 826 7699
email plans dandugan.com
http://www.waldorfcritics.org
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 10/10/97
SF STATE HOSTING CULT MEDICAL COURSE
People for Legal and Non-Sectarian Schools (PLANS), is blowing the whistle
on a San Francisco State University course called "Anthroposophical
Medicine." "Not only is medical quackery being promoted by a public
university," said PLANS President Debra Snell, "but this course violates
separation of church and state. Anthroposophy is a cult-like religious
sect. The University is being used to give legitimacy to lunatic fringe
beliefs."
Anthroposophists follow the teachings of Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925), an
Austrian mystic who claimed to be able to make "direct scientific
observations" of the "spirit world." Steiner's bizarre doctrines include
the assertion that the heart does not pump blood (it moves itself) and that
motor nerves don't exist ("the will" acts directly in the limbs). A
promotional video for Anthroposophical medicine shows a child being treated
for pneumonia with a cottage cheese wrap.
Anthroposophical medicine is well established in Europe, but has been
unable to make much progress in the United States due to our stronger
consumer protection laws. Medical boards have investigated questionable
practices of Anthroposophical doctors in California, North Carolina, New
York, and Oregon. In the U.S., Anthroposophy is best known for its school
system, Waldorf schools. The Anthroposophical physicians in the United
States get most of their business through referrals from Waldorf school
teachers.
The largest outbreak of whooping cough in Sonoma County in ten years
occurred at the Starchild Waldorf Preschool in April of 1994. Sonoma Public
Health Officer Dr. George Flores blamed that epidemic on the
Anthroposophical medical policy opposing childhood immunizations and
antibiotics.
Debra Snell of PLANS said "We're investigating the possibility of legal
action to invalidate the credits for this course." Wallace Sampson, MD,
Board Chairman of the National Council Against Health Fraud, states "It is
incomprehensible that state boards actually give health professionals
continuing education credit for religious indoctrination. I am sure that
was not the legislature's intent."
"Anthroposophical Medicine" is a full-credit course in the Department of
Holistic Health. It began Friday, October 3 and continues through Sunday,
October 12. The course gives three credit units or 45 continuing education
units.
For more information, contact PLANS at (415) 821-9776, (916) 273-1005, or
the National Council Against Health Fraud, (909) 824-4690.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n528.8 ---------------
From: Brian Berns (Berns rdaconsultants.com)
Subject: RE: Four Elements
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 09:01:25 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Kathy said:
) She told me that all things were made of
) "earth, wind, fire and water" and that this
) was what was actually being taught
Here's the first definition of "element" in Webster's dictionary:
any of the four substances air, water, fire, and earth
formerly believed to compose the physical universe
I think the key word in this context is "formerly".
) What is your interest in this list? Are you
) a parent of a Waldorf student?
Since you asked: I am the parent of a two-year old child, so educational
choices are much on my mind these days. From what I know so far, I
would not allow my child to attend a Waldorf school (my wife and I lean
towards Montessori at this point).
However, I am friendly with a number of Waldorf parents, teachers, etc.
There is a popular Waldorf school in my neighborhood. I am concerned
about Waldorf because a) it seems to be a rapidly growing movement, b)
it receives public funding, and c) it allegedly teaches pseudo-science.
It is this last point in particular that I joined this list to resolve.
I am not interested in Anthroposophy per se, but in whether
Anthroposophy is taught as fact in Waldorf schools. Most of the people
I know who are directly involved in Waldorf say "not really", while most
of the critics I know say "definitely yes".
I find this "four elements" debate to be a perfect example of my
quandary. Rigby (who I take to be involved in Waldorf) gave an
intelligent "no" response to my question. Others (who I take to be
Waldorf critics) say "yes".
I have heard it said that there is a wide range of actual teaching
practices in Waldorf. Intelligent practitioners teach the best of
Waldorf and leave out the Anthroposophical hogwash. Those with small
minds teach Steiner by the book, and are thus avoided by most parents if
at all possible. Can anyone verify (or refute) this basic description?
-- Brian
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n528.9 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell oro.net)
Subject: No visuals
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 08:28:29 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199710100701.AAA24721 lists1.best.com)
Dear Critics,
Sometimes a scanner seems so necessary. This new book that I'm reading is
_wonderful_.
Can't resist adding the next paragraph ("Sleep, An unobserved element in
education") where Ms McAllen reveals the reason behind the lack of visual
aids:
[snip]
This book was given to me by my son's Waldorf teacher (kindergarten).My son
is now in fourth grade and I'm just now getting around to reading it..
) Geography is also taught in the context of the peoples of the regions
)described, together with their myths and customs. These graphically
)described and lived in by the teacher, enable the class as a group soul to
)experience in sleep the elemental areas that are so pictured. Thus the
)world is experienced in the child's soul as a living
)historical-geographical whole in space-time, not as a foreign body, but as
)the living Mother Being who carries us during our earthly life-time.
)Confidence of soul and the will to incarnate spring up from the sleep
)experiences. A right teaching method enables the soul and spirit to bring
)over into the present earth life the fruits of previous incarnations."
"In this respect we see how important it is not to use visual aids,
especially in Geography, i.e. slides and photographs of people and places.*
In both History and Geography it is the graphic description which calls on
the child to make innner visual pictures which stimulate the will and
enliven the body of formative forces, then the soul can find the approriate
spiritual counterpart in the earth's Akasha. The interaction of the two
helps him to take hold of his body with the full strength of his
individuality.
"* This does not apply to drawings and paintings. Here the artist has
solved the problem of transfering three-demensional space onto a
two-demensional plane."
______________________
Perhaps this information should be included in the full disclosure statement.
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n528.10 ---------------
From: Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl)
Subject: Re: SF State hosting cult medical course
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 20:04:00 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 12:21 AM 10/10/97 -0700, PLANS wrote:
)FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 10/10/97
)
)SF STATE HOSTING CULT MEDICAL COURSE
)
)People for Legal and Non-Sectarian Schools (PLANS), is blowing the whistle
)on a San Francisco State University course called "Anthroposophical
)Medicine." "Not only is medical quackery being promoted by a public
)university," said PLANS President Debra Snell, "but this course violates
)separation of church and state. Anthroposophy is a cult-like religious
)sect. The University is being used to give legitimacy to lunatic fringe
)beliefs."
)"Anthroposophical Medicine" is a full-credit course in the Department of
)Holistic Health.
What else does this *Department of Holistic Health* teach, apart from
Steiner? Quimby? Mary Baker Eddy? Elizabeth Clare Prophet? L. Ron Hubbard?
Deepak Chopra? Maharishi Mahesh Yogi? Louise L. Hay? Therapeutic Touch? Jan
Smuts, the early twentieth century South African general and politician, who
first used the concept holism? This is *not* a rhetorical question. I would
really like to know.
I have re-posted the PLANS mail about this in The Netherlands.
Herman de Tollenaere
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n528 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n529 --------------
001 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: Nuts? (was: need info on anthroposophical medicine, pleas
002 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: need info on anthroposophical medicine, please
003 - RigbyL aol.com - Re: Four Elements
004 - spike netshel.net - The Elements
005 - spike netshel.net - Sets of Qualities?
006 - mckay oro.net (David B Mc - Re: Disclosure Statement
007 - mckay oro.net (David B Mc - Re: Disclosure Statement
008 - mckay oro.net (David B Mc - Re: Disclosure Statement
009 - mckay oro.net (David B Mc - Re: Disclosure Statement
010 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - RE: Four Elements (Anthroposophical inculcation thread)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n529.1 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Nuts? (was: need info on anthroposophical medicine, please)
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 13:00:24 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Dear Dan, I saw your messages on the Waldorf mailing list. I'm not allowed
to reply there. I think you're naive to think that Waldorf education can be
separated from the crazy teachings of Rudolf Steiner. The teachers may
-say- that, but that's just to keep you quiet while they do their
Anthroposophical work. If you want some honest discussion, you might want
to join the waldorf-critics mailing list.
Steiner was just as loony both early and late in his career. It's just that
at first he attempted to write what he hoped would be accepted by the
"straight" world. When he developed a sufficient following he didn't have
to try to appeal to the mainstream any more.
If you think he was a good teacher, try reading his "Light Course" or
"Warmth Course" where he flops around confusedly trying to teach physics.
What he was good at was making gullible people believe obscurity was
profundity.
Sincerely, Dan Dugan
copy to waldorf-critics list
))X-Sender: JORGENSEN SSCL.UWO.CA
))MIME-version: 1.0
))Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 15:06:48 -0400
))Reply-To: SJU Waldorf School List (WALDORF MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU)
))Sender: SJU Waldorf School List (WALDORF MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU)
))From: DAN JORGENSEN (JORGENSEN SSCL.UWO.CA)
))Subject: Nuts? (was: need info on anthroposophical medicine, please)
))To: WALDORF MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
))
))At 07:15 PM 09/10/97 +0200, kneUcker wrote:
))
)))IMHO, nothing about Steiner's cosmology or what is currently practiced
)))as anthro medicine indicates ANYTHING about his "sanity" or lack of it.
)))
))
))(snip)
))
))This is only so if what people write, say, and profess to believe cannot be
))taken as evidence for *or* against their sanity.
))
))(snip)
))
)))Don't quite see the point of discussing this.
))
))But you discuss it nonetheless...
))
))(snip)
))
))I'm not an anthropop,
)))but the development of approaches to medicine, and farming developed by
)))Steiner seem perfectly logical and reasonable extensions of his
)))thinking about human beings and their relationships to their bodies,
)))and the earth.
))
))I am more concerned about pedagogy than medicine on this list. I regard
))the claim that Steiner's pedagogy is an outgrowth of his esoteric cosmology
))as a *serious mistake*, one that Steiner scholars could probably illuminate
))by tracking the chronology of his ideas and their development. (My own
))sense is that early Steiner has a lot to offer, especially on pedagogy, and
))that late Steiner is a loony, especially when it comes to cosmology and
))human destinies. I suspect that World War I has a lot to do with this.)
))Steiner's ideas have lots of different sources, ranging from: broadly-based
))pedagogical movements current in central Europe before and after the turn
))of the century (cf. the whole idea of Kindergarten, over which RS had no
))monopoly), to nutso stuff from theosophy -- a witches' brew of garbled
))European mysticism, 19th Century romanticism, ersatz hinduism and
))embarrassingly mistaken ideas about race, consciousness, history and
))culture. Toss in a dash of garden variety humoral theory (the common
))property of most mid-European peasants) for good measure (temperaments,
))substances, bodies). Mix with a pinch of astrology and rosicrucianism if
))you like.
))
))Many of these notions are a hop, skip and a jump away from those of the
))Krishnamurti folks who believed that the next stage of human development
))was going to be the emergence of a new race in Ojai, California. (Go visit
))Ojai; see what spiritual progress humanity made. If you find anything
))earth-shaking, let us know. If you simply find another bunch of humans not
))so very different from their neighbours, that's fine too.)
))
))Did Steiner invent this? The case for the defense, the case for taking
))Steiner seriously would have to say: no. No -- but he tried to assemble
))these currents in turn of the century confusion into a grandiose synthesis
))that would explain everything in human experience and, not content with
))that, the world at large. This plays to the belief/fantasy in some circles
))that everything has its reason if you have the key, and that you have (or
))will have) this key if you study Steiner hard enough. The appeal to
))followers is that they will never have to consult any other authority,
))never have to venture beyond the security of the creed. Claims to total
))coverage share the same impulses that unite biblical fundamentalism and
))wacky American conspiracy theories (only the clothing looks at a distance
))like New Age).
))
))Steiner's strengths were as a teacher, and, charitably, as a practical
))humorist. He seems to have had an intuitive grasp of a number of aspects
))of human character. His weaknesses were in abstract thought, for which he
))had lots of bombast and little gift. To maintain that the *largely sound
))pedagogical practices* of WE owe their existence to a rather crazed attempt
))to tie the whole cosmos into a single system based on dubious physics,
))psychology and the rest is, IMO, yet another instance of a search for the
))genius/teacher/boddhisatva that Steiner wanted to be but wasn't. WE is not
))well served by claims that anchor it to such a precarious foundation, and
))we shouldn't try to place too great a burden on RS's stray notions.
))
)))
)))I agree that being delighted with Waldorf Education does NOT mean that
)))you/we have to embrace everything Steiner thought or said, or wrote, or
)))propagated, or criticised...but to label some aspects of his thinking
)))as not being completely sane seems pretty extreme to me.
))
))It's the labels you object to, or the criticism?
))
))) I'll be happy to
)))introduce you to our family doctor, who practices anthroposophical
)))medicine. Talk to him for an hour, as he asks you questions about
)))yourself in a relaxed, attentive manner. You might have the feeling
)))that you are in the presence of the kind of sanity you may never have
)))experienced before!
))
))Perhaps. But I also know lots of perfectly ordinary MDs who can and do do
))the same, without the benefits of arcane Steinerish insights. Some of them
))even send their kids to Waldorf schools...
))
))Dan Jorgensen
))London, Ontario
))
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n529.2 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: need info on anthroposophical medicine, please
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 13:00:32 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
)Dan Dugan wrote (to Becca):
)
)) Anthroposophical physicians claim that their practice is an "extension" of
)) scientific medicine into the realm of the soul and spirit. Given that many
)) Anthroposophical principles are directly opposed to science, I don't see
)) how this claim could be true.
))
)) I hope you understand that your teacher's recommendation of an
)) Anthroposophical physician is likely to be based on an "us vs. them"
)) ideology, rather than knowledge of what is best for your son.
Becca replied:
)I think it was Dorothy Parker who wrote:
)
)Faith is an investment
)when Gentlemen can see,
)but microscopes are prudent
)in an emergency.
)
)We tend to be rationalists around our house, and when I got a post telling me
)that a. med. was based on naturopathy and homeopathy, they lost me right
)there. Homeopathy was designed to give people less medicine, and lo! and
)behold, fewer people died... because the medicines of the day tended to
)contain arsinic, lead, belladona, stuff like that. Better believe that people
)got better faster when they were given homeopathic medications: they weren't
)being poisoned!
)
)I'l consult with the a. dr. just to have done it, but if he wants to fix
)strucutral neurological damage with homeopathy, fergetit. (g)
)
)We're keeping David in our local school because the educational techniques and
)general atmosphere are doing him a world of good. The decision to keep him
)there is an ongoing one, however, and the minute WE does him more harm than
)good, we look for someplace else. But then, that's true of any school we'd
)have him in.
)
)-becca
)
)
)--
)Becca Price
)beccap rust.net
)
)"I used to have brains...now I have children."
Bravo, Becca, you're on top of the situation. If you want to know about
Waldorf's treatment of disabilities, ask someone to lend you a copy of
Audrey McAllen's "The Extra Lesson" (don't waste your money buying it). I'd
like to invite you to join the waldorf-critics mailing list, where we can
laugh about the weird Anthroposophical stuff.
Sincerely, Dan Dugan
copy: waldorf-critics list
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n529.3 ---------------
From: RigbyL aol.com
Subject: Re: Four Elements
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 16:30:08 -0400 (EDT)
Brian:
(( I find this "four elements" debate to be a perfect example of my
quandary. Rigby (who I take to be involved in Waldorf) gave an intelligent
"no" response to my question. Others (who I take to be Waldorf critics) say
"yes".))
I have indeed been a supporter of Waldorf Education, based on my experience
as a parent of a Waldorf student (at three different Waldorf schools), former
Board of Trustees member and current treasurer of the Sacramento Waldorf
School, and participation in various seminars that brought together faculty,
staff and parents from several Waldorf schools for discussion of common
issues. The recent interest in various public school initiatives to adapt
Waldorf methods has led me to rethink my interest in Waldorf Education in a
larger context. That is, I would now characterize my position as supporting
the type of education that Waldorf represents. The best phrase I have heard
to describe that type is "arts-integrated, developmentally appropriate." I
am only beginning to deepen my understanding of what that phrase means, but I
do find it helpful to look at Waldorf Education in terms of how it works
rather than where it came from.
((I have heard it said that there is a wide range of actual teaching
practices in Waldorf. Intelligent practitioners teach the best of Waldorf
and leave out the Anthroposophical hogwash. Those with small minds teach
Steiner by the book, and are thus avoided by most parents if at all
possible. Can anyone verify (or refute) this basic description? ))
In my experience there are many Waldorf teachers who are deeply involved with
anthroposophy (they don't regard it as hogwash), but who have the maturity
and intelligence to realize that it is inappropriate to bring anthroposophy
into the classroom. There are many Waldorf teachers who are attracted to the
culture of Waldorf education, but who have relatively little interest in
anthroposophy. And there are Waldorf teachers who, as you note, find it
difficult to get beyond a fundamentalist attitude toward Steiner's work, and
sometimes allow this to get into their relations with parents and/or the
classroom.
There is a mix of these types from school to school. One of the consistently
emphasized recommendations of the Waldorf supporters who have commented on
this list, is that prospective parents make a serious effort to raise
questions that relate to these issues with the leaders of the specific school
they are considering. This is specially important if the child would be
entering the lower grades because of the common practice of the same teacher
staying with the class through the 8th grade.
Incidentally, on the four elements topic, last night I happened to come
across a 15th century reference (Ficino) stating that the four elements are
mutable in form and quality. I take this as substantiation of my perspective
that the elements as defined in this rubric are best viewed as sets of
sense-perceptible characteristics of nature. In fact, I can well imagine
that the philosophers who for centuries worked with the ideas of four or five
elements would be deeply insulted by the 20th century judgment that they were
so stupid as to believe that the elements were actually physical building
blocks (the phrase I myself used in my previous post) of the natural world.
For most of those philosophers, I would guess that the labels earth, fire,
air and water represented archetypal qualities that may be found in various
ways and combinations in the physical world. It is only our contemporary
science that has taught us to treat elements as things.
I wish you well in your educational decision.
Rigby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n529.4 ---------------
From: spike netshel.net
Subject: The Elements
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 20:55:13 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Brian posted:
)However, I am friendly with a number of Waldorf parents, teachers, etc.
)There is a popular Waldorf school in my neighborhood. I am concerned
)about Waldorf because a) it seems to be a rapidly growing movement, b)
)it receives public funding, and c) it allegedly teaches pseudo-science.
These are the "Critics" concerns. My concern in particular is the issue of
public funding. While I would not choose Waldorf as a private education for
my children I have no problem with others making this choice. I do find it
perturbing, however; that Waldorf schools play a game of deception through
their failure to inform parents of the religious basis of their curriculum.
Anthroposphy permeates every facet of Waldorf curriculum. You may be
interested to look through the recent Archives to read the suggested
"Disclosure Statement" posted a month or so back. It presents an
extraordinarily clear picture of Waldorf pedagogy. Interestingly, none of
the Waldorf supporters on this list quarreled with the validity of its
contents, not even Rigby.
)I am not interested in Anthroposophy per se, but in whether
)Anthroposophy is taught as fact in Waldorf schools.
The Waldorf method is a covert one. While Anthroposophy is not taught in a
blatant sense in Waldorf schools, all of the curriculum has as its basis
the desire to further the spiritual growth of the child per
Anthroposophical religious beliefs. The Waldorf curriculum teaches science,
history, mathematics, literature according to Steiner's occultist beliefs.
As a result one finds the science curriculum teaching the four elements,
mathematics focusing on repetitive geometric drawing of occult symbols such
as the pentagram, hexagram, etc., history teaching the cultural epochs
(this Anthroposophical slant on history is fascinating - with Aryan
supremacy as the icing on the cake), art across the curriculum with
students "meditating on particular colors in order to further their
incarnation processes, etc.
The above description is a brief and simplistic one. I encourage you to
engage in reading texts of Steiner's speeches if you are indeed interested
in this subject and can bring yourself to wallow through it.
)I find this "four elements" debate to be a perfect example of my
)quandary. Rigby (who I take to be involved in Waldorf) gave an
)intelligent "no" response to my question.
You need to realize that what you perceived from Rigby to be an
"intelligent 'no'" in regard to the four elements was an example of
Anthroposophical double speak. (I won't deny the intelligence - Rigby was
clever in the framing of his denial.) Anthroposophical/Waldorf promotoers
deny their agenda and try to make it palatable by dressing it up with
present day terminology. For this reason Rigby is a valuable contributor to
our list. Study his postings well. They are a fascinating example of the
Waldorf coverup that the Critics work to expose. He is the Board president
of a Waldorf school in Sacramento. He denies vehemently that he is much
involved with the Anthroposophical community and paints a picture of
himself as a bit of an uninitiated neophyte. However, Rigby is always
"there" where PLANS is protesting. He has even gone so far as to solicit my
personnel records from my former employer in an attempt to discredit my
protest and then took the further step of posting his "information" about
me on this list. And yet, he claims to have no connection with the Rudolf
Steiner College or the problems that I have had with the religious
indoctrination I was exposed to in their public school teacher's training
(paid for with taxpayers' monies). He puts a nice light on the Waldorf
approach, be it curriculum or its encroachment in the realm of public
education. And he will himself as merely a "participant/observer," not
really terribly involved in it at all.
)I have heard it said that there is a wide range of actual teaching
)practices in Waldorf. Intelligent practitioners teach the best of
)Waldorf and leave out the Anthroposophical hogwash. Those with small
)minds teach Steiner by the book, and are thus avoided by most parents if
)at all possible. Can anyone verify (or refute) this basic description?
As with all schools and/or pedagogies there is a wide range of teaching
practices and talents. However, any Waldorf teacher is intensely trained in
Anthroposophical religious beliefs and teaches a curriculum that is based
entirely on these beliefs. The Waldorf curriculum/pedagogy is a rigid
system that is not subject to change. The curriculum is predetermined from
year to year and is not subject to change. This is the essence of Waldorf .
. . certain curriculum is delivered at particular grade levels per the
Waldorf pedagogy in order to foster spiritual and intellectual growth (per
Steiner's belief system). There is no such thing as leaving out the
"Anthroposophical hogwash." The pedagogy is completely and thoroughly based
on this hogwash and nothing else.
I have written quite a bit here Brian. I welcome you to the list. It is
good to have another new member. I have been off the list for some time and
I am glad to be back. You may also be interested in subscribing to the
Waldorf list in order to get a feel for the thinking of actual Waldorf
educators and others that are more firmly enmeshed in the
Waldorf/Anthroposophical community. They regularly engage in discussions
regarding the adherence to Steiner's "message" in the delivery of Waldorf
curriculum.
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n529.5 ---------------
From: spike netshel.net
Subject: Sets of Qualities?
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 20:55:17 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Rigby posted:
)In my experience, the four elements are not taught as scientific
)fact--certainly not in science classes per se. The best way to think of the
)term "elements" when used with the air/fire/water/earth foursome is as sets
)of qualities that are readily experienced in the physical world.
What's wrong with solid, liquid, gas? Heat would be introduced as energy,
since this is what it is. These are readily experienced in the physical
world and are not part of an occultist belief systems, ie; Anthroposophy,
astrology, Wicca, Paganism, etc., etc.
If _the_ "four elements" are not taught as scientific fact, then what are
they taught as? What is the point? If it's simply the experiential
phenomena then the states of matter (which are accepted scientific fact)
readily suffice and actually lead to accepted academic growth as opposed to
archaic alchemical indoctrination.
But then perhaps this is simply materialist thinking on my part. That
doggone lean toward "scientism" continues to muddy my thoughts Rigby.
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n529.6 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net (David B McKay)
Subject: Re: Disclosure Statement
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 10:40:39 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hello everyone! I've been very busy this summer and haven't read any e mail
for quite some time.
Deby:
)) I believe we should have something in this disclosure statement about the
)) teacher meditating on your child without permission. One family I know took
)) great exception to this practice. He was especially concerned because the
)) teacher did not ask their permission.
)Steve:
)Why was the family bothered by that? Would they expect a teacher to
)ask permission before praying for a child in his or her class? It
)seems to me that the teachers prayers or meditations are a
)personal spiritual matter for the teacher, and none of the parent's
)business.
I'm the parent Deby is referring to, and I **strongly** disagree with
anyone who
says they want to "Meditate or Pray" for me or especially for my children. I
believe it is a gross intrusion on my families spiritual beliefs, particularly
when they don't ask, or in this situation, never told me or my wife
during the
nine years we were involved in WE.
Deby:
)) Also, Anthroposohical child studies are performed regularly by the faculty
)) _without_ parental knowledge or involvement. One parent at our school was
)) told a child study was going to take place. When she asked to attend, she
)) was informed that she could not. When I inquired about my own child, I was
)) told his child study had already taken place. Child studies are very
)) Anthroposophical. A Waldorf teacher told me that they consider the child's
)) karma and destiny.
Exactly! This is one of the main reasons my wife & I were so miffed at
finding out
that the WE teachers were meditating (NOT THINKING) on our children, and
then making
some bogus Anthroposophical analysis about the children.
David McKay
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n529.7 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net (David B McKay)
Subject: Re: Disclosure Statement
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 10:40:42 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Per Hallstroem wrote:
(snip)
)You have experienced mistreatment by Waldorf teachers/anthroposophists.
)You mean that they are breaking the law by inculcation and espousing of
)young, defenseless human beings.
)You believe they suffer from deficient thinking and pseudo science-beliefs.
)
)Now I would like to ask what toou think ameditation is in this context:
)
)I wonder at the implications of what you are saying Deby... can a teacher
)_think_ about a child in his class whithout risking to violate the families
)spiritual belief system?
There is a distinct difference between "think" and "meditate", the later being
to bring ones mind to a place clear of *all* thinking or intentional involvement
with the meditation process, a "clearing of the mind", so to speak. Whereas
thinking is a concious effort to have our brain/mind come up with some kind of
information, ie. ; memories, thoughts, questions, answers, etc. In
Anthroposophy
the use of meditation seems to be a way to get in touch with the "Supernatural".
Last year there was a post on the Waldorf List (and this one too I think)
by some-
one at RSC in Sac. that had written about how important meditating was to the
well disaplined WE teacher and how he felt that the "lack of" giving the proper
amount of time each evening to this was a major short coming for WE teachers.
Deby or Dan, do you remember who this was? Maybe you could repost it?
Per H.:
)Shouldnt he better ask the parents first?
)The kind of meditation, knomn to me, that teachers do - often on regular
)basis - is an act of intense thinking over or remembering the child in
)order to better understand how to be a good teacher to the child.
)The general purpose being to do what is possible to further the childs
)development to a free, strong and compassionate grown up.
Again, "thinking" is very different than "meditating". The teachers were
very clear
in saying that they were "meditating" on our children. In fact, they said
they had
pictures of their class (chidren) as part of their altar. That **is not
OK** by me!!!
)Per H.:
)But you really think thinking about someone is to violate this person or
)his family?
No, I don't. Meditating/Praying on children whose picture is on an Alter,
a big YES.
Per H.
)Or does it only apply if the person, in your opinion, suffers from
)_deficient thinking?_
For me it applies no matter what the persons thinking is if it is really
"meditating.
David McKay
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n529.8 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net (David B McKay)
Subject: Re: Disclosure Statement
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 10:40:46 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
)At 20.17 97-09-30, Deby Snell wrote:
))Per writes,
)))I wonder at the implications of what you are saying Deby... can a teacher
)))_think_ about a child in his class whithout risking to violate the families
)))spiritual belief system? Shouldnt he better ask the parents first?
)))The kind of meditation, knomn to me, that teachers do - often on regular
)))basis - is an act of intense thinking over or remembering the child in
)))order to better understand how to be a good teacher to the child.
)))The general purpose being to do what is possible to further the childs
)))development to a free, strong and compassionate grown up.
))
))
))As I said, Per, *I* have _no_ problem with a teacher meditating on my
))child. I think it is harmless. The term meditating [on a child] has
))different connotations than the word "thinking". What I said was that
))_some_ people, due to their own spiritual beliefs, may not want teachers
))meditating on their children. I mentioned this because of a father who
))objected to this practice at an all-school meeting _before_ he took his
))children out of the school. My observation of this father's reaction is why
))I felt this practice should be considered for the "full disclosure"
))document.
)
)Per H.:
)What I tried to say is that maybe a confusion regarding the "different
)connotations" of the terms "meditating" and "thinking" might have been at
)least part of the problem for the father you refer to. I also tried to make
)clear what is ment by meditating [on a child] as a method for teachers who
)want to enhance their ability to understand their pupils.
)
The difference between "thinking" and "meditating" is quite clear to me and
was not in the "least part of the problem" for me or my understanding with
the WE teachers.
David McKay
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n529.9 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net (David B McKay)
Subject: Re: Disclosure Statement
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 10:41:01 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
)Deby:
)
))It has been a couple years so my memory could very well have faded on all
))his points of concern. He felt strong enough to take this issue to a public
))meeting which I attended. Personally, I believe the practice is harmless.
))But then there _is_ this non-sectarian claim. This is another example of
))how Anthroposophical practices can violate families spiritual belief
))system. This father seemed pretty distressed by the practice.
)James:
)This story reminded me of the woman who sued Disney - successfully - for
)the traumatic effect of seeing Mickey Mouse without a head (i.e. revealing
)that there was actually a person inside).
)The ability of North Americans to invent ever new and obscure forms of
)victimisation apparently knows no end (and here surpasses itself). Didn't
)anyone suggest litigation? It could have been phenomenal...
Steve P. has already set the facts straight on the above details with
Disney, but I'm
the only one that can set James straight as to "invent ever new...forms of
victimisations".
I believe in respecting others space, beliefs, etc. It is **how** the
meditations
by WE teachers is **used** that bothers me greatly. Also, I do not
subscribe to the
"sue happy" mentality of some others in this country. I think laywers and
Judges
need to be way more discerning in what they allow to go forward within the legal
system in this country.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n529.10 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: RE: Four Elements (Anthroposophical inculcation thread)
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 21:14:17 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199710101301.GAA25883 lists1.best.com)
Brian Berns quotes Kathy:
)) What is your [Brian's] interest in this list? Are you
)) a parent of a Waldorf student?
And BRIAN says:
)Since you asked: I am the parent of a two-year old child, so educational
)choices are much on my mind these days. From what I know so far, I
)would not allow my child to attend a Waldorf school (my wife and I lean
)towards Montessori at this point).
)
)However, I am friendly with a number of Waldorf parents, teachers, etc.
)There is a popular Waldorf school in my neighborhood. I am concerned
)about Waldorf because a) it seems to be a rapidly growing movement, b)
)it receives public funding, and c) it allegedly teaches pseudo-science.
)
)It is this last point in particular that I joined this list to resolve.
)I am not interested in Anthroposophy per se, but in whether
)Anthroposophy is taught as fact in Waldorf schools. Most of the people
)I know who are directly involved in Waldorf say "not really", while most
)of the critics I know say "definitely yes".
KOPP says:
I don't think many critics say that Anthroposophy is "taught" in the
Steiner/ Waldord/Anthroposophical schools.
I think most critics believe that the schools are too careful to actually
teach a catechism or religious view of life. Teachers don't even talk about
Anthroposophy in comparative religion classes. And they shy away from
discussing it as a factor in their personal lives when students ask.
This give the movement the deniability it seeks: "we don't teach
Anthroposophy".
But of course there's more than one way to inculcate a mystical,
spiritualist view of the world, and the special character curriculum of the
schools is rife with references to Anthroposophical fundamentalism in the
guise of myth, legend, and historial religious movements and beliefs.
Make no mistake: Anthroposophy is in every aspect of the children's
education, in every minute of every day, in everything they do, and in
everything the teachers say to them.
And Anthroposophy is not just pseudo-science, but spiritual manipulation of
the children according to Steiner.
Now, since as a rationalist, skeptic and scientist I do not believe in
anything supernatural, I am not worried about my children's spirits having
been manipulated by anyone or anything.
However, while the Steiner/Waldorf/Anthropsophical person has my children
under their control six hours a day, and is doing whatever mumbo-jumbo they
think is good for my children's spirits, they are also -- and cannot help
but -- affecting their temporal, rathional, faculties and personalities and
worldviews.
It is this that I do not want.
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n529 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n530 --------------
001 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - RE: Four Elements (Pseudo-science thread)
002 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - RE: Four Elements (Intelligent Waldorf practitioners thread)
003 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Re: SF State hosting cult medical course
004 - litvas icu.com - Disclosure Statement or Statement of Critical Intent?
005 - litvas icu.com - Re: The Elements
006 - Luna457954 aol.com - Re: RE: Four Elements (Intelligent Waldorf practitioners thre
007 - Herman de Tollenaere (her - Re: Four Elements
008 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Re: RE: Four Elements (Intelligent Waldorf practitioners thre
009 - "Peter Schwab" (pschwab a - "to be racist or not racist, ..."
010 - RigbyL aol.com - Re: Four Elements
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n530.1 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: RE: Four Elements (Pseudo-science thread)
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 21:14:33 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199710101301.GAA25883 lists1.best.com)
Brian Berns quoted Kathy:
)Kathy said:
)) She told me that all things were made of
)) "earth, wind, fire and water" and that this
)) was what was actually being taught
And BRIAN said:
)Here's the first definition of "element" in Webster's dictionary:
)
) any of the four substances air, water, fire, and earth
) formerly believed to compose the physical universe
)
)I think the key word in this context is "formerly".
KOPP says:
What is your point? All rational, scientific thinkers realise that these
concepts belong in antiquity.
Are you saying that you believe what you suggested in your earlier post
about this subject -- that Steiner/Waldorf/Anthropsophical schools only
mention these concepts as ancient history and not present fact?
Or are you saying that since the dictionary includes them as its first
definition, it is therefore all right for Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposopohical
schools to give them as a first approximation for youngsters of how the
world is made?
Either way is wrong, in my opinion.
And, in my personal experience, such pseudo-science is the norm and the
only teaching for quite some years, until the children reach what Steiner
said was the minimum age for understanding `abstract intellectual concepts'
like elements. Even then, children go on using the four Steiner "elements".
This pseudo-science has also included science (and other) teachers telling
my kids that:
* the heart is not a pump;
* the ancients had powers greater than ours that humanity has lost (such as
the moving of the stone blocks of the pyramids of Giza by sound power, and
alchemy);
* the Greek poetic device, dactylic hexameter, was invented because the
Greeks understood the mathematical ratios between the human heartbeat
rhythm and breathing rhythm and the `Platonic year' (what we know as the
precession of the equinoxes, a 26,000-year cycle);
* we could, today, practice alchemy (chemical, not atomic, transmutation of
elements) if we could but find and regain that lost knowledge;
and the teaching of lessons in how to do astrology, which Steiner/Waldorf/
Anthroposophical teachers believe in and _use_ in their handling of
children (not to mention their planting of their potatoes).
The children are taught these things as fact, not as historical curiosities.
No evidence is ever presented for any of these claims.
*BTW, the Platonic year thing is a good example of weird science: it was
deduced (inaccurately) by a Greek astronomer AFTER Plato, and LONG after
Homer and the development of greek epic poetry. It was not known before
then by any of the ancients. My spoken and written representations and
questions to the teacher about evidence, and whether this was an example of
the "special character" curriculum of the school, were not answered.
There is no doubt that Steiner=Pseudo-science, with a capital P.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n530.2 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: RE: Four Elements (Intelligent Waldorf practitioners thread)
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 21:14:50 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199710101301.GAA25883 lists1.best.com)
Brian Berns said:
)I have heard it said that there is a wide range of actual teaching
)practices in Waldorf. Intelligent practitioners teach the best of
)Waldorf and leave out the Anthroposophical hogwash. Those with small
)minds teach Steiner by the book, and are thus avoided by most parents if
)at all possible. Can anyone verify (or refute) this basic description?
KOPP says:
Can you tell us (I am one of the most adamant critics and ally myself with
all critics of Steiner/Waldorf/Anthropsophy, whatever their shade), either
from your personal experience or research, or from some other source:
what is an "Intelligent practitioner", and
what is "the best of Waldorf"?
Then, how does one tell, as a parent with children in such a school, or as
a parent intending to enroll children in such a school, whether and which
teachers or schools are the good ones and which are the bad ones? In
advance, before your child is damaged.
All Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophy practitioners -- unless they are heretics
and subversives, and I don't think there are very many of those -- are, to
me, by definition, small-minded teachers of Steiner by the book.
My personal experience is that I have never met a
Steiner/Waldorf/Anthropsophy practitioner, believer, devotee or hanger-on
who *EVER* admitted that there could be a valid alternative to anything
that Steiner said.
I have been told the my school's "special character" is unchangeable,
non-negotiable, and the "right" way, and, if I don't like it, I can leave.
I am. One child has already gone. After four years of mumbo-jumbo instead
of science and reason he felt he had to leave and get a real education. The
other child is leaving soon.
The "best of Waldorf" in my experience is no more than the personal
attention, small classes, personal, respectful relationships between
student and teacher, pleasant surroundings, and absence of the
currently-fashionable high-pressure academic performance mill. One can get
that without the mumbo-jumbo in other schools -- it is not unique to
Steiner.
All the other supposedly great things about Steiner schools -- art,
integration of all subjects, classical focus, phenomenological natural
science, intuition inculcation, "head, heart, and hands" education -- are
negative influences based on Steiner's intent to capture souls.
Waldorf educators will tell you than there is no separating the parts of
the whole process.
There may be some Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophical educators who go beyond
the Steiner "special character" curriculum. (A "defender of the faith" on
this list, Stephen Tonkin, an astronomer and scientist, comes to mind --
but he's also a staunch Anthroposophical teacher, and has NEVER admitted
the possibility of error in the Steiner method.)
But not in my personal experience.
My school (a private school "integrated" into the state school system and
allowed to retain its special character [waldorf], but required to teach
the state curriculum too) has just received its second state education
ministry report in five years that says that it has made NO progress
towards actually teaching the state curriculum in that five years.
That's five years of my childrens' lives wasted -- except that they are
wonderful kids and warm human beings who have benefited from the smallness,
personal attention and respect, and pleasant surroundings.
They have not -- unless I believe in Steiner's mystic mumbo-jumbo about
reincarnation and spirits, which I emphatically do not -- gained anything
else.
Most especially they have not gained an _education_ consistent with the
requirements of the state or life in general.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n530.3 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Re: SF State hosting cult medical course
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 21:22:10 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199710101805.LAA02120 lists1.best.com)
KOPP says:
Pseudo-science and mystical mumbo-jumbo are raising their heads everwhere
as we move into a new dark age.
In this country, universities teach classes in "Maori science" -- the
folklore and spiritualism and animism of illiterate, cannibalistic, warrior
races of the indigenous peoples of these islands (Polynesian immigrants,
really, about 1,000 to 1,500 years ago.
This "science" is elevated to wisdom and fact.
We are truly on a long descent into the pit of unreason.
)At 12:21 AM 10/10/97 -0700, PLANS wrote:
)
))FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 10/10/97
))
))SF STATE HOSTING CULT MEDICAL COURSE
))
))People for Legal and Non-Sectarian Schools (PLANS), is blowing the whistle
))on a San Francisco State University course called "Anthroposophical
))Medicine." "Not only is medical quackery being promoted by a public
))university," said PLANS President Debra Snell, "but this course violates
))separation of church and state. Anthroposophy is a cult-like religious
))sect. The University is being used to give legitimacy to lunatic fringe
))beliefs."
)
))"Anthroposophical Medicine" is a full-credit course in the Department of
))Holistic Health.
)
)What else does this *Department of Holistic Health* teach, apart from
)Steiner? Quimby? Mary Baker Eddy? Elizabeth Clare Prophet? L. Ron Hubbard?
)Deepak Chopra? Maharishi Mahesh Yogi? Louise L. Hay? Therapeutic Touch? Jan
)Smuts, the early twentieth century South African general and politician, who
)first used the concept holism? This is *not* a rhetorical question. I would
)really like to know.
)
)I have re-posted the PLANS mail about this in The Netherlands.
)
)Herman de Tollenaere
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n530.4 ---------------
From: litvas icu.com
Subject: Disclosure Statement or Statement of Critical Intent?
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 97 07:32:11 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
On 10/10/97 11:55 PM, spike netshel.net wrote:
)You may be
)interested to look through the recent Archives to read the suggested
)"Disclosure Statement" posted a month or so back. It presents an
)extraordinarily clear picture of Waldorf pedagogy. Interestingly, none of
)the Waldorf supporters on this list quarreled with the validity of its
)contents, not even Rigby.
Hold on, Ms. Sutphen. This "disclosure statement" was originally posted
to the list about a year ago by one of the critics. At that time, a
number of waldorf types challenged its premises and presumptions in some
detail.
Just because we don't rechallenge it every time it is dredged back up
doesn't mean it has gained any validity, from our point of view.
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n530.5 ---------------
From: litvas icu.com
Subject: Re: The Elements
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 97 08:17:06 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
One of the things about this list which I find very frustrating (and
which discourages me from my hope to find common ground) is the tendency
to generalize from the particulars of an individual's experiences at a
particular school.
Dan Dugan had problems at San Francisco, which he shared. Michael Kopp
has problems in New Zealand, which he has outlined. Deby Snell and David
McKay had problems at Mariposa/Twin Ridges (two names for what is
essentially the same school). Kathy Sutphen had issues with the training
she received as part of RSC's program for public school teachers.
There are others, too. I believe Daniel Saykaly has some experience with
a school in eastern Canada. A while back, we heard from a woman who had
some peripheral contact with the Hawthorne Valley School. No doubt there
are lurkers. . . .
My point is this: We might as well be arguing about restaurants.
I happen to love Japanese food. I know of a place in Ramsey, New Jersey,
which I frequent with my family as often as my budget allows. The people
who work there are friendly, attentive, and seem genuinely interested in
their work and the well-being of their customers.
One of my favorite dishes is sashimi. Prepared from raw seafood, each
morsel is an artistic presentation in itself. The sushi chef who
prepares it has gone through long, particularized (some might say arcane)
training in his craft. The training he received, his dedication to it,
and his experience in the restaurant all inform his decisions on what to
use and how to prepare it. He seems to be very particular about the
quality of his rice and fish, and where it comes from.
Now, if we were arguing about restaurants (which we aren't, of course), I
might say how much I love Japanese food, particularly sashimi. This
might elicit a response from someone who could share a story about how
they once got salmonella from sashimi. This person might tell me that I
am taking my life into my hands every time I eat such a dish.
Someone might even remind us that there is a little puffer-fish with a
toxic liver who is sometimes implicated in sashimi *deaths* in Japan!
This, in turn, might draw out fugu lovers who would describe their
numerous positive experiences with the delicacy.
Finally, an academic type might appear who would try to link fugu-eating
with headhunting in New Guinea.
On 10/10/97 11:55 PM, spike netshel.net wrote:
)The Waldorf method is a covert one. While Anthroposophy is not taught in a
)blatant sense in Waldorf schools, all of the curriculum has as its basis
)the desire to further the spiritual growth of the child per
)Anthroposophical religious beliefs. The Waldorf curriculum teaches science,
)history, mathematics, literature according to Steiner's occultist beliefs.
)As a result one finds the science curriculum teaching the four elements,
)mathematics focusing on repetitive geometric drawing of occult symbols such
)as the pentagram, hexagram, etc., history teaching the cultural epochs
)(this Anthroposophical slant on history is fascinating - with Aryan
)supremacy as the icing on the cake), art across the curriculum with
)students "meditating on particular colors in order to further their
)incarnation processes, etc.
)
)The above description is a brief and simplistic one. I encourage you to
)engage in reading texts of Steiner's speeches if you are indeed interested
)in this subject and can bring yourself to wallow through it.
I encourage you, Kathy, to eat fugu. (g)
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n530.6 ---------------
From: Luna457954 aol.com
Subject: Re: RE: Four Elements (Intelligent Waldorf practitioners thread)
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 09:17:30 -0400 (EDT)
In a message dated 10/11/97 8:55:54 AM, Mr. Kopp wrote:
((My school (a private school "integrated" into the state school system and
allowed to retain its special character [waldorf], but required to teach
the state curriculum too) has just received its second state education
ministry report in five years that says that it has made NO progress
towards actually teaching the state curriculum in that five years.((
Why do you feel the "state curriculum" is the be all and end all of
education? From what I have seen in my area, there is nothing spectacular
about it.
))That's five years of my childrens' lives wasted -- except that they are
wonderful kids and warm human beings who have benefited from the smallness,
personal attention and respect, and pleasant surroundings.((
This doesn't sound like wasted time to me. I believe if every child had
these "wasted years" in conditions such as you have listed, the number of
suicides and violent crimes by young people would be drastically reduced, as
would the number of high-school drop outs and drug addicts. I also believe
that the number of people in therapy would drop, and that "self-esteem
problems" of young people would be almost nonexistent.
))They have not -- unless I believe in Steiner's mystic mumbo-jumbo about
reincarnation and spirits, which I emphatically do not -- gained anything
else. Most especially they have not gained an _education_ consistent with
the
requirements of the state or life in general.((
Then why do Waldorf students often do better in high school and college than
public school students?
Last year, our school graduated its first eighth grade, and the majority of
the students are either in honors classes or classes usually taken by
students in higher grades.((
Kelly
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n530.7 ---------------
From: Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl)
Subject: Re: Four Elements
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 21:35:28 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 04:30 PM 10/10/97 -0400, Rigby wrote:
)In fact, I can well imagine
)that the philosophers who for centuries worked with the ideas of four or five
)elements would be deeply insulted by the 20th century judgment that they were
)so stupid as to believe that the elements were actually physical building
)blocks (the phrase I myself used in my previous post) of the natural world.
) For most of those philosophers, I would guess that the labels earth, fire,
)air and water represented archetypal
In what sense do you use 'archetype' here? C.G. Jung's?
Herman de Tollenaere
)qualities that may be found in various
)ways and combinations in the physical world.
)
)Rigby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n530.8 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Re: RE: Four Elements (Intelligent Waldorf practitioners thread)
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 09:47:00 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199710111317.GAA00063 lists1.best.com)
"Luna" (Kelly) quoted Michael Kopp on the qualities of Waldorf vs State
educations:
)In a message dated 10/11/97 8:55:54 AM, Mr. Kopp wrote:
)
)((My school (a private school "integrated" into the state school system and
)allowed to retain its special character [waldorf], but required to teach
)the state curriculum too) has just received its second state education
)ministry report in five years that says that it has made NO progress
)towards actually teaching the state curriculum in that five years.((
And KELLY says:
)Why do you feel the "state curriculum" is the be all and end all of
)education? From what I have seen in my area, there is nothing spectacular
)about it.
KOPP says:
I don't, though I believe there is no reason to fault the principles and
curriculum of state education, only its varied delivery, for the
difficulties of modern educational times. I have said that my children have
benefited in some intangible ways from their Steiner years.
However, we're not comparing two equally valid systems of thought here
(state vs Steiner) and simply saying that one is superior.
What we're saying is that one is rationalist (state) while the other is
spiritualist (Steiner). One is real, the other is mumbo-jumbo.
If you want to choose mumbo-jumbo for your kids, that's your decision
(except where the state mandates a certain rationalist education for
everyone, which is most places).
If my Steiner school had given that rationalist education _in its fullness
as required by the state_ and given the children some extra slant on life
that was identified as their special brand of looking at the world, and it
was not all- pervasive and did not replace the state curriculum with
mumbo-jumbo, then I might -- repeat might -- be interested in using that
schooling.
Kelly quoted Kopp:
)))That's five years of my childrens' lives wasted -- except that they are
)wonderful kids and warm human beings who have benefited from the smallness,
)personal attention and respect, and pleasant surroundings.((
And KELLY said:
)This doesn't sound like wasted time to me. I believe if every child had
)these "wasted years" in conditions such as you have listed, the number of
)suicides and violent crimes by young people would be drastically reduced, as
)would the number of high-school drop outs and drug addicts. I also believe
)that the number of people in therapy would drop, and that "self-esteem
)problems" of young people would be almost nonexistent.
KOPP says:
Can you show me statistically valid and controlled studies of the outputs
of Steiner schools that support your contentions? I doubt it. It is likely
that even if this is true, it is probably much more a factor of the
socio-economic-cultural lifestyles and demographics of the parents and
their children than it is the rationalist or spiritualist nature of their
educations.
Kelly quotes Kopp:
)))They have not -- unless I believe in Steiner's mystic mumbo-jumbo about
)reincarnation and spirits, which I emphatically do not -- gained anything
)else. Most especially they have not gained an _education_ consistent with
)the
)requirements of the state or life in general.((
And KELLY says:
)Then why do Waldorf students often do better in high school and college than
)public school students?
KOPP says:
Again, can you show me statistically valid and controlled studies of the
outputs of Steiner schools that support your contentions? Again, I doubt
it. They've been asked for many times by critics here, and never produced
by any proponents.
It is likely, in my opinion, that if this is true in any respect, it is,
again, due to the factors I cite above, rather than anything superior about
the Waldorf education. It would also include the factor that most of the
children who go on to university are more intelligent to start with.
Kelly said:
)Last year, our school graduated its first eighth grade, and the majority of
)the students are either in honors classes or classes usually taken by
)students in higher grades.((
KOPP says:
Obviously, your mileage is different from mine (and the other critics who
have had bad experiences).
Our school has had some successes and some failures (anecdotal evidence --
no studies exist here either, unfortunately). Some kids, even very bright
ones, have not been properly prepared for their choice of tertiary studies.
My own son (who almost always received top marks from the Steiner school)
is having a very hard time keeping up with children a year younger than
himself at the state high school (average, not top academic) which he now
attends. This is particularly so in the rationalist subjects of physics,
chemistry and maths. In art and art history he is doing rather better --
though he had never learned how to write properly from the Steiner school.
He believes that only my scientific bent and early inculcation in himself
of rationalist thinking, and his earlier state schooling, prevented him
from falling into the mumbo-jumbo trap many of his confreres have at the
Steiner school. He frequently spotted the mumbo-jumbo through his own
rationalism, and challenged it in class, without my prompting.
Yet he misses the Steiner school. We are all subject to emotional
yearnings, as evinced in Kelly's rather wooly thinking about the value of
various educations. That's probably why I brought my kids to the Steiner
school in the first place.
As I stated over a year ago here (just before Dan Saykaly's disclosure
statement was published), if I had known then what I know now about the
Steiner spiritualist agenda, I would not have allowed my children within
cooee of the Steiner people.
If I had known that they could not or would not deliver the state
curriculum they are required to deliver, I would not have allowed my
children in.
But they did not tell me these things, and I could not easily find them
out, despite doing more research than most prospective parents. Was I
misled, and was it purposeful deception? I don't know.
I do know that my children have not got the education that they require for
modern life (by MY reasoning, forget the state mandate), because the
Steiner school purposefully gave them an alternative which is ridiculous on
the face of it.
I do not belive that my children will be harmed by a state education or
contact with the rest of society, as Kelly seems to believe. (There is not
much difference between American and New Zealand teen-aged society and
education.)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n530.9 ---------------
From: "Peter Schwab" (pschwab access.ch)
Subject: "to be racist or not racist, ..."
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 23:19:13 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
References: (199710101805.LAA02120 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199710110840.BAA12201 lists1.best.com)
On 11 Oct 97 at 21:22, Michael Kopp wrote:
) KOPP says:
)
) Pseudo-science and mystical mumbo-jumbo are raising their heads everwhere
) as we move into a new dark age.
)
) In this country, universities teach classes in "Maori science" -- the
) folklore and spiritualism and animism of illiterate, cannibalistic, warrior
) races of the indigenous peoples of these islands (Polynesian immigrants,
) really, about 1,000 to 1,500 years ago.
)
) This "science" is elevated to wisdom and fact.
)
) We are truly on a long descent into the pit of unreason.
)
Coming from the fingers of someone who accuses Rudolf Steiner of
being a "racist", this classification of the Maori-people is rather
strong tobacco...
If I remember the uprise about the " uneducated savages"-quote of
Rudolf Steiner some month ago, I dare to say that Mr. Kopp's
qualification is definitly racist, in particular according to the
critic's own standards!
He, who sits in a glass house, should refrain from casting stones...
+Peter+
---------------------------------------
Peter Schwab
pschwab access.ch
rte du Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
Voice: (++41) 032 / 857.16.72
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n530.10 ---------------
From: RigbyL aol.com
Subject: Re: Four Elements
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 19:29:58 -0400 (EDT)
Herman:
(( In what sense do you use 'archetype' here? C.G. Jung's? ))
)From what I know of Jung's theory of archetypes, which is not a great deal, I
think he goes further than what I have in mind. Nor do I care greatly for my
dictionary's alternatives to usage in Jung's psychology, which are
"prototype" or "perfect example." My sense is more in line with what I
understand Goethe to have meant by Urphenomenon (which understanding I take
primarily Bortoft's book, "The Wholeness of Nature").
BTW, I slightly misquoted the Ficino statement in my last post. It should
have been "The elements are mutable in substance and quality," not "form and
quality." That better fits my impression that it was patently obvious to
early philosophers that dirt, stone, iron, copper, etc. were not made of the
same substance, but could still be considered as representing the same
"element" Earth, due to shared qualities.
Perhaps "archetype" was not the best word. I would welcome thoughts from
those who have a better classical education than I do.
Rigby
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n530 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n531 --------------
001 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: SF State hosting cult medical course
002 - spike netshel.net - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n530
003 - spike netshel.net - Fugu . . . hmmmm?
004 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Re: "to be racist or not racist, ..."
005 - litvas icu.com - Re: Fugu . . . hmmmm?
006 - litvas icu.com - Round and Round we go. . . .
007 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: RE: Four Elements (Intelligent Waldorf practitioners thre
008 - litvas icu.com - Annual Bash
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n531.1 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: SF State hosting cult medical course
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 16:55:11 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Herman asked,
)What else does this *Department of Holistic Health* teach, apart from
)Steiner? Quimby? Mary Baker Eddy? Elizabeth Clare Prophet? L. Ron Hubbard?
)Deepak Chopra? Maharishi Mahesh Yogi? Louise L. Hay? Therapeutic Touch? Jan
)Smuts, the early twentieth century South African general and politician, who
)first used the concept holism? This is *not* a rhetorical question. I would
)really like to know.
The following information is posted on their web site,
http://www.sfsu.edu/~bulletin/current/programs/health.htm
Holistic Health.The Institute for Holistic Healing Studies, under the
Department of Health Education, offers a Holistic Health Minor and a
Holistic Health Certificate Program. The only difference between the two is
that the minor is co-terminus with a bachelor's degree, while the
certificate is available to anyone admitted through Extended Learning/Open
University. The curriculum for the certificate includes an additional eight
units beyond the minor. The certificate is also available to minors upon
completion of the requirements.
General Information. Holistic health is concerned with the health and
well-being of the whole person--mind, body, spirit, and environment in
dynamic balance and interdependence. It emphasizes and seeks to enhance the
inherent healing ability of each individual and empower people through
teaching principles and skills that enable them to take greater
responsibility for their personal development, healing, and health
maintenance. This interdisciplinary approach assumes a systems perspective
in which mind-body-consciousness interacts with the physical, biological,
and psychosocial environments. A change in any one part can result in
individual imbalances. Holistic health complements and extends beyond our
current medicine, an approach that engenders the rebalancing of the
individual.
There are many specific applications and forms of holistic health, some
derived from ancient healing traditions and others from modern technology.
These areas include: stress management, behavioral medicine, applied
psychophysiology, biofeedback, autogenic training, Chinese medicine
(including acupuncture, acupressure, herbology, nutrition, qigong), somatic
therapies (such as: Feldenkrais, bioenergetics, Alexander), therapeutic
touch and subtle energy therapies, meditation, yoga, guided imagery,
psychoneuroimmunology, transformative, psycho-spiritual, and psychosomatic
therapies, and others.
Although careers in holistic health per seare still being developed,
holistic health is a rapidly expanding field. There is a growing demand for
training in this area among health care practitioners, such as nurses,
physicians, paramedics, health educators, physical therapists, occupational
therapists, nutritionists, counselors, psychotherapists, health
researchers, health consultants, and others. Certain areas of holistic
health, such as Chinese medicine, somatic therapy, and biofeedback, are
increasingly in demand and careers in these fields are being integrated
more directly into the educational/health care systems.
The Holistic Health Minor/Certificate is designed to provide a background
in western physiological perspectives; a survey of holistic health theories
and practices as developed in the East and West; a metaphoric view of
health, disease, and healing; specific practices in-depth; some theory and
background in related areas as well as learning specific self-healing
practices. The minor serves as an interdisciplinary liberal arts program
that complements or supplements a student's major field of study,
especially in health-related areas. The Holistic Health Certificate is a
certificate of completion of a curriculum in holistic health for those who
already have an academic degree and/or are already in health professions.
In addition, since holistic health emphasizes self-care and
self-regulation, the minor and certificate program can be taken for
personal stress reduction, growth, healing, and health maintenance.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n531.2 ---------------
From: spike netshel.net
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n530
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 17:13:11 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Robert Flannery posted,
)
)Hold on, Ms. Sutphen. This "disclosure statement" was originally posted
)to the list about a year ago by one of the critics. At that time, a
)number of waldorf types challenged its premises and presumptions in some
)detail.
)
)Just because we don't rechallenge it every time it is dredged back up
)doesn't mean it has gained any validity, from our point of view.
Is that so? I wasn't on the list at that time, however; I was on the list
when it was posted approximately a month ago. What parts of the disclosure
statement do you take issue with? I still find it interesting that there
was no objection from WE supporters when it was recently posted.
Waldorf supporters on this list have been more than willing to take
particular stances repeatedly during the short time I have been on the
list. For example, we are once again pursuing a discussion re: the
Waldorf/Anthroposophical teaching of and belief in pseudo-science. Once
again WE supporters are attempting to make a case for their approach. Once
again the contributors are using their (IMO) weird logic. If WE supporters
are willing to be repetitive on these issues then why do they avoid the
Disclosure Statment as if it were a hot potato?
I am truly interested in specific objections to the Disclosure Statement.
Have at it.
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n531.3 ---------------
From: spike netshel.net
Subject: Fugu . . . hmmmm?
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 17:49:21 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Robert Flannery suggest,
)
)I encourage you, Kathy, to eat fugu. (g)
)
As a matter of fact I did try fugu some years ago - a daring (and
foolhardy) experience if I may say so. However, it was not altogether
unpleasant.
More to the point . . . is this an example of Anthroposophical humor? I
think your "joke" is that I should eat some fugu and die. How very
Anthroposophical of you. I continue to be touched by that patient and
receptive Waldorf/Anthroposophical method of dealing with critics.
Your comparison of the traditional art of sushi chefs to Waldorf education
is a long reach. I suppose that what you are attempting to say is that
Waldorf schools are as different in character from location to location as
sushi restaurants are. A bad experience at one restaurant/school cannot
reflect on all restaurants/schools.
I won't belabor the strangeness of your analogy (I suspect it was drummed
up to make room for the clever fugu suggestion), however; what I see as the
important point here is that all Waldorf educators have as their basis the
religious training at an Anthroposophical educational institution, such as
the Rudolf Steiner College in Fair Oaks, California. Also, while the other
critics you mentioned had their problems with particular schools, I had my
problem with one of the leading Anthroposophical "colleges" in the world.
The Rudolf Steiner College not only prepares hundreds of private Waldorf
educators _and_ attempts to permeate their religious mumbo-jumbo into the
public mainstream using taxpayer's monies, it can be looked upon as being
one of _the_ messengers of the Waldorf message.
Are you suggesting that the Critics' complaints have little validity
because they may simply have issued forth as the result of a problem with a
lousy school or teacher (aka sushi chef/restaurant)? Then how would this
reflect on my experience with the Rudolf Steiner College and the very
strange experiences I have had with Betty Staley and Arline Monk? Are they
somehow analogous to the illusive lousy sushi chef?
Mr. Flannery, I wholeheartedly recommend that you do _not_ try fugu. It is
poisonous and could lead to serious health problems or death. While I
disagree with you I wish you no physical harm.
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n531.4 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Re: "to be racist or not racist, ..."
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 15:02:28 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199710110840.BAA12201 lists1.best.com)
(199710101805.LAA02120 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199710112118.OAA26210 lists1.best.com)
Peter Schwab is at it again (last time he and Neil Faiman accused me of
being a Nazi):
SCHWAB quoted Kopp:
)On 11 Oct 97 at 21:22, Michael Kopp wrote:
)
)) KOPP says:
))
)) Pseudo-science and mystical mumbo-jumbo are raising their heads everwhere
)) as we move into a new dark age.
))
)) In this country, universities teach classes in "Maori science" -- the
)) folklore and spiritualism and animism of illiterate, cannibalistic, warrior
)) races of the indigenous peoples of these islands (Polynesian immigrants,
)) really, about 1,000 to 1,500 years ago.
))
)) This "science" is elevated to wisdom and fact.
))
)) We are truly on a long descent into the pit of unreason.
))
SCHWAB:
)Coming from the fingers of someone who accuses Rudolf Steiner of
)being a "racist", this classification of the Maori-people is rather
)strong tobacco...
KOPP says:
Schwab is presumably referring to the following statement which I made,
contained in a post about Steiner's silence on Hitler:
"Much of his philosophy is *still* shot through with ideas that can only be
seen as racist -- *even judged by the prevailing views of his times*. Not
all people believed Nazi propaganda; many spoke out, and died. Where was
Steiner?"
That's as close as _I've_ ever come to saying Steiner was a racist, in _my_
archive at least.
SCHWAB:
)If I remember the uprise about the " uneducated savages"-quote of
)Rudolf Steiner some month ago, I dare to say that Mr. Kopp's
)qualification is definitly racist, in particular according to the
)critic's own standards!
)
)He, who sits in a glass house, should refrain from casting stones...
What glass house am I sitting in, Peter?
I did not say the Maori were "uneducated savages". There are many Maori of
high educational distinction (though the policies of successive governments
of New Zealand, while nominally espousing education for Maori, have made
that quite difficult in practice). There have been many Maori of high
intellectual distinction in the past, as well, and they have an awesome
oral history and storytelling oratorical skill.
I did not say that the Maori are *inherently* in any way inferior to anyone
else. I characterised their former culture, from which sprang a primitive
world view which they now wish to resurrect and *live by* despite modern
times.
The Maori are a fine, proud, resilient and resurgent race of people. Good
on 'em, in a Kiwi phrase, because it was the Kiwis' ancestors who usurped
this land from the Maori 150 years ago, and, in the name of religious and
governmental welfare do-goodism, almost obliterated their former culture
and pride.
However, the Maori knowledge of the world that I (and other scientists who
have not been beaten to a pulp by the political correctness police in this
country) reject as not being scientific is in the same category as
Steiner's "science".
The "science" that they profess today is the same kind of backwards
foisting of superstition and herbalist folklore on an enlightened,
rationalist, scientific world. They are doing it for cultural and political
reclamation.
The Maori spiritual view of the world has as much right to exist as any
other religion, including Steiner's. Neither have the right to insist that
we turn the clock back and believe in things which are demonstrably false
in rationalist, scientific terms.
My characterisation of Maori as "illiterate, canabalistic, warrior races"
refers to their historical situation and the culture from which they
developed their knowledge of the world and their belief system. It is
intended as a cultural, ehtnological observation, not a racist judgement.
Unless Schwab wants me judged by the current political correctness which
says that the use of the word "race", and making any statements, however
true, that are perceivable as unkind or derogatory, whether intended so or
not, is tantamount to racism, I am not guilty of racism.
I simply meant that the Maori of antiquity who developed their knowledge
did so from a condition of pre-enlightenment ignorance which cannot have
produced much (except by accident) that has validity in modern,
rationalistic, scientific terms.
What I abhor is the modern Maori insistence in the modern world that
_their_ mumbo jumbo should be taken as being as valid as modern science,
just because they wish it to be so, and wish to use it as a cultural and
political weapon to reclaim their former lands and power.
I am happy to see Maori win this battle for a just recompense for their
displacement ... except that I do not want to be forced to think like them,
or to have my children educated in their ways and beliefs.
Very much like my resistance to Steiner and other cult-like mumbo-jumbo.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n531.5 ---------------
From: litvas icu.com
Subject: Re: Fugu . . . hmmmm?
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 97 23:14:37 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
On 10/11/97 8:49 PM, spike netshel.net wrote:
)Robert Flannery suggest,
))
))I encourage you, Kathy, to eat fugu. (g)
))
)As a matter of fact I did try fugu some years ago - a daring (and
)foolhardy) experience if I may say so. However, it was not altogether
)unpleasant.
)
)More to the point . . . is this an example of Anthroposophical humor? I
)think your "joke" is that I should eat some fugu and die. How very
)Anthroposophical of you. I continue to be touched by that patient and
)receptive Waldorf/Anthroposophical method of dealing with critics.
For such a hard-shell crab, you can become very sensitive when it suits
you! I will, however, apologize for my morbidity (which characterized me
long before I became an anthropop).
But please don't add my poor attempt at humor to any future lists you
might make of "anthroposophists threatening me". I'm pretty sweet,
really.
(snip)
)Are you suggesting that the Critics' complaints have little validity
)because they may simply have issued forth as the result of a problem with a
)lousy school or teacher (aka sushi chef/restaurant)?
Yes.
)Then how would this
)reflect on my experience with the Rudolf Steiner College and the very
)strange experiences I have had with Betty Staley and Arline Monk? Are they
)somehow analogous to the illusive lousy sushi chef?
Dunno. Why don't you tell us about it? I seem to recall something about
Arline Monk and stress at a meeting, but I haven't heard the Betty Staley
story yet.
)Mr. Flannery, I wholeheartedly recommend that you do _not_ try fugu. It is
)poisonous and could lead to serious health problems or death. While I
)disagree with you I wish you no physical harm.
)
)Kathy
Thanks for making that clear. I've been worried ever since I first saw
that intimidating email moniker of yours.
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n531.6 ---------------
From: litvas icu.com
Subject: Round and Round we go. . . .
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 97 23:36:58 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
On 10/11/97 8:13 PM, spike netshel.net wrote:
)Waldorf supporters on this list have been more than willing to take
)particular stances repeatedly during the short time I have been on the
)list. For example, we are once again pursuing a discussion re: the
)Waldorf/Anthroposophical teaching of and belief in pseudo-science. Once
)again WE supporters are attempting to make a case for their approach. Once
)again the contributors are using their (IMO) weird logic. If WE supporters
)are willing to be repetitive on these issues then why do they avoid the
)Disclosure Statment as if it were a hot potato?
Well, the list had gone dead, and Deby Snell had some time on her hands,
and it's just too boring to reread the archives again and again. . . so
she dropped the four elements line and got a bite.
Let's all be above board: There are some issues on the critics list that
will always be worth a few lines if things get slow: Racial theories,
heart-is-not-a-pump, epochs-as-history, psuedoscience, pentagrams, first
amendment, second amendment, and meditation. My list, of course, is
incomplete, but I think the disclosure statement just about covers them
all. The DS is, in fact, just the master list of complaints that have
been collected by the various critics, and presented as applicable to the
waldorf movement as a whole.
)
)I am truly interested in specific objections to the Disclosure Statement.
)Have at it.
)
)Kathy
)
1) Pick whichever topic you like from the DS.
2) Search the archives for interminable discussions about said topic.
3) Not having the time or energy to search, wait. It will always come
'round again.
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n531.7 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: RE: Four Elements (Intelligent Waldorf practitioners thread)
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 09:58:50 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Kelly, you said,
)Then why do Waldorf students often do better in high school and college than
)public school students?
)Last year, our school graduated its first eighth grade, and the majority of
)the students are either in honors classes or classes usually taken by
)students in higher grades.((
Compare their performance with students of private schools having similar
tuition levels. Private school students generally come from advantaged
homes and can be expected to outperform public school students (in general,
not always!). How about doing a little survey and giving us the figures?
-Dan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n531.8 ---------------
From: litvas icu.com
Subject: Annual Bash
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 97 13:32:50 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Hey, Dan Dugan!
Whatever happened to the annual "critics-list" party at your digs in S.F.?
Or was it "critics only" this year?
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n531 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n532 --------------
001 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Bigtime quackery (Was Re: SF State cult medical course)
002 - Brian Berns (Berns rdacon - RE: Four Elements (Pseudo-science thread)
003 - Brian Berns (Berns rdacon - RE: Four Elements (Intelligent Waldorf practitioners thread)
004 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - RE: Four Elements (Intelligent Waldorf practitioners thread)
005 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - RE: Four Elements (Pseudo-science thread)
006 - Brian Berns (Berns rdacon - RE: Four Elements (Intelligent Waldorf practitioners thread)
007 - litvas icu.com - Teacher Trainees, Please Stand Up
008 - litvas icu.com - RE: Four Elements (Intelligent Waldorf practitioners thread)
009 - JoAnn Schwartz (jms mich. - RE: Round and Round we go. . . .
010 - JoAnn Schwartz (jms mich. - Let's Keep Hitler Buried Please
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n532.1 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Bigtime quackery (Was Re: SF State cult medical course)
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 13:22:07 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199710101805.LAA02120 lists1.best.com)
The following is quoted from James Randi's mailing list regarding scams,
and I thought it was apropos the cult medical course at SF State. We have
so many credulous individuals on this list who believe in all sorts of
supernatural crap that I thought a warning from yet another source about
irrational, unscientific thought and action might prove useful. It'll
certainly probably bring the homeopathic nuts out of the Waldorf woodwork.
Begin quoted material:
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: James Randi --- Wizard (JREFInfo ssr.com)
To: broadcast-JREFInfo ssr.com
Subject: The OAM, again....
Sender: owner-jrefinfo ssr.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: James Randi --- Wizard (JREFInfo ssr.com)
)From friend Bob Park come these items of interest.
The Office of Alternative Medicine (OAM), within the National
Institutes of Health (NIH) and well-funded by the Congress, has
alarmed a number of prominent scientists who are justifiably concerned
by the lack of rigor in the projects entered into by the agency.
Quack standards, embraced by the politically correct politicians, have
applied to much of what has passed for science at the OAM. There's
a move afoot to officially declare the OAM a "National Center," thus
making it essentially immune to criticism and open to fresh funding
opportunities. The alarmed scientists, both physicists and
biologists, are now strongly supporting research into the efficacy of
alternative therapies, provided that the research is held to rigorous
scientific standards. Says the group, "The American public deserves
to know what works and what doesn't work in the treatment of disease."
Their statement warned, however, that "To elevate the OAM to a
National Center without first examining its strengths and weaknesses
would risk amplifying existing problems."
At the same time, a new journal, "THE SCIENTIFIC REVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE
MEDICINE," devoted exclusively to objective evaluation of alternative
therapies, will debut on Tuesday, 14 Oct 97 at the National Press Club
in Washington, DC. I'm sure Bob Park will be there to report on the
event and ask a few sharp questions. As if to flavor this examination
of pseudo-science, we learn that chemist John Bockris of Texas A&M was
honored at a Harvard ceremony by the magazine "Annals of Improbable
Research," for transmuting base metals into gold by means of a
cold-fusion cell. Two myths for the price of one! But Harvard can't
point too steely a finger at bad science. They have to live with the
burden of Professor John Mack, who seems convinced that we are all
being taken to Venus to have our genitals probed by
pruriently-oriented aliens from places even further away than
Arkansas.
The mind boggles....
Randi
END QUOTED MATERIAL
--------------------------------------------------------
RANDI MAY BE CONTACTED AT:
*********************************************************************
To Subscribe/Unsubscribe from the mailing list:
**********************************************************************
To subscribe: send a message to JREFInfo-request ssr.com.
In the body of the message have the one word, subscribe.
To unsubscribe: Send mail to JREFInfo-request ssr.com.
In the body of the message have the one word, unsubscribe
-----------------
How to Contact Randi:
-----------------
James Randi Educational Foundation phone: +1 954 467 1112
201 SE Davie Boulevard fax: +1 954 467 1660
Fort Lauderdale FL 33316-1815 http://www.randi.org
U.S.A.
General questions: randi randi.org
Mail directly to Randi: 76702.3507 COMPUSERVE.COM
---------------------------
BACK ISSUES OF THE HOTLINE:
---------------------------
(http://www.mindspring.com/~anson/randi-hotline/)
(ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/an/anson/Mailing_Lists/geller-hotline)
(ftp://ftp.ssr.com/Randi)
ftp.ssr.com is the home of the hotline, but we are very over loaded,
so please try the other sites first. European users please try:
(ftp://mercurio.iet.unipi.it/pub/Randi)
---------------------------------------------------------
ORIGINAL MESSAGE FROM HERMAN DE TOLLENAERE FOLLOWS:
)At 12:21 AM 10/10/97 -0700, PLANS wrote:
)
))FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 10/10/97
))
))SF STATE HOSTING CULT MEDICAL COURSE
))
))People for Legal and Non-Sectarian Schools (PLANS), is blowing the whistle
))on a San Francisco State University course called "Anthroposophical
))Medicine." "Not only is medical quackery being promoted by a public
))university," said PLANS President Debra Snell, "but this course violates
))separation of church and state. Anthroposophy is a cult-like religious
))sect. The University is being used to give legitimacy to lunatic fringe
))beliefs."
)
))"Anthroposophical Medicine" is a full-credit course in the Department of
))Holistic Health.
)
)What else does this *Department of Holistic Health* teach, apart from
)Steiner? Quimby? Mary Baker Eddy? Elizabeth Clare Prophet? L. Ron Hubbard?
)Deepak Chopra? Maharishi Mahesh Yogi? Louise L. Hay? Therapeutic Touch? Jan
)Smuts, the early twentieth century South African general and politician, who
)first used the concept holism? This is *not* a rhetorical question. I would
)really like to know.
)
)I have re-posted the PLANS mail about this in The Netherlands.
)
)Herman de Tollenaere
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n532.2 ---------------
From: Brian Berns (Berns rdaconsultants.com)
Subject: RE: Four Elements (Pseudo-science thread)
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 00:21:10 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
I said:
))Here's the first definition of "element" in Webster's dictionary:
))
)) any of the four substances air, water, fire, and earth
)) formerly believed to compose the physical universe
))
))I think the key word in this context is "formerly".
) KOPP said:
)
) What is your point? All rational, scientific thinkers realise that
these
) concepts belong in antiquity.
Right -- that was exactly my point. I thought it was pretty clear.
)) This pseudo-science has also included science (and other) teachers
telling
)) my kids that:
))
)) * the heart is not a pump;
How bizarre. Do the Waldorf supporters on this list agree with this
characterization? Is this idea really taught in Waldorf schools? If
so, how can you possibly justify it?
-- Brian
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n532.3 ---------------
From: Brian Berns (Berns rdaconsultants.com)
Subject: RE: Four Elements (Intelligent Waldorf practitioners thread)
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 00:21:13 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
) KOPP says:
) Can you tell us ... either from your personal experience or
) research, or from some other source:
)
) what is an "Intelligent practitioner", and
)
) what is "the best of Waldorf"?
Hey, I'm no fan of Waldorf, but it does seem to have *some* substance.
To answer your specific questions:
A) I am acquainted with a Waldorf teacher-in-training who seems to be
intelligent (although I don't know her well enough to be sure).
Furthermore, it seems highly unlikely to me that all Waldorf teachers
everywhere are just plain stupid.
B) The emphasis on direct experience with natural phenomena seems
commendable. There are other positive aspects, but, honestly, I don't
think I can do justice to them. Perhaps a Waldorf supporter could
provide an uncontroversial "best of Waldorf" list?
) Then, how does one tell, as a parent with children in such a school,
or as
) a parent intending to enroll children in such a school, whether and
which
) teachers or schools are the good ones and which are the bad ones? In
) advance, before your child is damaged.
I wonder the same thing myself. Perhaps by word of mouth from other
parents? Of course, all parents face this problem to some degree,
regardless of the school or teaching method that they're considering.
It's just a starker problem in Waldorf, where being stuck with an loopy
Anthroposophist for N years is the booby prize.
) All Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophy practitioners -- unless they are
heretics
) and subversives, and I don't think there are very many of those --
are, to
) me, by definition, small-minded teachers of Steiner by the book.
The teacher-in-training that I know has said to me (via e-mail) that she
takes Anthroposophy "with a grain of salt". So there.
) My personal experience is that I have never met a
) Steiner/Waldorf/Anthropsophy practitioner, believer, devotee or
hanger-on
) who *EVER* admitted that there could be a valid alternative to
anything
) that Steiner said.
Please. I don't think most Waldorf "believers" have even read enough
Steiner to have an opinion on his views. This is actually part of the
problem -- most Waldorf parents don't seem to quite realize what they're
getting their kids into. (Note: one could also say that few Montessori
fans know much about what Maria Montessori actually said, either. This
is less problematic, however, because she was not such a lunatic.)
Kopp, here's some unsolicited advice: I think you do a disservice to
your own cause by being so rabidly negative about Waldorf. You run the
risk of underestimating Waldorf by painting it with too broad a brush.
Furthermore, you are likely to turn off anyone who has not yet formed a
full opinion on the subject (such as myself).
-- Brian
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n532.4 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: RE: Four Elements (Intelligent Waldorf practitioners thread)
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 00:48:52 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199710130421.VAA02383 lists1.best.com)
Brian Berns says:
)) KOPP says:
)
)) Can you tell us ... either from your personal experience or
)) research, or from some other source:
))
)) what is an "Intelligent practitioner", and
))
)) what is "the best of Waldorf"?
And BERNS says:
)Hey, I'm no fan of Waldorf, but it does seem to have *some* substance.
KOPP says:
Well, I've asked you some specific questions about what you think is "the
best of Waldorf" ... and you didn't (or couldn't) answer.
I'll try again: tell us what of Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophy "does seem to
have *some* substance". (It is the complete lack of *ANY* _substance_ which
is the defining and damning characteristic of Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophy.
Aren't you just blowing smoke here?
BERNS says:
)To answer your specific questions:
)
)A) I am acquainted with a Waldorf teacher-in-training who seems to be
)intelligent (although I don't know her well enough to be sure).
)Furthermore, it seems highly unlikely to me that all Waldorf teachers
)everywhere are just plain stupid.
[snip and rearrange ...]
BERNS continues:
)The teacher-in-training that I know has said to me (via e-mail) that she
)takes Anthroposophy "with a grain of salt". So there.
KOPP says:
Nobody says they're necessarily stupid -- just deluded. You don't say at
what point in her training she is. If she survives the training with that
attitude, it will not be accepted by the Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophist
"college of teachers" (elders of the church) in whatever of the movement's
schools she teaches in.
The archives of this list are replete with details of the brainwashing
nature of the teacher training. The whole first year is taken up with
inculcating Anthroposophy, and the movement avers that one cannot be a
proper or good teacher in it without accepting Steiner. Does your
acquaintance know this?
BERNS continues:
)B) The emphasis on direct experience with natural phenomena seems
)commendable. There are other positive aspects, but, honestly, I don't
)think I can do justice to them. Perhaps a Waldorf supporter could
)provide an uncontroversial "best of Waldorf" list?
KOPP says:
What, exactly, is "direct experience with natural phenomena"? And why is it
commendable? Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophy education never gets beyond this
phenomenological approach. It certainly never teaches the proper modern
scientific method, which involves prediction, experiment and conclusion as
well as simple observation and the formulation of some intuitional idea of
what might be happening.
If you "can't do justice" to the "positive aspects" of this mystical,
esoteric, spiritualistic mumbo-jumbo, much less even list them, then why
are you so friendly to it? Or is it that you just don't like critics,
especially vociferous ones? (See below.)
BERNS quotes Kopp:
)) Then, how does one tell, as a parent with children in such a school,
)or as
)) a parent intending to enroll children in such a school, whether and
)which
)) teachers or schools are the good ones and which are the bad ones? In
)) advance, before your child is damaged.
And BERNS says:
)I wonder the same thing myself. Perhaps by word of mouth from other
)parents? Of course, all parents face this problem to some degree,
)r