return to WCA Archive Index
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n679 --------------
001 - per.hallstrom mbox3.swipn - Re: RS-tube
002 - Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ m - MELLETT ADMITS HEART IS PUMP!!
003 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: MELLETT ADMITS HEART IS PUMP!!
004 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Re: MELLETT ADMITS HEART IS PUMP!!
005 - Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ m - Re: MELLETT ADMITS HEART IS PUMP!!
006 - Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ m - God's legal troubles may help PLANS
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n679.1 ---------------
From: per.hallstrom mbox3.swipnet.se (Per =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hallstr=F6m?= )
Subject: Re: RS-tube
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 23:58:39 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
At 10.03 98-02-28, Manfred Hoss wrote:
)Dear Mr. Hallstrom,
)
)you're writing about looking in the "RS-tube" to see, if Steiner was
)right or wrong. If I would look in the "RS-tube", would I have the
)same experiences like Rudolf Steiner or would they be different? If
)they would be different, would this proof, that Steiner was wrong?
)
)Sincerely, Manfred Hoss.
Dear Mr Hoss
Let me cite a line from the movie Forest Gump: Life is like a box of
chocolates, you never know what you=B4re gonna get!
True science is like that too; you can predict an outcome, but you never
really know for sure until you try it out. It goes for most things in life.
So what your experiences would be, would you try develop your soul
faculties, we will not know until you do so, and report back to us.
But if your experiences would be different from those of RS that would of
course not necessarily prove that any of you are "wrong", but it would be
all the more interesting for all of us who judge by our own insight, and
understanding capacity, and not by what anyone says.
Sincerely,
Per Hallstr=F6m
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n679.2 ---------------
From: Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ mail.utexas.edu)
Subject: MELLETT ADMITS HEART IS PUMP!!
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 18:39:10 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
------------------------------------------
DATELINE: February 28, 1998
SPECIAL TO: The Akasha Chronicle
BY: Harvey Avatar
------------------------------------------
MELLETT ADMITS HEART IS PUMP!
-------------
DORNACH IN DISARRAY AS "LOOSE CANNON" SHOOTS AGAIN!
-------------
WILL WALDORF EDUCATION SURVIVE THIS SHOCKING REVELATION?
In a stunning exclusive interview with this reporter for the occult
newspaper, "The Akasha Chronicle," Tom "Loose Cannon" Mellett, the always
erratic, sometimes erotic, but seldom coherent apologist for Rudolf Steiner
and Anthroposophy has finally admitted for the record that "the heart is
actually a pump!"
When news of this stunning admission reached the mysterious
powers-that-be at the mysterious Goetheanum Building, the mysterious
cosmos-wide HQ of the mysterious Anthroposophical Society (AS), located
high on a non-mysterious hill in Dornach, Switzerland, the mysterious Chief
Executive of the AS, Gustavus Adolphus Geschwindigkeitsgrenze issued this
mysterious statement in heavily accented English:
"Vee haff no record of zee existence of such an being as zis Herr
Mellett. Vee are also not concerned vedder dis heart is eider a pump or an
apfel-strudel. Vee haff more important issues to vorry about, such as zee
serious vorld-vide shortage of eurythmy veils."
Such patently false denials have long fed the persistent rumors of
Mellett's actual status as an Occult Agent for the Cosmic Intelligence
Agency (CIA) and its central European branch known as the Dornach Mystery
Police (DMP). Therefore, this reporter decided to open the interview with
a direct question to Mellett about his agent status.
The interview took place in the back of Mellett's obvious business
front for the CIA, a cheesy, sleazy, erotic paraphernalia shop called "The
Fructifier's Warehouse."
AVATAR: Mr. Mellett, Let's cut to the chase right away. Are you an Occult
Agent of the CIA in the DMP?
MELLETT: Yes. I thought everybody knew that.
AVATAR: Well, I didn't. Could you elaborate, please?
MELLETT: I started out as a regular agent 20 years ago, but unfortunately
I've always been far too sexually active for my own good. Very early in my
agent's career, I was caught in a compromising position with a woman at
Rudolf Steiner College who told me she was a reincarnated Mystery Temple of
Ephesus Prostitute, but who actually turned out herself to be an agent of
the infamous Dugananda Cult of Self-Promotion, an organization dedicated to
preventing the infiltration by health, wealth and stealth of Waldorf
Education into the public schools of America.
AVATAR: What happened?
MELLETT: Well, she really blew my cover, if you know what I mean. I
then had to become a double agent for them. So I returned to Dornach to
gather intelligence for the Duganandas, but then I was seduced by a
beguiling Mata Hari type eurythmist who demanded truth for sex. Hey, I'm
easy about stuff like that, so I told her everything, whereupon she
reported me to the Vorstand and then I had to beg them to become a triple
agent. They finally agreed, but then they lost the paperwork, and now both
sides claim me and frankly, I don't even know which side I'm on any more.
They're still fighting over it to this day!
AVATAR: Allright, then. So what's all this stuff about the heart being a
pump after all? It sounds like a bona fide conversion experience.
MELLETT: Not really. I got to thinking about the simple question: Just
what is a pump? I remembered the last time I had to use a mechanical pump,
last semester in the physics lab at UT Austin where I had to degas (create
a partial vacuum in) 500 ml of water for a sonoluminescence experiment.
When I first clicked the switch for the pump, nothing happened. So I had
to get down under the lab table and check the wiring. Someone had turned
off the surge protector. Once I got that on, the pump started pumping.
Now it is typical for us to think that all the pump consists of is
the obviously visible part that can be unplugged, put in a crate and
shipped somewhere. But in actuality, the system of the pump must also
include the energy that powers it. In this case, the pump's electric cord
with plug goes into the wall socket, which is connected to the local power
grid in the city. The grid in turn is powered by some coal-burning plant
about 100 miles east of here, so that the system of the WORKING pump must
include a power source that is 100 miles away!
At the other end, you have me as the monitor of the pump, who turns
it on or off and makes sure it runs smoothly and for the proper time.
Therefore, I, as monitor, must also be included in the entire system of the
pump.
And that is exactly how Steiner describes the action of the human
heart. He said it wasn't a pump, only because he was speaking 80 years ago
when people of that time had the belief that the human body was like a
coal-burning factory of the Industrial Revolution.
AVATAR: If the heart is NOT a pump, then what did Steiner say that it
actually IS?
MELLETT: He said it was more like a sense organ, in that it perceives the
condition of the blood and regulates the pumping rhythm accordingly. That's
the equivalent of me as the monitor with the vacuum pump.
AVATAR: But what about the power source? Where's the electric plant for
the heart?
MELLETT: It's hard to see this in creatures with hearts after they are
born, because the "plugging in" occurs way back in the early embryonic
stages of the organism. There we see that the blood circulation appears
first. Only later on, does the structure of the physical heart appear.
Therefore, we could say that the mechanical pump structure of the heart is
actually created by the circulation!
AVATAR: But aren't you overlooking the fact that an embryo in a womb is
receiving the blood circulation from the mother's heart?
MELLETT: Excellent point and your point would definitely refute Steiner's
claim entirely except for the fact that this same "blood circulation
appearing before physical heart structure" also occurs in a chick embryo
fully enclosed within its hard calcium shell, very disconnected from its
mother hen's blood supply.
AVATAR: But isn't the creation of the chick heart simply pre-programmed in
its DNA code?
MELLETT: Yes, but the DNA code is like the architect's drawing of a house,
compared to the actual house itself. In between you must have the building
contractor who actually gets the physical material together and builds the
house, and that's where we see the energy source of the heart.
AVATAR: I see. So the DNA is a blueprint, but something else carries out
the building of the heart.
MELLETT: Right, and that something is the circulation of the blood itself.
AVATAR: We're back to our old chicken-egg question again.
MELLETT: Actually, it's was beyond the eggshell. In fact, the source of
the circulation of all the blood for all the hearts that exist in mammals
on the planet earth is located at the infinite periphery of the entire
universe. That's where the souorce of energy is and all the building
contractors who build up every cell in every living organism according to
the DNA blueprints.
AVATAR: What? That's crazy! That is pure mysticism. Nonsense!
Pseudo-science!
MELLETT: Well, I'd say it used to be pure mysticism. Now it's the
beginning of a true science of the organic realm.
AVATAR: How can you make such an assertion?
MELLETT: Do you know anything about the up and coming fields of chaos
studies, complexity theory, especially focusing on the area of
self-similarity of scale that is expressed by fractals?
AVATAR: Yes, it looks very nice and artsy, but not very scientific I'm afraid.
MELLETT: Add in Projective Geometery and you've got an explanation for how
the circulation not only pumps the heart, but actually creates it.
AVATAR: This I've got to hear!
MELLETT: All right, tell me this. Are we mutually exclusive?
AVATAR: What?
MELLETT: I mean, we are separated, aren't we?
AVATAR: Yes, I'm sitting over here and you're pacing around over there.
MELLETT: OK, but what is the boundary that separates us?
AVATAR: Our skin.
MELLETT: Right. But is the boundary of our skin so impermeable that we
are in essence, mutually exclusive?
AVATAR: I guess so. What are you driving at?
MELLETT: Well, our skin is an organ, isn't it? And since we sweat, it's
certainly very permeable to the outside environment. We know all that, but
I want you to go deeper and consider a microscopic picture of the skin.
AVATAR: It would be very lumpy.
MELLETT: Yes, if we were to magnify the picture further and further, we
would find that the boundary would melt away. At the atomic and nuclear
level, it would disappear entirely, and finally at the level of the photon,
it would cease to have any meaning whatsoever as a boundary.
AVATAR: All right, I can agree, but that's such a vastly different scale
of things.
MELLETT: True enough, but in the study of fractals and non-linear
dynamics, we find that living systems self-organize by overcoming the
limitations of scale. That's called self-similarity and it makes no
difference whether the scale is down to the micro-level of nuclear
particles or else out to the far reaches of the universe that
astrophysicists study. Life and living systems are INDEPENDENT OF SCALE.
AVATAR: All right, but so what? And what does that have to do with the
circulation of the blood?
MELLETT: It means that the circulation of the blood has its source all
around us, out there at the far ends of the universe, by our spatial
reckoning a billion billion billion light years away in all directions, to
echo Carl Sagan.
AVATAR: That's ridicuolous.
MELLETT: It's only ridiculous to our one-sided pointwise conception of space.
AVATAR: How do you mean? And what is pointwise?
MELLETT: In regular geometry, we know that a line is made up of a bunch of
points. And that a plane is made up of a bunch of lines, right?
AVATAR: Right, but what does geometry have to do with it?
MELLETT: Everything, actually, as long as you look at Projective Geometry,
where a whole bunch of planes can meet together in such a way as to make
only one point. That's called the dual form in PG. Also in PG, parallel
lines do meet and they meet at one point which is called the point at
infinity, but it's also a plane at infinity, too. You see, scale doesn't
matter in PG just as scale doesn't matter to living systems. That's why PG
can express the new organic sciences that are growing out of the present
fractals, chaos & complexity studies.
AVATAR: I'm still not convinced and it sounds all too complicated and
weird for me. Therefore, let's change the subject back to sex.
MELLETT: Fine with me.
AVATAR: I've read reports that you claim to have had oral sex with
hundreds of women. Is that true?
MELLETT: I must admit it, yes, it's true.
AVATAR: That is shocking, Mr. Mellett, but please tell me more because
otherwise this issue won't sell at all.
MELLETT: You see, over the years I've asked hundreds of women if they
would like to have sex with me, and almost all of them said NO!
AVATAR: Yes, go on. Then what happened?
MELLETT: Well, that was the oral sex.
AVATAR: What do you mean, oral sex?
MELLETT: They said NO to me. You know--- speaking with their mouths. Orally.
AVATAR: That's it?
MELLETT: That's it.
AVATAR: That's bullshit! You know what I was expecting to hear.
MELLETT: I know. Let this be a lesson to you, Mr. Avatar, be careful what
you think others mean by their words. It's very possible to project your
own expectations and connotations onto others.
AVATAR: All right. What about the few who said yes?
MEKLLETT: Ah, those I have on videotape. Would you like to buy one?
AVATAR: What if my wife finds out?
MELLETT: Tell her you're doing research on the blood circulation coming in
from the boundaries of the universe and pumping the heart. Tell her that if
you and she watch it together, the universe will pump both your hearts a
lot faster.
AVATAR: Hey, yeah! That sounds romantic. She might just go for that.
But... off the record, Mr. Mellett... can I confess something to you?
MELLETT; Yes, Harvey, go right ahead.
AVATAR: I can get it up all right, but I can't keep it up. My wife says I
should get a special kind of pump, and since you know so much about pumps
and operate this warehouse, I wonder....
MELLETT: Sure, we sell those in the front. Over there by the edible
underwear. Now these are mechanical pumps, Harvey, so they are completely
self-enclosed. Nothing cosmic about a lifeless machine. So you have to
provide the energy and you do the monitoring. Takes a little practic, but
I guarantee results. A few squeezes s on this rubber bulb and pretty soon
the whole universe will be pumping your heart and your wife's heart in
unison.
AVATAR: Hey, sounds great. That reminds me. Next week I want to interview
you about the Big Bang. What did you say it was?
MELLETT: God's orgasm.
AVATAR: Hey, forget about God. This pump better work for MY orgasm.
MELLETT: Harvey, I guarantee it. You'll be coming like the messiah. Maybe
even a second coming, but I can't guarantee that. But I know your wife will
worship you for it.
AVATAR: On that note, let me turn this tape recorder off and show me the
pumps you got.
[CLICK}
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n679.3 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: MELLETT ADMITS HEART IS PUMP!!
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 23:08:42 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199803010039.QAA19917 lists1.best.com)
Tom,
Has anyone ever mentioned the word "manic" when describing your personality?
Just curious.
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n679.4 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Re: MELLETT ADMITS HEART IS PUMP!!
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 20:18:42 +1300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199803010039.QAA19917 lists1.best.com)
Tom Mellett wrote:
)------------------------------------------
)DATELINE: February 28, 1998
)SPECIAL TO: The Akasha Chronicle
)BY: Harvey Avatar
)------------------------------------------
)
)
) MELLETT ADMITS HEART IS PUMP!
) -------------
) DORNACH IN DISARRAY AS "LOOSE CANNON" SHOOTS AGAIN!
) -------------
)WILL WALDORF EDUCATION SURVIVE THIS SHOCKING REVELATION?
)
[the rest is expurgated to protect our tender readers from having to face
Mellett's depravity again]
KOPP says:
Maybe there was something to the Communications Decency Act after all.
I thought this was a "G"-rated list.
How can I let my tender young teenagers, exposed to years of SWA
brainwashing, read this list as therapy to correct their warped minds, if
Mellett is allowed to rave on like a lunatic?
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n679.5 ---------------
From: Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ mail.utexas.edu)
Subject: Re: MELLETT ADMITS HEART IS PUMP!!
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 13:29:45 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199803010039.QAA19917 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199803010705.XAA22661 lists1.best.com)
)Tom,
)Has anyone ever mentioned the word "manic" when describing your personality?
)Just curious.
---------------------
Dear Deby,
Yes. Got any Lithium?
Tom.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n679.6 ---------------
From: Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ mail.utexas.edu)
Subject: God's legal troubles may help PLANS
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 14:33:33 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199803010039.QAA19917 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199803011837.KAA26335 lists1.best.com)
The following press release was issued by Heaven last week.
Whatever the outcome of the possible impeachment proceedings against God,
it is safe to assume that God will be distracted from the full attention He
needs to give to the PLANS vs. Waldorf lawsuit. As one Waldorf teacher put
it: "It always helps to have God on your side like we do, but to have God
impeached like this? It doesn't bode well for us in the PLANS lawsuit."
Tom.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Divine Press Release
Turmoil rocked Heaven this morning as allegations arose that God
had had an affair with a former worshipper. The scandal was begun when a 21
year old woman, known only as Mary, claimed that she had given birth to
God's "only son" last week in a barn in the hamlet of Bethlehem.
Sources close to Mary claim that she "had loved God for a long time", that
she was constantly talking about her relationship with God, and that she
was "thrilled to have had his child." In a press conference this morning,
God issued a vehement denial, saying that "No sexual relationship existed",
and that "the facts of this story will come out in time, verily".
Independent counsel Kenneth Beelzebub immediately filed a brief with
the Justice department to expand his investigation to cover questions of
whether any commandments may have been broken, and whether God had
illegally funneled laundered money to his illegitimate child through three
foreign operatives know only as the "Wise Men". Beelzebub has issued
subpoenas to several angels who are rumored to have acted as go-betweens in
the affair.
Critics have pointed out that these allegations have little to do
with the charges that Beelzebub was originally appointed to investigate,
that God had created large-scale flooding in order to cover up evidence of
a failed land deal.
In recent months, Beelzebub's investigation has already been
expanded to cover questions surrounding the large number of locusts that
plagued God's political opponents in the last election, as well as to
claims that the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah was to
divert attention away from a scandal involving whether the giveaway of a
parcel of public land in Promised County to a Jewish special interest
group was quid pro quo for political contributions.
If these allegations prove to be true, then this could be a huge blow
to God's career, much of which has been spent crusading for stricter moral
standards and harsher punishments for wrongdoers. Indeed, God recently
outlined a "tough-on-crime" plan consisting of a series of 10
"Commandments", which has been introduced in Congress in a bill by Rep.
Moses. Critics of the bill have pointed out that it lacks any provisions
for the rehabilitation of criminals, and lawyers for the ACLU are planning
to fight the "Name in Vain" Commandment as being an unconstitutional
restriction on free speech.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by: Peter Putrimas nytimes.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n679 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n680 --------------
001 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - What are you fighting against?
002 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Andres in Ontario
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n680.1 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: What are you fighting against?
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 01:48:40 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
The following was received from the PLANS web site. Please copy comments to
Hans' address, he's not a subscriber. -dD-
)Date: Sun, 01 Mar 1998 11:25:11 +0100
)From: hans.uma.zimmermann t-online.de (Hans Zimmermann)
)
)"Is Anthroposophy science"? What a question! Is Philosophy science? Is
)Proklos, Dioysios Areopagites, Thomas de Aquino, Hildegard von Bingen
)science? Is Jakob Boehme science? See, I live in Goerlitz.
)
)What do you object against our old philosophical traditions?
)Nothing of course, aou don't know them.
)
)hans.uma.zimmermann t-online.de
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n680.2 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Andres in Ontario
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 01:10:48 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
DAN DUGAN
Dear Andres, on February 15 you wrote to me. I don't have time for private
dialogues so I'm replying to your letter on the waldorf-critics mailing
list. I urge you to subscribe to the list if you want to discuss these
issues.
ANDRES MUSTA
)Greetings.
)I am the first grade teacher at the London Waldorf School in Ontario,
)Canada.
)I would like you to know that work is being done to increase awareness
)and respect for diversity of class, race, gender and so on. Recently
)several Ontario teachers attended an AWSNA conference in Detroit on
)increasing the African presence in the curriculum.
I support increasing awareness and respect for diversity. Are you aware
that in '96 some teachers at the Detroit public Waldorf school complained
that the principal was making it too Afrocentric at the expense of Waldorf
values? In my opinion neither way is very helpful to the children.
)I maintain that in
)fact that Anthroposophy is, if anything, Afrocentric, not European,
)though German has been the prevailing culture of waldorf teachers in the
)west. (Steiner speaks of the ethiopian as being destined to be the
)'all-human').
Andres, this is bizarre, given some of the statements Steiner made about
Africans. Please elaborate on your theory and give references.
)We need to inform every community about Waldorf and get as
)many different views represented as possible. I find Waldorf unique in
)its ability to have liberals and conservatives working together for the
)betterment of their community. Your info pages neglect to mention that
)Steiner spoke in metaphor and changed his lectures based on his audience
)to best communicate. Compare how he lectures to russians and finns,
)compared to brits and germans.
People often try to save Steiner by saying that he spoke in metaphor.
Steiner said that he didn't.
)Many people are working 30 hours a day to
)see Waldorf become a truly inspiring worldwide healing. Help us. Raise
)awareness. Challenge conventions.
Try challenging the conventions in a Waldorf school!
)Test the teachers on their personal
)convictions regarding race.
I did, at my son's school, and they flunked. They would not repudiate
Steiner's racist statements.
)Do workshops and make money while you're at
)it. Bring your arguments to the schools. challenge them to give you an
)open forum with parents, boards and faculty. Heck, even tell the
)children. But work with us. Please.
Been there, done that. I don't think the Waldorf movement is reformable any
more than our friends the evangelical Christians are reformable. Both
movements are based on faith in a fixed body of scripture.
)Andres Musta
)London Waldorf School,
)7 Beaufort street, London, Ontario, N6G 1A5, Canada
)fax 519-858-8863
(computer-guys geocities.com)
-Dan Dugan
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n680 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n681 --------------
001 - per.hallstrom mbox3.swipn - Free judgment
002 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Free judgment
003 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - State of Washington committie nixes charter bill
004 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - PLANSucks
005 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: PLANSucks
006 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: Free judgment
007 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Re: PLANSucks
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n681.1 ---------------
From: per.hallstrom mbox3.swipnet.se (Per =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hallstr=F6m?= )
Subject: Free judgment
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 23:29:27 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
At 01.10 98-03-04, Dan Dugan wrote, in answer to a waldorf teacher in Ontari=
o:
Snip
)
)Been there, done that. I don't think the Waldorf movement is reformable any
)more than our friends the evangelical Christians are reformable. Both
)movements are based on faith in a fixed body of scripture.
)
)-Dan Dugan
Mr Dugan, you have told us that you, as a parent, have had some
objectionable experiences with a waldorf school. This is unfortunate and
serious and should be taken into consideration by the people who work at
this school - I suppose they=B4ve done so already.
You also claim to have a scientific aspiration in your way of thinking and
arguing.
However your statement above only shows us your feelings; that you loathe
the waldorf movement. And this you have said many times already.
Scientifically this is interesting in a psychological perspective - why do
you repeatedly tell us about your feelings, is it an urge, or is it a
calculated way to try to convince.
As a presumably scientific statement about the Waldorf movement it is void
of substance.
On the contrary, Waldorf pedagogy is based on anthroposophy which in its
turn is based on experience, thinking and free personal judgment.
A movement, that is based on faith in a fixed body of scripture, can
therefore not be a Waldorf movement.
Sincerely
Per Hallstr=F6m
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n681.2 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Free judgment
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 15:07:44 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: (199803042226.OAA12999 lists1.best.com)
On 4 Mar 98 , Per Hallstr=F6m wrote:
) At 01.10 98-03-04, Dan Dugan wrote:
) )
) )Been there, done that. I don't think the Waldorf movement is reformable=
any
) )more than our friends the evangelical Christians are reformable. Both
) )movements are based on faith in a fixed body of scripture.
) )
)
) However your statement above only shows us your feelings; that you loath=
e
) the waldorf movement. And this you have said many times already.
I've been on this list for quite a while, and I have never heard Dan
express loathing for Waldorf education. He has said that there are some
things he admires about it, and some things he has opposed.
Specifically, Dan has opposed:
1. The teaching of anthroposophical doctrine as science or history (e.g.,=
teaching about Atlantis, teaching that the heart does not pump blood, and
so on);
2. The tendency to couch explanations of the pedagogy in ways that
obscure the very specific spiritual concepts underlying the pedagogy, so
as to give the impression that the school is "spiritual" in the general
sense of honoring the spirit of the child, rather than in the specific
sense of being based on Steiner's concepts of reincarnation, karma, etc.;
3. The specific teachings of Steiner with regard to race; and
4. The use of public funds to support Waldorf schools in the United
States.
) As a presumably scientific statement about the Waldorf movement it is
) void of substance. On the contrary, Waldorf pedagogy is based on
) anthroposophy which in its turn is based on experience, thinking and fre=
e
) personal judgment.
)
) A movement, that is based on faith in a fixed body of scripture, can
) therefore not be a Waldorf movement.
It appears to me that anthroposophy is limited to those whose experience,
thinking, and free personal judgment lead them to the conclusion that
Steiner was basically correct in his view of the spiritual world.
One is free to come to the contrary conclusion, but those who do are not
anthroposophists. The same is true of religions based on scripture.
Now, I suppose Anthroposophists can believe that Steiner was basically
correct, but disagree with him on many details and specifics. However,
I've heard several calls on this list for supporters of anthroposophy
to give examples of folks who have reached different conclusions and
publicly stated that they believe Steiner to have been wrong about
something. I don't recall seeing such examples. And as far as I know, no=
one has ever disagreed with Steiner on any subject and convinced a
substantial number of anthroposophists that Steiner was mistaken.
Per, if you have examples of teachings of Steiner that are generally
considered, by modern anthroposophists, to be incorrect, that would go a
long way toward convincing me that anthroposophists are free thinkers. As=
it looks to me right now, Steiner's writings, as a practical matter, are
treated as scripture by anthroposophists.
This view, of anthroposophy as a religion, is also supported by the fact
that Steiner claimed to have received his knowledge through clairvoyance,
and no one since Steiner has claimed to have reached the same level of
spiritual perception. Therefore, his teachings have the same kind of
authority as those of prophets who claim to have received their knowledge
directly from God. Until someone else reaches the same spiritual level as=
Steiner, how can they effectively challenge anything he wrote?
Steve Premo ----------- http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
-----
"It's a messed up world but I love it anyway, I love it."
--Greg Brown
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n681.3 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: State of Washington committie nixes charter bill
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 01:29:12 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
An article posted on the Education Consumers Clearinghouse reported that
the Washington State Senate Ways and Means Committee voted down a proposed
charter school bill which would have made Washington the 30th state with a
charter school law. It's the fourth year the proposal has failed.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n681.4 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: PLANSucks
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 11:33:36 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Recieved the following today: -dD-
)Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 18:48:11 +0100
)From: hpr (hpr salzburg.co.at)
)Reply-To: hpr salzburg.co.at
)MIME-Version: 1.0
)To: plans dandugan.com
)Subject: PLANSucks
)X-Rcpt-To: plans dandugan.com
)
)Oh man,
)
)what a bullshit that you're offering here.
)
)
)I was searching "Rudolf Steiner" and "social", and what does Exceed reveal?
)This homepage of yours.
)
)
)Anyway, the wolves are howling, but the caravan walks on.
)
)hpr
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n681.5 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: PLANSucks
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 12:10:21 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199803051933.LAA20149 lists1.best.com)
))Oh man,
))
))what a bullshit that you're offering here.
))
))
))I was searching "Rudolf Steiner" and "social", and what does Exceed reveal?
))This homepage of yours.
))
))
))Anyway, the wolves are howling, but the caravan walks on.
))
))hpr
I just love America. Folks can freely say anything they want. Is Exceed a
search engine?
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n681.6 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: Free judgment
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 13:36:38 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199803042311.PAA02024 lists1.best.com)
Steve,
I have inserted some comments in [brackets] below.
joel wendt
Steve Premo wrote:
) It appears to me that anthroposophy is limited to those whose experience,
) thinking, and free personal judgment lead them to the conclusion that
) Steiner was basically correct in his view of the spiritual world.
[As I have tried to explain before, Steiner's "teachings" are not
anthroposophy, even though many of those who call themselves
"anthroposophists" behave as if anthroposophy is these "teachings".
There has always been disagreement over this problem.
For example, the English philologist Owen Barfield, in a talk given at
the Goetheanum in 1933, makes the clear distinction between method and
content; anthroposophy being a method - a way of developing the human
thinking faculty so that the individual begins with understanding its
own spiritual nature, and then can metamorphose that thinking into an
organ of cosmic spiritual perception.
This principal is stated in Steiner's First of his Leading Thoughts:
"Anthroposophy is a path of cognition from the spiritual in the human
being to the Spiritual in the Universe."
Before I ever read of Barfield's lecture (which is published in his
book "Romanticism Comes of Age", I independently arrived at this same
conclusion - that anthroposophy is a method, not a content.
Those of the content school, who I would call dognamtic
anthroposophists, believe that studying Steiner's lectures and writings
is a way to become an anthroposophist. Many of these also believe in
self development and practice it, often with great skill and success.
Nevertheless, this confusion, and the degree to which Steiner may have
fostered it, or not, has always been part of the community of those with
an interest in Steiner's work.
I have written about certain of these problems on my website:
Outlaw Anthroposophy: the journal:
http://www.microweb.com/hermit/oajnr.html
These articles have been translated into German, and will published in
May in the German journal: Critical Anthroposophy.
The reason that one does not find the "disagreements" on the surface,
has to do with a lot of history, and the fact that the Anthroposophical
Society, as a typical human institution, has commited itself to the role
of preserving a certain image of Steiner. Those who participate in the
community of anthroposophists soon find their way to these disagreements
(there are others) and after some time make up their own minds. An
outside observer, who meets only the most public faces of the Society,
such as Rudolf Steiner College etc. is unlikely to encounter the real
areas of concern and dispute. Below, I will say more about another
matter.]
) One is free to come to the contrary conclusion, but those who do are not
) anthroposophists.
[You need to meet a lot more anthroposophists, before you have any
justification for making such a conclusion.]
) The same is true of religions based on scripture.
[Hopefully you will now at least admit to the possibility that there
are many anthroposophists, including, perhaps, Steiner, who do not agree
that what they do is a religion. Those who do not understand
anthroposophy - that is, what it is in reality (and this includes many
who call themselves anthroposophists) can of course form any "opinion"
they wish. But what anthroposophy is in fact, remains the same. It is
an inner discipline of a certain nature, similar in some ways to other
inner disciplines, but at its core, very unique. Knowing anthroposophy
factually, as an experience, has nothing whatsoever to do with faith or
belief. It is, in fact, a science of inner life.
Now having said the word "science", I will of course attract the
skeptics etc. So, if they will allow, I will say what "I" mean when I
use this term.
In the history of ideas, "science" could be described as the modern
path to the truth. It is how modern humanity struggles to find its way
to certainty of knowledge, and is seen by many as "progress" over the
prior ages, which, in most cases, relied on faith, on priests, for
knowledge of the truth.
To me, the core of the practice (or path) of science toward the truth,
is in its methodology. By this I do not mean double-blind studies and
so forth, which are mere techniques, but rather the moral center of
science, which says: If someone asserts a matter as true, then that
person must provide, as well, their method for arriving at this truth,
so that others may duplicate this process. It is then this
"replication" of "experiment" which allows others to repeat the
investigation, which becomes the modern basis for discovering the truth.
When a community of knowledge arises, founded upon common replication of
an experiment, it is understood that a "scientific" truth has been
arrived at.
It is in this sense, this moral sense, that anthroposphy is
"scientific". It invites the doubter to learn to practice the inner
disciplines, and then to prove or disprove, for themselves, what may or
may not be true, using that "method" (experimental protocol).
Now of course, such an approach is not at all like what we usually
think of when we think of science. Since the matters being investigated
are human inner life and what might be possible if that inner life were
transformed through discipline and practice, anthroposophy as "science"
must ask different questions and make different protocols.
Just as we may speak of the spirit and the letter of the law, there is
a "spirit" to science, which "spirit" is also found in the fundamental
practical work of the path of cognition - anthroposophy.
Steiner's Philosophy of Spiritual Activity contains the sub-title:
"some results of introspective observation following the methods of
natural science". His Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's World
Conception" looks at the basic problem of epistomology (the
investigation of the problem of how we know what we know).
There is some discussion of these books in the archives, but from what
I have read, there has been little understanding of them on the part of
the "critics". These books ask something rather different, for the
reader, then just an analytical examination of ideas, which the study of
philosophy often entails.
In order to use these books in the "spirit" in which they were
intended, it is necessary to "do" certain things, to actually look at
one's inner life in a very objective and careful fashion. In this way
certain "universals" can be discovered, elements of inner life which
human beings share in common. It is then from these facts, that the
understanding of the truth about the nature of thinking unfolds.
The core problem with those who don't make a good connection to
anthroposophy as a method of cognition, has to do with how these books
are approached. There are many, including "anthroposophists", who fail
to "wake up" inwardly through their encounter with these books. There
is an analogy which might help.
There are many books about pottery, and about forming pots on a
potters' wheel. Yet, one can read all the books one wants and never
understand what the "experience" of actually forming pots on a wheel is
about. The same is true of Steiner's discoveries concerning the act of
cognition. You have to "do" it, not just think about it.
This aspect of Steiner's work, the practicalities of understanding
thinking in this new way, has been "replicated" by many. There is a
whole literature involved in this. Not only that, but because the
experiences won on this path are very intimate and personal, many who
succeed carry this success in silence, only revealing its existence
through their work product.]
) Now, I suppose Anthroposophists can believe that Steiner was basically
) correct, but disagree with him on many details and specifics. However,
) I've heard several calls on this list for supporters of anthroposophy
) to give examples of folks who have reached different conclusions and
) publicly stated that they believe Steiner to have been wrong about
) something. I don't recall seeing such examples. And as far as I know, no
) one has ever disagreed with Steiner on any subject and convinced a
) substantial number of anthroposophists that Steiner was mistaken.
[This problem is not as simple as you have stated it. This "science"
is not like laboratory science. And it is disingenuous to suggest that
it should be. It is not a matter of disagreeing or not. The problems
are much more subtle.
For example, inner disciplines, especially in the Christianized West,
involve the practitioner with coming to terms with the experience of
conscience. Now we often think of moral behavior as being determined by
cultural conditioning, inculcated in some way from outside the
consciousness of the individual. But those who enter more intimately
into the dynamics of their inner life, soon discover that "conscience"
is an objective quality, whose nature is independent of cultural norms.
It would go too far to go into detail here, but the point I am trying
to make is that the scientist, whose laboratory is like a chemistry lab,
has no need to confront the shadow elements of his nature, while a
"spiritual scientist" must come to terms with "conscience", as much as
he/she must come to terms with "thinking", "feeling" and "willing", in
an objective fashion.
Just as a carpenter must learn to use sharp instruments in order to
carry out his craft, those who struggle to learn inner disciplines must
learn to deal with the "pointed" judgments arising from the fact of
possessing a conscience.
It is in this encounter with conscience that the problem of disagreeing
takes its course, because one must first be able to say in good
conscience that one has penetrated to sufficient depths of spiritual
understanding to make such a judgment regarding much of Steiner's work.
Everyone understands that Steiner has claimed the highest knowledge.
That dogmatic anthroposophists accept this without questioning it is
very sad, but not relevant to whether Steiner reported the truth. Many
anthroposophists hold these "indications" of Steiner in much the same
way a good scientist holds the current theory in his/her field - at a
distance. It becomes then, depending on the specific discipline in
which the practioner works, the main theory. This is basically true for
non-dogmatic doctors, teachers, farmers and so forth, who follow in the
paths pioneered by Steiner.
If you actually read their work, it is clear that Steiner inspired
them, but they have made the field their own. What is remarkable is the
frequency in which workers in specific areas confirm Steiner's
indications. I will give a couple examples:
Sometimes on this list we come to a discussion of the "threefold man",
with the metabolic, rhythmic, and nerve-sense systems. This biological
idea has been attacked as so much psuedo-science. Those who want to
bother, need to read Wolfgang Schad's Man and Mammals. Here is an
individual, inspired by Steiner, and by the underlying methological
elelements of Goethean Science, who has become a master of the factual
material underlying mammalian form. He has done the work.
One of the things which Steiner pointed to on many occasions, was the
discipline of projective or synthetic geometry. He describes the
thinking which can arise from the study of this mathematics as essential
to coming to an experience of the ethereal formative forces - forces not
yet recognized by mainstream science.
This geometry had been (until the latter part of this century)
unavailable to the ordinary person because of its symbolic and algebraic
formulation. However, individuals inspired by the indications of
Steiner have made the understanding of this remarkable geometry
available to the non-mathematician. I recommend Olive Whicher's
Projective Geometry: Creative Polarities in Time and Space. Whoever
studies this book, which uses drawing and human imagination to convey
its understanding, will find remarkable benefits arising inwardly in the
thinking through learning to consciously "morph" forms, one into the
other, following the laws of this geometry. Then on the basis of a new
capacity in the life of thought, advances can be made in many fields,
because the underlying inward discipline has changed.
The Olympic athlete understands the need to discipline the body (and
the mind) in order to achieve what is desired. There is a similar
demand on those who would investigate the spiritual in a scientific
fashion. Do the work!]
)
) Per, if you have examples of teachings of Steiner that are generally
) considered, by modern anthroposophists, to be incorrect, that would go a
) long way toward convincing me that anthroposophists are free thinkers. As
) it looks to me right now, Steiner's writings, as a practical matter, are
) treated as scripture by anthroposophists.
[As I said, you need to meet some more anthroposophists, and to think
carefully about the problem you are posing. Most of the discussion and
replication involves the lower levels of spiritual development. The
ABC's. You can start there yourself. Test the basic stuff first.
That's were non-dogmatic anthroposophists start and that is where they
universally confirm Steiner's work.
As to higher levels - it has been claimed (on the list archives and in
an essay on the PLANS page) that no one has achieved this level, and
therefore no one has confirmed Steiner at this level.
Here again is a matter not on the public face of the Anthroposophical
Society.
There was an individual named Valentin Tomberg (1900-73), who many
believe "replicated" Steiner's work to the highest levels. He emerged
within the Anthroposophical Society following Steiner's death in 1925,
and was the center of a "fight" (by others - not himself) over whether
he was an "initiate", in the same sense as Steiner's followers
considered Steiner.
Tomberg left the Society in 1938, and in 1945 became a Roman Catholic.
I add this information to suggest that these matters involve subtleties
and a certain degree of effort will be required in order to be
understood. The individual who wants to form superficial judgments will
only know his/her own prejudices.
Tomberg wrote "anthroposophical" works on the Old Testament, the New
Testement, St John's Appocalypse, The Return of the Etheric Christ,
Inner Development, and many essays on deep spiritual matters. In
Tomberg's private letters he describes his path to spiritual knowledge
as being completely based on reproducing in himself (Tomberg) Steiner's
path of cognition.
Some information on the controvery surrounding Tomberg can be found on
the Web at: http://www.vermontel.com/~vtsophia
You have to go through the index page to the contents to the links to
other info to find the material (partial) on the controvery surrounding
Tomberg.
Clearly, following Steiner's death, few of his followers were willing
to accept another as possibly having the same stature. This problem of
the "followers" and their "worship" of the "guru" is discussed in an
essay on the Web: "Work on What Has Been Spoiled" at:
http://members.aol.com/kitmac/workon.htm]
)
) This view, of anthroposophy as a religion, is also supported by the fact
) that Steiner claimed to have received his knowledge through clairvoyance,
) and no one since Steiner has claimed to have reached the same level of
) spiritual perception.
[See immediatly above regarding Valentin Tomberg.]
Therefore, his teachings have the same kind of
) authority as those of prophets who claim to have received their knowledge
) directly from God. Until someone else reaches the same spiritual level as
) Steiner, how can they effectively challenge anything he wrote?
[As I tried to indicate, the problem is not one of challenging
anything, or, unless one wants to be dogmatic, submitting to authority.
One simply does the work, starting from the beginning, and sees if what
Steiner has indicated is true. Those who actually do this, are
confirming his indications. There are subtle questions being asked and
which have been asked. Content vs. method was one. There are others
that can be found. Certainly Steiner's behavior as a teacher - how he
conducted himself in human relationships has and is being examined.
This is a different matter from his spiritual research, which is more
difficult to investigate at the upper levels, but AGAIN, one doesn't
start there. The Society, Waldorf education, etc. - all these modern,
world involved, anthroposophically oriented, formal structures are under
constant pressure to be reevalutated. But these take their nature from
those human beings who are now responsible for them, and the most
frequent complaint, of those anthroposophists who critisize these
structures, is their failure to embody the fundamental method, the inner
discipline.
It is for this reason that I have, since I began to participate in this
list, sided with many of the "critics" views on Waldorf. The dogmatic
face that is far to often presented to the world is not anthroposophy.
It is its shadow.
joel wendt
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n681.7 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Re: PLANSucks
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 10:55:29 +1300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199803051933.LAA20149 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199803052006.MAA04719 lists1.best.com)
Deby wrote:
)))Oh man,
)))
)))what a bullshit that you're offering here.
)))
)))
)))I was searching "Rudolf Steiner" and "social", and what does Exceed reveal?
)))This homepage of yours.
)))
)))
)))Anyway, the wolves are howling, but the caravan walks on.
)))
)))hpr
)
)I just love America. Folks can freely say anything they want. Is Exceed a
)search engine?
)Deby
KOPP says:
His email address (assuming it's not falsified) indicates he's in Austria.
Actually, America is less and less free in many ways, and speech is the
thin end of the wedge of creeping fascism worldwide (including my present
country, New Zealand, whose government is trying to pass a "code of social
responsibility" for citizens, and which has one of the most draconian
censorship laws (including the Internet) anywhere in the world.
Anyone interested in Internet culture and politics could start with the
Electronic Frontiers Foundation (EFF), at http://www.eff.org/
Those particularly interested in free speech issues could check out the
Fight Censorship mailing list, at http://www.eff.org/~declan/fc
We cannot rest anywhere in the world; censorship is on the increase everywhere.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n681 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n682 --------------
001 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Free judgment
002 - Brian Berns (Berns rdacon - RE: Free judgment
003 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: Free judgment
004 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: Free judgment
005 - per.hallstrom mbox3.swipn - Re: Free judgment
006 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Free judgment
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n682.1 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Free judgment
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 16:31:41 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199803052130.NAA12780 lists1.best.com)
Joel,
Thanks for the interesting and thoughtful response.
) Steve Premo wrote:
) ) It appears to me that anthroposophy is limited to those whose experience,
) ) thinking, and free personal judgment lead them to the conclusion that
) ) Steiner was basically correct in his view of the spiritual world.
)
) [As I have tried to explain before, Steiner's "teachings" are not
) anthroposophy, even though many of those who call themselves
) "anthroposophists" behave as if anthroposophy is these "teachings".
If we accept this premise, most of the rest of what you say follows
logically. But the context of this list is Waldorf education, and
anthroposophy as it forms the basis of the pedagogy of Waldorf education.
Now, a pedagogy, as I understand the term, is an approach to education.
The Waldorf pedagogy does not include teaching the anthroposophical
method to the students; rather, it is an approach to teaching which is
based on a set of concepts. When I talk about anthroposophy in this
sense, I am referring to the concepts on which Waldorf education is
based, and the related concepts which were propounded by Steiner as part
of his view of the spiritual world. I am not referring to the method by
which Steiner purportedly discovered them.
Maybe that is not a proper use of the term "anthroposophy," but I believe
that it is what is meant when the school literature states that Waldorf
education is based on anthroposophy.
Steve Premo ----------- http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
-----
"It's a messed up world but I love it anyway, I love it."
--Greg Brown
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n682.2 ---------------
From: Brian Berns (Berns rdaconsultants.com)
Subject: RE: Free judgment
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 20:53:33 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Joel wrote:
) ) As I have tried to explain before, Steiner's "teachings" are not
) ) anthroposophy, even though many of those who call themselves
) ) "anthroposophists" behave as if anthroposophy is these "teachings".
)
Do the teachings have a name at all, or are they actually unimportant?
) anthroposophy being a method - a way of developing the human
) thinking faculty
What happens if a human employing these methods comes to conclusions
that differ from Steiner's? Who decides the "truth", and how?
-- Brian
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n682.3 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: Free judgment
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 21:42:40 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199803060035.QAA09642 lists1.best.com)
Steve,
You make an excellant point below, to which I would like to respond in
the spirit of my previous post.
When a Waldorf School says it is based on anthroposophy, it would be
hard to understand in all instances that each school which says such a
thing probably does not mean exactly the same thing.
Let me expand upon this. In my previous post I made the observation
that there is method and content, and that some concentrate on the
former, and some on the latter. Your post helps me to see that I would
be closer to the truth to suggest a spectrum, with emphasis on content
to one side and emphasis on method to the other.
Individuals who follow the path laid out by Steiner will orient
themselves on this spectrum in various places. There are masters of
content and masters of method and many who combine both in quite
individual ways. So when one meets an anthroposophist, or to follow the
example relevant to this list, when one meets a Waldorf teacher, you
will be with an individual mixture of method and content - each one is
their own cook, so to speak. Each one combines in their individual way
those practices that result from their personal insight, the use of
Steiner pedagogy in dogmatic and non-dogmatic ways, individual
experiences confirming something tried on the basis of Steiners
indications, and so forth.
I hope what I am trying to convey is clear. I think all of us have
matters we know for fact, and matters we assume from faith (even if it
is just trust that someone feels a certain way about us). A Waldorf
teacher will be a mixture of these things, and within any school each
teacher will be different. The novice may rely more upon remembered
content, the master teacher more on experience and confirmed individual
insight.
It would be disingenuous of me to suggest that when parents and others
not familiar with anthroposophy encounter Waldorf that they have some
burden to understand such matters as I have outlined them above. I
think, rather, that the shoe is on the other foot, so to speak. It is
the Waldorf teachers and administrators that should recognize the need
of the parent and interested observer for understanding and appreciation
of what they bring.
For example, Dan's experience at the SF Waldorf School didn't have to
take the course it did. It might have, even if those he interacted with
were more skilled, but it might not have. By skill, by the way, I am
not suggesting some kind of hiding of things, but rather an appreciation
of the rightness of Dan's questions, and the fact that the School could
have viewed having such a personality within its parent body was an
impetus for growth, rather then a cause for circling the wagons and
turning him away. Alas, that is not the course things have taken.
A more precise use of language might be to say that there is such a
thing as anthroposophical pedagogy, meaning by that an understanding of
childhood development based upon a certain method of research. The
practice of this pedagogy by the teachers is as I have described above,
however, with much done on faith in the beginning, and then hopefully,
later, with deep experience and understanding.
Certainly Waldorf is, to some degree, in a state of crises in many
places, because so many individuals have approached it in the dogmatic
way. Again, I am grateful for the Dan Duggans of the world, who refuse
to be dismissed, and whose honest opposition may (emphasis on the may)
have the salutory effect of bringing a kind of purifying renewal, both
to Waldorf and to the anthroposophical movement as well.
This does not mean that Dan is correct in many of his judgements about
Waldorf and anthroposophy, but his opposition is certainly a gift that
should be appreciated for the degree to which it causes anthroposophists
to raise the level of their own understanding, and, as well, the level
of their appreciation of the views of non-anthroposophists. For me, the
critics list has been (and is) an important experience.
joel wendt
Steve Premo wrote:
)
) Joel,
)
) Thanks for the interesting and thoughtful response.
)
) ) Steve Premo wrote:
) ) ) It appears to me that anthroposophy is limited to those whose experience,
) ) ) thinking, and free personal judgment lead them to the conclusion that
) ) ) Steiner was basically correct in his view of the spiritual world.
) )
) ) [As I have tried to explain before, Steiner's "teachings" are not
) ) anthroposophy, even though many of those who call themselves
) ) "anthroposophists" behave as if anthroposophy is these "teachings".
)
) If we accept this premise, most of the rest of what you say follows
) logically. But the context of this list is Waldorf education, and
) anthroposophy as it forms the basis of the pedagogy of Waldorf education.
)
) Now, a pedagogy, as I understand the term, is an approach to education.
) The Waldorf pedagogy does not include teaching the anthroposophical
) method to the students; rather, it is an approach to teaching which is
) based on a set of concepts. When I talk about anthroposophy in this
) sense, I am referring to the concepts on which Waldorf education is
) based, and the related concepts which were propounded by Steiner as part
) of his view of the spiritual world. I am not referring to the method by
) which Steiner purportedly discovered them.
)
) Maybe that is not a proper use of the term "anthroposophy," but I believe
) that it is what is meant when the school literature states that Waldorf
) education is based on anthroposophy.
)
) Steve Premo ----------- http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
) -----
) "It's a messed up world but I love it anyway, I love it."
) --Greg Brown
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n682.4 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: Free judgment
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 22:19:17 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199803060154.RAA18959 lists1.best.com)
Brian,
Thank you for your questions. I have inserted what answers I am
capable of giving below in [brackets].
joel wendt
Brian Berns wrote:
)
) Joel wrote:
)
) ) ) As I have tried to explain before, Steiner's "teachings" are not
) ) ) anthroposophy, even though many of those who call themselves
) ) ) "anthroposophists" behave as if anthroposophy is these "teachings".
) )
) Do the teachings have a name at all, or are they actually unimportant?
[Steiner gave thousands of lectures and wrote many books. Some books
and lectures are specificially related to inner development (method) and
others more directed to the content that can arise from such a process
of spiritual research. There are different ways in which the material,
which is content, can be useful, i.e. important.
However, most of these ways involve taking a step toward such ideas as
if they were the truth, that is to "try them on" so to speak, in good
faith. Steiner has been quoted in the archives about this and accused of
"guru tricks", because he is suggesting that as one explores the
"importance" of his researches it helps to do that in a sympathetic
manner.
Again, as I said in the initial post on this to which you refer, the
exploration of inner life is not like an experiment in a chemistry
laboratory. It is very intimate and personal. For example, Steiner
wrote quite a bit about the path the recently dead take, and in these
writings expressed certain ideas for the living, practical ideas about
ways to relate to the recent passing of one who was near to us in life.
To carry out such suggested activity could hardly be done with any
respect toward the recently dead, if done with the inner attitude of a
skeptic. It simply wouldn't work, it couldn't work. So the first steps
of those who engage in such suggested activities is to act on faith - to
act in such a way that is open and sympathetic, rather then with an
attitude of "prove it".
As mentioned in my response to Steve's response to my post, applying
this more directly to Waldorf, the pedagogy needs to be tried in order
to see if it works. To try half heartedly is senseless. Any task one
holds one's self back from will be done poorly.
Thus, in answer to your question, the content material, often called
"indications" by anthroposophists is a guide to many practical matters
in life. The non-dogmatic anthroposphist will test it with a good
heart, and if it doesn't work, discard it.
Now I have read that in some schools, where a teacher has had
difficulty with a certain "indication", it is expressed to such a
teacher that it must be some flaw of theirs, that they haven't tried
hard enough. This could be true of course, but it is certainly poor
training psychology, and not a practice I would expect Steiner to have
condoned. Anyone trying to come to tersm with anthroposophy, in
whatever practical application this discipline is applied, needs to find
their individual way to it. An administrator, or a master teacher, who
forces a novice to carry out a practice they are having trouble with, is
in error, in that they undercut the necessary freedom from which all
spiritual practice must proceed.
Yes, I know it has happened. But it does not always happen.]
)
) ) anthroposophy being a method - a way of developing the human
) ) thinking faculty
)
) What happens if a human employing these methods comes to conclusions
) that differ from Steiner's? Who decides the "truth", and how?
[You have made a hypothetical, assuming it is relevant. I am not
interested in hypotheticals having learned that nothing in life actually
happens in accord with them. The way to deal with this is personal.
You try the methods, in good faith. If you don't want to that's fine.
But don't presume the methods can be understood except in practice.]
)
) -- Brian
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n682.5 ---------------
From: per.hallstrom mbox3.swipnet.se (Per =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hallstr=F6m?= )
Subject: Re: Free judgment
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 00:01:51 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
At 15.08 98-03-04, Steve Premo wrote:
Snip
)I've been on this list for quite a while, and I have never heard Dan
)express loathing for Waldorf education. He has said that there are some
)things he admires about it, and some things he has opposed.
Dear mr Premo:
I=B4ve been on this list for quite a while too, and I have seen hardly any
trace of mr Dugans admiration for Waldorf education. Any comment from him
about something agreeable about WE is closely followed by an explanation
that it=B4s really not good at all - working with art is good, but not in th=
e
way WE does it - or it=B4s good but would have even better without WE - like
the presumably small classes.
You tell me a number of things that mr Dugan specifically opposes. I
consider his opposition to be a bit like don Quixote=B4s; he imagines big
"demons" and then opposes them.
Maybe this is due to the feelings he experienced in confrontations he had
with people at the Waldorf school. I sympathise deeply, but it doesn=B4t mak=
e
the opposition more sciencentific.
Anyway I would like to comment on these "demons".
)
)1. The teaching of anthroposophical doctrine as science or history (e.g.,
)teaching about Atlantis, teaching that the heart does not pump blood, and
)so on);
To teach any historic or scientific theory _as a fact_ is teaching
doctrine, unless you somehow can prove it by experiment or make it
believable and trustworthy by reference to your sources.
This must be hard in the case of "Atlantis the lost continent". And I, and
the other waldorf teachers I know in Scandinavia, do not teach about
Atlantis as a fact. Sometimes it we may refer to it as an old legend though
(mentioned by Plato among others).
In the case of the heart we teach as a fact that blood moves in the veins
of the fetus even before the heart is formed and can start its rhythmical
regulation of the bloodstream. We then point out the resemblance between
the heart and a pump, but we don=B4t say: "the heart is a pump, it=B4s main
function is to make the blood move through the body". That would be too
much of a doctrine.
)2. The tendency to couch explanations of the pedagogy in ways that
)obscure the very specific spiritual concepts underlying the pedagogy, so
)as to give the impression that the school is "spiritual" in the general
)sense of honouring the spirit of the child, rather than in the specific
)sense of being based on Steiner's concepts of reincarnation, karma, etc.;
Parents should be told from the start that the Waldorf Teachers work out
from the following _assumptions_:
We all have had a life before birth in another dimension of existence.
Significant work, with bearing on education in our world, was done in that
dimension and is still being done here and now, by higher spiritual beings.
Therefore it is beneficiary for the process of education to take this into
consideration when developing the art of WE.
Now these are assumptions, not dogmas. In that way they are more comparable
to Darwinism than to any doctrinous religion.
AND, in my opinion, these assumptions are more congruous with the idea
that: "the school is "spiritual" in the general sense of honouring the
spirit of the child" than the assumptions that:
1. the spirit of the child does not exist before birth (or conception) and
its functions: thoughts, feelings, experiences are essentially byproducts
of chemical processes in the physical body.
or
2. Its fruitless and of no consequence what you think about these issues
because the answers are beyond modern science. It=B4s also rather improbable
that science in future will come up with something revolutionary new
because the knowledge we have reached in our _modern_ science explains so
much and is so very balanced and coherent.
And therefore N:o 1 is the most likely answer.
)
)3. The specific teachings of Steiner with regard to race; and
Steiner sometimes said silly things about races to say the least, that=B4s m=
y
opinion and so say many - but not all - of the people i know who think of
them selves as Anthroposophists.
The main things he said about races though was that they would be of no
consequence in the future, and that the individual would count more than
race, ethnic belonging and so forth.
In the context of his historic and geographic situation this latter
statement was the more unaccustomed one.
Steiner was accountable for what he said. I=B4m accountable for what I say.
There is no doctrine.
)4. The use of public funds to support Waldorf schools in the United
)States.
As I=B4ve stated before: Anthroposophy and WE are more comparable to
Darwinism than to any doctrinous religion.
)
)) As a presumably scientific statement about the Waldorf movement it is
)) void of substance. On the contrary, Waldorf pedagogy is based on
)) anthroposophy which in its turn is based on experience, thinking and free
)) personal judgment.
))
)) A movement, that is based on faith in a fixed body of scripture, can
)) therefore not be a Waldorf movement.
)
)It appears to me that anthroposophy is limited to those whose experience,
)thinking, and free personal judgment lead them to the conclusion that
)Steiner was basically correct in his view of the spiritual world.
)One is free to come to the contrary conclusion, but those who do are not
)anthroposophists. The same is true of religions based on scripture.
"One is free to come to the contrary conclusion" Yes! (It=B4s a free country
both here and were you live.) But this goes for all sciences too. If you
come to the contrary conclusion of Aristotle, Kepler, Newton, Goethe, or
Skinner you are not an Aristotelian, etc, etc or behaviourist (Skinnerist).
Religions however, often are based on belief and scripture, not on experienc=
e,
thinking, and free personal judgment.
)
)Now, I suppose Anthroposophists can believe that Steiner was basically
)correct, but disagree with him on many details and specifics. However,
)I've heard several calls on this list for supporters of anthroposophy
)to give examples of folks who have reached different conclusions and
)publicly stated that they believe Steiner to have been wrong about
)something. I don't recall seeing such examples. And as far as I know, no
)one has ever disagreed with Steiner on any subject and convinced a
)substantial number of anthroposophists that Steiner was mistaken.
)
)Per, if you have examples of teachings of Steiner that are generally
)considered, by modern anthroposophists, to be incorrect, that would go a
)long way toward convincing me that anthroposophists are free thinkers. As
)it looks to me right now, Steiner's writings, as a practical matter, are
)treated as scripture by anthroposophists.
)
HMM... anthroposophists are free thinkers - otherwise they are not
anthroposophists.
If someone, as a practical matter, treats Steiner's writings as scripture
this person is a much worse threat to anthroposophy than anyone who
fiercely criticises anthroposophy.
I have stated that Steiner has said things with which i disagree (see above
at the top). Most of what Steiner said I have not read, most of what I have
read I find very interesting, some of it I consider to be true after trying
it out in practice or comparing it to my own experiences and previous
knowledge, some I don not understand and some I find inappropriate,
incorrect or mistaken. Though I must admit there are not many things which
I consider to be erroneous, I don=B4t think this makes me an unfree thinker =
-
I mean he could be right about a lot of things couldn=B4t he? Well anyway I
don=B4t concern myself primarily with peoples flaws but with their
ingenuousness.
Still, there is one thing that Steiner says that could be taken as
anthroposophic scripture namely: "Never should anyone say that something is
true just because I said so" or " The foundation must be to try it out, not
to take it on by faith"
)This view, of anthroposophy as a religion, is also supported by the fact
)that Steiner claimed to have received his knowledge through clairvoyance,
)and no one since Steiner has claimed to have reached the same level of
)spiritual perception. Therefore, his teachings have the same kind of
)authority as those of prophets who claim to have received their knowledge
)directly from God. Until someone else reaches the same spiritual level as
)Steiner, how can they effectively challenge anything he wrote?
=46irst of all: there are people who claim to have reached very high levels
of spiritual perception, some not as high, some maybe higher than Steiner.
But maybe more interesting is the fact that there are people who have
reached high levels of spiritual perception but don=B4t want to speak of it
because it can cause so much misunderstanding and it=B4s not necessary for
there work.
Steiner encouraged everyone to challenge everything he wrote and said, and
he meant that everyone could do this with just normal reasoning and an open
mind. That=B4s one main reason why anthroposophy is no religion.
I willingly admit though, that this is not clearly stated by all fans of
anthroposophy.
May the long-time-sun shine upon you
all love surround you
and the pure light within you
guide you all the way on
-The Incredible String Band-
Per Hallstr=F6m
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n682.6 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Free judgment
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 16:42:42 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: (199803062259.OAA23235 lists1.best.com)
On 7 Mar 98 , Per Hallstr=F6m wrote:
) )1. The teaching of anthroposophical doctrine as science or history (e.=
g.,
) )teaching about Atlantis, teaching that the heart does not pump blood, a=
nd
) )so on);
)
) To teach any historic or scientific theory _as a fact_ is teaching
) doctrine, unless you somehow can prove it by experiment or make it
) believable and trustworthy by reference to your sources.
Certainly. I'm also aware that anthroposophical theory is not supposed to=
be taught at all in Waldorf schools, even as theory. I believe those who
say they have seen such things taught, but there is no telling how common
it is.
) )2. The tendency to couch explanations of the pedagogy in ways that
) )obscure the very specific spiritual concepts underlying the pedagogy, s=
o
) )as to give the impression that the school is "spiritual" in the general
) )sense of honouring the spirit of the child, rather than in the specific
) )sense of being based on Steiner's concepts of reincarnation, karma, etc=
.;
)
) Parents should be told from the start that the Waldorf Teachers work out
) from the following _assumptions_: We all have had a life before birth in
) another dimension of existence. Significant work, with bearing on
) education in our world, was done in that dimension and is still being
) done here and now, by higher spiritual beings. Therefore it is
) beneficiary for the process of education to take this into consideration
) when developing the art of WE.
Excellent! I wish that all schools told parents about the role of higher
spiritual beings in Waldorf pedagogy. I was rather surprised to learn
about that stuff myself, and I have the impression that most parents at
our school think, for example, that the etheric body is nothing more than
a metaphor for a stage of child development.
) AND, in my opinion, these assumptions are more congruous with the idea
) that: "the school is "spiritual" in the general sense of honouring the
) spirit of the child" than the assumptions that:
)
) 1. the spirit of the child does not exist before birth (or conception)
) and its functions: thoughts, feelings, experiences are essentially
) byproducts of chemical processes in the physical body.
)
) or
)
) 2. Its fruitless and of no consequence what you think about these issues
) because the answers are beyond modern science. It's also rather
) improbable that science in future will come up with something
) revolutionary new because the knowledge we have reached in our _modern_
) science explains so much and is so very balanced and coherent. And
) therefore N:o 1 is the most likely answer.
I agree. No parent who sends a child to a school which states it has a
strong spiritual foundation should think that the school will be based on
those assumptions.
) )) A movement, that is based on faith in a fixed body of scripture, can
) )) therefore not be a Waldorf movement.
) )
) )It appears to me that anthroposophy is limited to those whose experienc=
e,
) )thinking, and free personal judgment lead them to the conclusion that
) )Steiner was basically correct in his view of the spiritual world.
) )One is free to come to the contrary conclusion, but those who do are no=
t
) )anthroposophists. The same is true of religions based on scripture.
)
) "One is free to come to the contrary conclusion" Yes! (It's a free
) country both here and were you live.) But this goes for all sciences too=
.
) If you come to the contrary conclusion of Aristotle, Kepler, Newton,
) Goethe, or Skinner you are not an Aristotelian, etc, etc or behaviourist
) (Skinnerist).
True, but one can come to a contrary conclusion from Skinner and still be
a psychologist. Behaviorism is not a science; it is a movement
within the science of psychology. Is anthroposophy a discipline
unto itself, or a movement within some other discipline, such as
philosophy?
If it is a philosophical or religious movement, there's not much point in
quibbling over whether it is essentially philosophical or religious,
except to the extent that this is relevant to American constitutional law.=
) )This view, of anthroposophy as a religion, is also supported by the fac=
t
) )that Steiner claimed to have received his knowledge through clairvoyanc=
e,
) )and no one since Steiner has claimed to have reached the same level of
) )spiritual perception. Therefore, his teachings have the same kind of
) )authority as those of prophets who claim to have received their knowled=
ge
) )directly from God. Until someone else reaches the same spiritual level=
as
) )Steiner, how can they effectively challenge anything he wrote?
)
) First of all: there are people who claim to have reached very high
) levels of spiritual perception, some not as high, some maybe higher than
) Steiner.
Very interesting. I did not know that until you and Joel pointed it out.
) Steiner encouraged everyone to challenge everything he wrote and said,
) and he meant that everyone could do this with just normal reasoning and
) an open mind.
Sounds good to me.
(off-topic)
) May the long-time-sun shine upon you
) all love surround you
) and the pure light within you
) guide you all the way on
)
) -The Incredible String Band-
Thanks for putting that song into my head this afternoon! I have that
old Incredible String Band album, and I love that little song.
I have more recently heard the quote in another context. I can't
recall where, but it predated the Incredible String Band. They found the
quote and worked it into their song. Does anyone know the origin of this?
Speaking of English folk-rock, I'll be seeing Fairport Convention on March=
19 in Santa Cruz. They don't come to California much, and I'm *really*
looking forward to it.
(/off-topic)
Steve Premo ----------- http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
-----
"It's a messed up world but I love it anyway, I love it."
--Greg Brown
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n682 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n683 --------------
001 - Daniel Sabsay (danielsabs - Re: Free judgment
002 - per.hallstrom mbox3.swipn - Re: Free judgment
003 - per.hallstrom mbox3.swipn - Re: Free judgment
004 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: Free judgment
005 - Daniel Sabsay (danielsabs - Re: Free judgment
006 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: Free judgment
007 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Re: Free judgment
008 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Re: Free judgment
009 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Re: Free judgment
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n683.1 ---------------
From: Daniel Sabsay (danielsabsay earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Free judgment
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 98 22:23:40 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Per Hallstr=F6m (per.hallstrom mbox3.swipnet.se) wrote )
)In the case of the heart we teach as a fact that blood moves in the veins
)of the fetus even before the heart is formed and can start its rhythmical
)regulation of the bloodstream. We then point out the resemblance between
)the heart and a pump, but we don=B4t say: "the heart is a pump, it=B4s =
main
)function is to make the blood move through the body". That would be too
)much of a doctrine.
I don't understand why you think it would be too much of a doctrine =
to say that the heart is a pump, or that the heart has as it's main =
function moving blood through the body. This is as much of a fact as =
anything else you can observe about the body. Only followers of =
Rudolph Steiner have any trouble with this issue. Talk about =
doctrine! This is one of the many cases where Rudy was simply =
mistaken.
)Steiner sometimes said silly things about races to say the least, =
that=B4s my
)opinion and so say many - but not all - of the people i know who think of
)them selves as Anthroposophists.
Why can't YOU admit that Steiner also said some silly things about =
science, too.
)Steiner was accountable for what he said. I=B4m accountable for what I =
say.
)There is no doctrine.
I find these two sentences to be without meaning.
)As I=B4ve stated before: Anthroposophy and WE are more comparable to
)Darwinism than to any doctrinous religion.
This is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. I think it is =
objectively false.
)But this goes for all sciences too. If you
)come to the contrary conclusion of Aristotle, Kepler, Newton, Goethe, or
)Skinner you are not an Aristotelian, etc, etc or behaviourist =
(Skinnerist).
Or a flat-earther, or an Anthroposophist. Nevertheless, we don't =
teach discredited knowledge in our public school system. This =
includes the mistaken notion that "the heart is not a pump".
-- Daniel Sabsay, president
East Bay Skeptics Society
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n683.2 ---------------
From: per.hallstrom mbox3.swipnet.se (Per =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hallstr=F6m?= )
Subject: Re: Free judgment
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 13:50:32 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
At 22.23 98-03-06, Daniel Sabsay wrote:
)Per Hallstr=F6m (per.hallstrom mbox3.swipnet.se) wrote )
)
))In the case of the heart we teach as a fact that blood moves in the veins
))of the fetus even before the heart is formed and can start its rhythmical
))regulation of the bloodstream. We then point out the resemblance between
))the heart and a pump, but we don=B4t say: "the heart is a pump, it=B4s mai=
n
))function is to make the blood move through the body". That would be too
))much of a doctrine.
)
)I don't understand why you think it would be too much of a doctrine to say
)that the heart is a pump, or that the heart has as it's main function
)moving blood through the body. This is as much of a fact as anything else
)you can observe about the body. Only followers of Rudolph Steiner have
)any trouble with this issue. Talk about doctrine! This is one of the
)many cases where Rudy was simply mistaken.
No,no, mr Sabsay, doctrine is when you are very sure that you are right
about something and reject anyone who says otherwise as being mistaken.
Doctrine is not when you try to see things from different (new) points of
view and state that something is true but not the hole truth.
If someone calls you heartless they don=B4t usually imply that your blood
doesn=B4t move in your body. What they imply refers to another function of
the heart which maybe is more of a main function than what you call
pumping.
))Steiner sometimes said silly things about races to say the least, that=B4s=
my
))opinion and so say many - but not all - of the people i know who think of
))them selves as Anthroposophists.
)
)Why can't YOU admit that Steiner also said some silly things about
)science, too.
Because have not encountered them yet.
))Steiner was accountable for what he said. I=B4m accountable for what I say=
.
))There is no doctrine.
)
)I find these two sentences to be without meaning.
To me they are three sentences, but all the same, to me they mean that I
don=B4t stand for, i=B4m not responsible for what Steiner said (or wrote). I=
=B4m
an anthroposophist because I find it a fruitful way of understanding the
world and my self, and therefore I a try to be a representative for
anthroposophy.
))As I=B4ve stated before: Anthroposophy and WE are more comparable to
))Darwinism than to any doctrinous religion.
)
)This is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. I think it is
)objectively false.
So,so, objectively is it now.
))But this goes for all sciences too. If you
))come to the contrary conclusion of Aristotle, Kepler, Newton, Goethe, or
))Skinner you are not an Aristotelian, etc, etc or behaviourist (Skinnerist)=
.
)
)Or a flat-earther, or an Anthroposophist. Nevertheless, we don't teach
)discredited knowledge in our public school system. This includes the
)mistaken notion that "the heart is not a pump".
Discredited, mistaken notion ....well, well...I think one has to be careful
with these statements. They have historically been used often by the
prevailing knowledge-establishment and very often been proven as just so
_much mistaken notion_ by later knowledge-establishments.
Per Hallstr=F6m
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n683.3 ---------------
From: per.hallstrom mbox3.swipnet.se (Per =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hallstr=F6m?= )
Subject: Re: Free judgment
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 13:50:36 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
At 16.43 98-03-06, Steve Premo wrote:
)On 7 Mar 98 , Per Hallstr=F6m wrote:
Dear mr Premo
Thank you for you post and its constructiveness.
)) "One is free to come to the contrary conclusion" Yes! (It's a free
)) country both here and were you live.) But this goes for all sciences too.
)) If you come to the contrary conclusion of Aristotle, Kepler, Newton,
)) Goethe, or Skinner you are not an Aristotelian, etc, etc or behaviourist
)) (Skinnerist).
)
)True, but one can come to a contrary conclusion from Skinner and still be
)a psychologist. Behaviorism is not a science; it is a movement
)within the science of psychology. Is anthroposophy a discipline
)unto itself, or a movement within some other discipline, such as
)philosophy?
)
)If it is a philosophical or religious movement, there's not much point in
)quibbling over whether it is essentially philosophical or religious,
)except to the extent that this is relevant to American constitutional law.
Anthroposophy is a research method in the field of general Human concerns
and relations. There are other methods in this field. Anthroposophy, as a
method, has a modern, scientific non-authoritarian approach.
(off-topic)
I would also like to know the origin the song i question.
BTW do you remember "the Minotaur song" I really liked that text.
(/off-topic)
All the best
Per Hallstr=F6m
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n683.4 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: Free judgment
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 1998 09:55:58 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (199803070623.WAA04024 lists1.best.com)
Daniel,
I'd like to make a general comment on your remarks to Per Hallstrom
below.
As I stated in my long post to Steve Premo, to my experience
"anthroposophy" is about developing a new kind of cognition. In a
dialogue between two individuals, one of whom has done some work in this
direction, and one of whom has not, there will be problems of agreement
much in the same way people speaking different languages find a
difficulty finding common ground.
To approach the situation as if one was right and one was wrong would
be to seriously confuse what is actually happening. This means, in the
context of your comments below, that you are correct that Steiner is
wrong, because "how" you think about the questions, and what you mean by
the words, and what the context of your experience is, is not congruent
with how Steiner thinks, what he means, and what the totality of his
experience is (also Per H.). From my understanding, the apparent
disagreement is quite expectable - there is no reason it should be
otherwise.
It would be nice (but certainly not necessary) were you to understand
this.
joel wendt
p.s. By the way, I am not suggesting this different mode of cognition is
objectively better, or that someone who does not have it or has no
interest in seeking it, has something "wrong" with them. The thread of
this post is after all "free judgment". I do think, however, that if
both sides (anthroposophists and skeptics - a sad overgeneralization,
but unavoidable) would understand that what is going on is the
intersection of two different "cultures" of consciousness, with neither
"side" being any less human, or moral, or truth seeking, then, perhaps,
the dialogues could be less acrimonious and take rather a form of mutual
interest and appreciation for the great variety of ways of being human,
and living on the Earth.
Daniel Sabsay wrote:
)
) Per Hallstr–m (per.hallstrom mbox3.swipnet.se) wrote )
)
) )In the case of the heart we teach as a fact that blood moves in the veins
) )of the fetus even before the heart is formed and can start its rhythmical
) )regulation of the bloodstream. We then point out the resemblance between
) )the heart and a pump, but we donĄt say: "the heart is a pump, itĄs main
) )function is to make the blood move through the body". That would be too
) )much of a doctrine.
)
) I don't understand why you think it would be too much of a doctrine to say that the heart is a pump, or that the heart has as it's main function moving blood through the body. This is as much of a fact as anything else you can observe about the body. Only followers of Rudolph Steiner have any trouble with this issue. Talk about doctrine! This is one of the many cases where Rudy was simply mistaken.
)
) )Steiner sometimes said silly things about races to say the least, thatĄs my
) )opinion and so say many - but not all - of the people i know who think of
) )them selves as Anthroposophists.
)
) Why can't YOU admit that Steiner also said some silly things about science, too.
)
) )Steiner was accountable for what he said. IĄm accountable for what I say.
) )There is no doctrine.
)
) I find these two sentences to be without meaning.
)
) )As IĄve stated before: Anthroposophy and WE are more comparable to
) )Darwinism than to any doctrinous religion.
)
) This is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. I think it is objectively false.
)
) )But this goes for all sciences too. If you
) )come to the contrary conclusion of Aristotle, Kepler, Newton, Goethe, or
) )Skinner you are not an Aristotelian, etc, etc or behaviourist (Skinnerist).
)
) Or a flat-earther, or an Anthroposophist. Nevertheless, we don't teach discredited knowledge in our public school system. This includes the mistaken notion that "the heart is not a pump".
)
) -- Daniel Sabsay, president
) East Bay Skeptics Society
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n683.5 ---------------
From: Daniel Sabsay (danielsabsay earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Free judgment
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 98 12:45:56 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
So, Per Hallstr=F6m & Joel Wendt:
When people say Jesus Christ is their savior, and it makes them =
better (happier?) people, are they talking about "spiritual science"? =
Why haven't they discovered that "the heart is not a pump"?
Do you think that others who practice the "spiritual science" of =
anthroposophy would have discovered that "the heart is not a pump" if =
St. Rudy hadn't written it in the scriptures? If so, what other =
"facts" of science have the followers of anthroposophy found. What =
"facts" of science discovered by St. Rudy have the followers found to =
be wrong?
What about those very advanced ones who have decided to say nothing =
at all. We can only guess that they are not finding out any facts at =
all.
-- Daniel Sabsay, president
East Bay Skeptics Society
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n683.6 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: Free judgment
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 23:00:21 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: (199803080700.XAA17913 lists1.best.com)
Subject: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n683
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 1998 17:03:17 -0800
Daniel,
It is difficult to take your message below other than as apparently
intended to mock and to make sarcasm.
I would be glad to respond to something with some content, and some
respect, when you are in the mood for it.
with respect,
joel wendt
Daniel Sabsay wrote:
)
) So, Per Hallstr–m & Joel Wendt:
)
) When people say Jesus Christ is their savior, and it makes them better (happier?) people, are they talking about "spiritual science"? Why haven't they discovered that "the heart is not a pump"?
)
) Do you think that others who practice the "spiritual science" of anthroposophy would have discovered that "the heart is not a pump" if St. Rudy hadn't written it in the scriptures? If so, what other "facts" of science have the followers of anthroposophy found. What "facts" of science discovered by St. Rudy have the followers found to be wrong?
)
) What about those very advanced ones who have decided to say nothing at all. We can only guess that they are not finding out any facts at all.
)
) -- Daniel Sabsay, president
) East Bay Skeptics Society
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n683.7 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Re: Free judgment
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 15:02:17 +1300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199803071247.EAA20531 lists1.best.com)
Per Hallstrom and Dan Sabsay are arguing:
HALLSTROM:
)))But this goes for all sciences too. If you
)))come to the contrary conclusion of Aristotle, Kepler, Newton, Goethe, or
)))Skinner you are not an Aristotelian, etc, etc or behaviourist (Skinnerist).
SABSAY:
))Or a flat-earther, or an Anthroposophist. Nevertheless, we don't teach
))discredited knowledge in our public school system. This includes the
))mistaken notion that "the heart is not a pump".
HALLSTROM:
)Discredited, mistaken notion ....well, well...I think one has to be careful
)with these statements. They have historically been used often by the
)prevailing knowledge-establishment and very often been proven as just so
)_much mistaken notion_ by later knowledge-establishments.
KOPP says:
Hallstrom is acting like a patronising schoolmarm. He knows best, and will
instruct us. I puke.
Most of the knowledge Hallstrom is talking about is scientific knowledge,
and is the result of a modern scientific establishment's way of thinking
developed over the last 500 years. Within that "establishment" there is a
consistent method for progress, which is its genius over other systems,
such as religions, philosophies, cults and the pronouncements of various
self-appointed gurus.
If Hallstrom is saying that other "establishments" outside of science have
overturned scientific knowledge, he's talking pure, unadulterated, new-age,
mumbo-jumbo rubbish. Especially if he's talking about the weird and wacky
world of Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophical (SWA) cant.
In the case of the scientific "establishment", the statements of theory,
verified by experiment and evidence, which become scientific knowledge, and
taught as such, are invitations to others to produce better understandings.
Science works, as I have said many times, to no effect on the SWA
apologists on this list, by skepticism and seeking new answers. When those
new answers stand the rigorous test of scientific method and prove
themselves, they are accepted as advancements in our understanding, despite
the personal cost to the discoverers of the previously held view, which is
consigned to history.
Anthroposophy, the cult of Rudolf Steiner, tells people there is a body of
truth which they can find themselves by following a psychic method which
cannot be tested, replicated, conveyed by logic and reason, or proved
empirically.
It is therefore an act of faith by SWA people to believe any of the
esoteric "knowledge" such as that colour arises through the opposition of
dark and light etheric, spiritual forces, and is not an inherent property
of the electro- magnetic spectrum for which evolution has equipped us with
receivers to perceive, and which can be viewed as separate bands of
wavelengths by means of the spreading of a light beam by a prism.
If it is an act of faith to believe these things, then the method that
teaches how to arrive at these conclusions is a supernatural spiritualism.
Ergo SWA is a religious faith.
(Under the U.S. Constitution, religions have no business in U.S. state
education; the U.S. and its states have no business paying for religions to
provide education, no matter what type of system it is delivered in.)
I repeat again Dan Sabsay and Dan Dugan and my own and many other
_scientists'_ challenges to the SWA apologists:
1. Prove any one of your contentions by the scientific method, rather than
your "spiritual science" and Anthroposophy and I will agree with it.
I am satisfied with the scientific view of the world. Whatever I think
about my own "spirituality" is my business. Whatever I think and want to
transmit about that subject to my children is MY business, not that of a
school such as the so-called Waldorf or Waldorf-method or Waldorf-inspired
exercises in deception.
2. Show me any single piece of doctrine or dogma -- and that's what it is
-- from Rudolf Steiner, which has been repudiated or superseded by
subsequent Anthroposophical work of any kind (philosophical, spiritual
scientific, or divine guidance if you will).
Pursuant to No. 2, Hallstrom's shilly-shallying answer to the challenge of
repudiating Steiner's racism is instructive of SWA apologists' methods: if
you are caught out, and it is obvious that you are wrong, belittle the
import of the original claim. So, Steiner's racism is excused by Hallstrom
as "a bit of silliness". My ass. It is racism, a dangerous and demented
human failing that has cost humanity hugely, and isn't dead yet. Why does
not SWA simply repudiate Steiner, instead of excusing him?
As I said about three months ago when Joel Wendt joined this list: there
will never be a meeting of the minds of scientists and spiritualists like
SWA adherrents. It is impossible. So Wendt and Hallstrom et al will
continue to use up bandwidth maundering about philosophical minutiae and
grinding the mills ever finer in an attempt to instruct the skeptics, who
will, with time and enough repitition, come to agree with little bits of
Anthroposophy, losing sight of the purpose of this list, which is to
_criticise_ the irrationality and received wisdom of SWA and expose it for
what it is: meaningless babble.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n683.8 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Re: Free judgment
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 18:12:03 +1300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199803071247.EAA20560 lists1.best.com)
Per Hallstrom writes:
)Anthroposophy is a research method in the field of general Human concerns
)and relations. There are other methods in this field. Anthroposophy, as a
)method, has a modern, scientific non-authoritarian approach.
Wow! Life, the Universe and everything! Is there anything that
Anthroposophy _isn't_?
This kind of new-age, feel-good, anything goes bullshit is so pathetic an
excuse for a discipline that I imagine that the
Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophical mafia dons are tearing their hair out over
what people say in Steiner's/ Waldorf's/ Anthroposophy's name.
Everything in Hallstrom's explanation is so useless in terms of the
ordinary meaning of the English language that the whole statement is
meaningless. Which is typical of esoteric spiritualism.
like all good thought-control systems, Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy uses
words to mean whatever they want them to mean depending on the spur of the
moment. War is peace, etc.
Come on, Mr Hallstrom you'll have to do better than this tripe.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n683.9 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Re: Free judgment
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 18:41:12 +1300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199803070623.WAA04024 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199803071749.JAA05902 lists1.best.com)
Joel Wendt wrote:
)Daniel,
)
) I'd like to make a general comment on your remarks to Per Hallstrom
)below.
)
) As I stated in my long post to Steve Premo, to my experience
)"anthroposophy" is about developing a new kind of cognition.
KOPP says: Realy? I thought it saiys it is about attaining "knowlege of
higher worlds through spiritual exploraration". Doesn't sound like
cognition to me. Or is Mr Wendt trying to redefine perfectly good English
words and perfectly well understood psychological understanding of the
human brain, as well?
WENDT says:
) In a
)dialogue between two individuals, one of whom has done some work in this
)direction, and one of whom has not, there will be problems of agreement
)much in the same way people speaking different languages find a
)difficulty finding common ground.
)
) To approach the situation as if one was right and one was wrong would
)be to seriously confuse what is actually happening. This means, in the
)context of your comments below, that you are correct that Steiner is
)wrong, because "how" you think about the questions, and what you mean by
)the words, and what the context of your experience is, is not congruent
)with how Steiner thinks, what he means, and what the totality of his
)experience is (also Per H.). From my understanding, the apparent
)disagreement is quite expectable - there is no reason it should be
)otherwise.
)
) It would be nice (but certainly not necessary) were you to understand
)this.
)
)joel wendt
KOPP says:
There is no confusion in my mind: one is right and one is wrong, and this
is not a debate among equal bodies of knowledge that are possibly both
right.
This is one of the confusions of students "educated" in Steiner schools, in
my experience. They believe all things are possible, and the wildest claims
and bizarrenesses, and most irrational and esoteric of thought processes,
should be given the same respect until one decides which one to buy of the
supermarket shelf of ideas.
I decline to do so. I use the Western, rationalist, scientific method of
thought, and I do not believe there is a superior one, or one which can
even come close to explaining the world.
To say that supernatural spiritualism should be taken as an equally valid
method of coming to terms with our experience is to elevate it to a level
which it has never demonstrated any right to.
To repeat: Steiner/ Waldord/ Anthrophosophy has never produced one shred of
evidence to counter any scientific knowledge, nor one shred of credibility
in reasoning to make it an equal system.
WENDT says:
)p.s. By the way, I am not suggesting this different mode of cognition is
)objectively better, or that someone who does not have it or has no
)interest in seeking it, has something "wrong" with them. The thread of
)this post is after all "free judgment". I do think, however, that if
)both sides (anthroposophists and skeptics - a sad overgeneralization,
)but unavoidable) would understand that what is going on is the
)intersection of two different "cultures" of consciousness, with neither
)"side" being any less human, or moral, or truth seeking, then, perhaps,
)the dialogues could be less acrimonious and take rather a form of mutual
)interest and appreciation for the great variety of ways of being human,
)and living on the Earth.
KOPP says:
I don't recall any critic here saying that Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy
is less human than science, less moral than anything else, or less "truth
seeking".
What I and others have said is that, among other things, Steiner/ Waldorf/
Anthroposophy and its adherents and apologists are often unethical, and
that the "truth" they seek is more like the received wisdom of a religion
or an esoteric, supernatural spiritualist cult.
I have no further interest in or appreciation of the Steiner/ Waldorf/
Anthroposphical "way of being human". That's why I removed my children and
myself from a Steiner school, which had failed abysmally in a number of
respects in helping my children in "being human" which were entrusted to
them as an educational institution.
Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical/ mumbo-jumbo is only of interest to me
insofar as I wish to continue to criticise it for its failures of reason
and ethical behaviour. I am not interested in a dialogue about its
potential as "a way of being human and living on the earth".
Others who are are welcome to it. I would like to see this list return from
the navel-gazing, nit-picking discussion of esoteric ideas and concentrate
on
1. critical comment on Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophic ideas (which is not
the same as study of them as potentially equally valid to rationality);
2. criticism of the actions of Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical movement
and schools;
3. their legitimacy and success or otherwise as an educational method, and
4. the rightness or wrongness of their receiving public funding or being a
part of public (state) schools, and associated issues.
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n683 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n684 --------------
001 - spike (spike netshel.net) - Navel Gazing & Nit-Picking
002 - per.hallstrom mbox3.swipn - Re: Free judgment
003 - Daniel Sabsay (danielsabs - Re: Free judgment
004 - "Peter Schwab" (pschwab a - Rudolf Steiner and racism
005 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Westfall on Waldorf
006 - per.hallstrom mbox3.swipn - Re: Free judgment
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n684.1 ---------------
From: spike (spike netshel.net)
Subject: Navel Gazing & Nit-Picking
Date: Sun, 08 Mar 1998 09:32:56 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199803080700.XAA17913 lists1.best.com)
Michael Kopp posted:
) Others who are are welcome to it. I would like to see this list return from
) the navel-gazing, nit-picking discussion of esoteric ideas and concentrate
) on
)
) 1. critical comment on Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophic ideas (which is not
) the same as study of them as potentially equally valid to rationality);
)
) 2. criticism of the actions of Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical movement
) and schools;
)
) 3. their legitimacy and success or otherwise as an educational method, and
)
) 4. the rightness or wrongness of their receiving public funding or being a
) part of public (state) schools, and associated issues.
Thank you Michael. I am with you on your request. I haven't posted
lately because I simply can't drum up enough interest to respond to the
esoteric BS posted here by Wendt. Joel needs to direct his cerebral
slush to those that frequent the bobnancy site and other
Anthroposophical hangouts. (Wendt has recently been welcomed back into
the fold and various Anthro/Waldorf sites now have links to his
ungrammatical meanderings.) I suspect the recent embrace of his "outlaw"
thoughts by SWA has encouraged his ramblings in this forum.
I do, however, appreciate Halstrom's posts when he speaks to the content
and point of pedagogical matters. They provide a deeper look into the
Anthroposophical reasoning and behavior in the Waldorf classroom
regarding issues such as the heart - not a pump issue.
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n684.2 ---------------
From: per.hallstrom mbox3.swipnet.se (Per =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hallstr=F6m?= )
Subject: Re: Free judgment
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 19:55:20 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Mr Kopp
In your last posts, as in many previous ones, your sufferings from your
encounter with
what you describe as Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy is vividly obvious.
I hope that you will acknowledge/recieve my sincere and deep sympathy, and
not take it as anything else.
Whatever the cause for your bad experiences are, I would like to ensure you
that it is no way coherent with the ambitions of Anthroposophy and WE to be
rude and abusive to people, teach anything that is not true, try to put
people in the dark or in any other way say one thing and do the other.
In your posts you state a lot of different things, but I think the citing
below sort of sums it up so I would liketo try to answer to this:
Kopp says:
)This is one of the confusions of students "educated" in Steiner schools, in
)my experience. They believe all things are possible, and the wildest claims
)and bizarrenesses, and most irrational and esoteric of thought processes,
)should be given the same respect until one decides which one to buy of the
)supermarket shelf of ideas.
Hallstrom says:
During my years as a waldorf parent/teacher I have also met with Lecturers
from different organisations like the National School Board, various
corporations, anti-drug-organisations, political parties, religious groups
and ethnical groups who had visited Waldorf schools to talk to the pupils
there. They have experience of doing this kind of work mainly in ordinary
state-schools and they always comment on the unaccustomed "openness and
wakeful interest, combined with a lot of critical questions" that they met
in the Waldorf schools.
Kopp says:
)I decline to do so. I use the Western, rationalist, scientific method of
)thought, and I do not believe there is a superior one, or one which can
)even come close to explaining the world.
Hallstrom says:
Of course I respect your right to have your belief. However, to be
unwilling to try out new methods is not considered as a rationalist,
scientific method of thought, as far as I know.
Kopp says:
)To say that supernatural spiritualism should be taken as an equally valid
)method of coming to terms with our experience is to elevate it to a level
)which it has never demonstrated any right to.
Hallstrom says:
"supernatural spiritualism" is a very vague and general term.
RS described a method by which he could discover new data, it is a method
of enhancing your consciousness.
The hard part about this is of course that you have to do some work with
you self, if you want these new capacities of experience
As you probably know the method, at its basic stage concerns the striving fo=
r:
a) a more precise thinking capacity
b) a more conscious influence on your acts of will
c) a more objectivated feeling capacity that opens new fields of data
d) an attitude that always has an eye open for positive
aspects.(beauty,truth, love)
e) an open mind.
f) all five (a-e) together.
Ways to work with these exercises are described in various books by RS. If
you are interested I could list some for you.
The results of this kind of work is evident in the many different books and
lectures given by people who work with the method and last but not least
the practical work being done as a consequence of these.
(For those who are interested; surf the web for anthroposophy and its practi=
ces)
Kopp says:
)To repeat: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy has never produced one shred of
)evidence to counter any scientific knowledge, nor one shred of credibility
)in reasoning to make it an equal system.
Hallstrom says:
The scientific knowledge reached by people working anthroposophically
inspired in various fields of scientific research (not to mention the
common sense knowledge reached by people working anthroposophically
inspired in various fields of profession) is not contradictory to the
knowledge reached by natural sciences alone; they are complementary. The
credibility of anthroposophically inspired knowledge must be continually
tested in each case. You can tell a tree by it fruits but not just by a few
virus infected ones. (and not a dog by its hair BTW).
And ,as I=B4ve pointed out before:
Steiner encouraged everyone to challenge everything he wrote and said, and
he meant that everyone could do this with just normal reasoning and an open
mind. That=B4s one main reason why anthroposophy is no religion.
I willingly admit though, that this is not clearly stated by all fans of
anthroposophy.
BTW I find your posts a bit rough and snotty. I also like to use that tone
now and then, its=B4s like having a skirmish with verbal rapiers, it=B4s goo=
d
sport. But I prefer to do it as a jest, with people who know me and know
I=B4m not really serious.
Otherwise I=B4ve observed that I unintentionally hurt people and cause them
and myself unnecessary confusion and complications.
Have a coke!
Per Hallstr=F6m
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n684.3 ---------------
From: Daniel Sabsay (danielsabsay earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Free judgment
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 98 13:02:24 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Per Hallstr=F6m (per.hallstrom mbox3.swipnet.se) wrote)
)The scientific knowledge reached by people working anthroposophically
)inspired in various fields of scientific research (not to mention the
)common sense knowledge reached by people working anthroposophically
)inspired in various fields of profession) is not contradictory to the
)knowledge reached by natural sciences alone; they are complementary.
Please a few examples of this "complementary" knowledge. Do you =
include the inspired "fact" that "the heart is not a pump"?
)And ,as I=B4ve pointed out before:
)Steiner encouraged everyone to challenge everything he wrote and said, and
)he meant that everyone could do this with just normal reasoning and an =
open
)mind. That=B4s one main reason why anthroposophy is no religion.
Why do you think reincarnation is not a religious belief? Would a =
person who believes in everything Rudy said, except reincarnation, be =
considered an anthrosophist?
-- Daniel Sabsay, president
East Bay Skeptics Society
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n684.4 ---------------
From: "Peter Schwab" (pschwab access.ch)
Subject: Rudolf Steiner and racism
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 23:46:57 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
This could interest you..
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/anthromedia/race01.htm
best wishes
+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.n684.5 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Westfall on Waldorf
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 01:17:35 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Dr. Barry Westfall gave the following testimony in a child custody case in
Ohio. He did his dissertation on the influence of 19th-century German
educational thought on American school practices in the early 20th century.
He teaches in the College of Education and Health Sciences at Bradley
University in Peoria, Illinois.
-Dan Dugan
***
Q Dr. Westfall, as part of your education and your experience, have you
ever had an opportunity to inquire into Rudolf Steiner and his writings on
anthroposophy?
A Yes.
Q And can you tell the Court your professional opinion as to its validity
or acceptability as a teaching philosophy?
***
A Steiner's problem, first off, is that as far as the contemporary
published material that's available on educational philosophy and
psychology, it's virtually nonexistent other than things that are written
by his advocates about him, primarily the Waldorf school people; but you
are not going to find anything written about Steiner I would say in the
last 40 years by other than these people. I had to go back to the turn of
the century just to find a footnote in one book.
Q Does this indicate to you that his philosophy and writings are generally
accepted?
A He's very--as a person his ideas are extremely obscure, and that's the
only word for it, obscure.
Q Okay. And have you had an opportunity to investigate Waldorf schools?
A Yes.
Q And do you have an opinion about Waldorf schools and their place and
context in the American educational system?
A The Waldorf schools are what I would call--and this is my word...I use it
as a descriptor for lack of a better term--what I would call an example of
an educational tabloid. ... {S}omething like what the *Inquirer* or the
*Star* would be compared to the *New York Times* or the *Washington
Post*... By no means is it anywhere near or close to a position of being in
the middle of accepted standards. That's why I call it an educational
tabloid because...it doesn't really do anything...other than just primarily
appeal to what a lot of people want to hear.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n684.6 ---------------
From: per.hallstrom mbox3.swipnet.se (Per =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hallstr=F6m?= )
Subject: Re: Free judgment
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 18:34:43 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
At 13.02 98-03-08, Daniel Sabsay wrote:
)Per Hallstr=F6m (per.hallstrom mbox3.swipnet.se) wrote)
)
))The scientific knowledge reached by people working anthroposophically
))inspired in various fields of scientific research (not to mention the
))common sense knowledge reached by people working anthroposophically
))inspired in various fields of profession) is not contradictory to the
))knowledge reached by natural sciences alone; they are complementary.
)
)Please a few examples of this "complementary" knowledge. Do you include
)the inspired "fact" that "the heart is not a pump"?
Yes, the heart does its work, it can be studied empirically. If these
studies are limited to the physical movement of the heart, if your frame of
reference is limited to sense experience of other physical objects, and if
you prefer to look for analogies among man made machines, then conclusion
is evident: the heart is a pump.
Complementary knowledge can be attained by using complementary data,
complementary frames of reference and complementary analogies.
Examples of complementary data, complementary frames of reference and
complementary analogies is abundant in the work of Rudolf Steiner among
others.
Whether the outcome is regarded as complementary _knowledge_ or not depends
on the outcome of your own evaluation.
))And ,as I=B4ve pointed out before:
))Steiner encouraged everyone to challenge everything he wrote and said, and
))he meant that everyone could do this with just normal reasoning and an ope=
n
))mind. That=B4s one main reason why anthroposophy is no religion.
)
)Why do you think reincarnation is not a religious belief? Would a person
)who believes in everything Rudy said, except reincarnation, be considered
)an anthrosophist?
Per Hallstr=F6m
A person who believes in everything Rudolf Steiner said would not be
considered an anthrosophist, at least not by me and most of the
anthroposophists I know, mostly because this person seems unable to think
for him/herself and is a dogmatic "believer".
A person who believes in everything Rudolf Steiner said, except
reincarnation is a totally hypothetic person, and would not be considered
an anthrosophist.
Whether you appreciate the idea of reincarnation or not must not be a
question of belief. You may consider it an assumption, a hypothesis.
It can be tested and evaluated and used as a working hypothesis (about the
eventuality of existence of experiences and consciousness before conception
and after death) even if it cant be proved.
If you find that it can help to explains things (like human relations, the
universe, meaning of life etc) better than any other hypothesis, it is
reasonable to use it.
With best regards
Per Hallstr=F6m
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n684 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n685 --------------
001 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: Westfall on Waldorf
002 - Daniel Sabsay (danielsabs - Re: Free judgment
003 - per.hallstrom mbox3.swipn - Re: Free judgment
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n685.1 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: Westfall on Waldorf
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1998 10:20:01 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199803090917.BAA25431 lists1.best.com)
Dan,
Very cute Dan, but you have to know that when (or if) this man ever
gets cross-examined by an attorney, who actually knows something about
Waldorf, Anthroposophy and Steiner, the picture won't so conveniently
support the PLANS dogma.
joel wendt
Dan Dugan wrote:
)
) Dr. Barry Westfall gave the following testimony in a child custody case in
) Ohio. He did his dissertation on the influence of 19th-century German
) educational thought on American school practices in the early 20th century.
) He teaches in the College of Education and Health Sciences at Bradley
) University in Peoria, Illinois.
)
) -Dan Dugan
)
) ***
)
) Q Dr. Westfall, as part of your education and your experience, have you
) ever had an opportunity to inquire into Rudolf Steiner and his writings on
) anthroposophy?
)
) A Yes.
)
) Q And can you tell the Court your professional opinion as to its validity
) or acceptability as a teaching philosophy?
)
) ***
)
) A Steiner's problem, first off, is that as far as the contemporary
) published material that's available on educational philosophy and
) psychology, it's virtually nonexistent other than things that are written
) by his advocates about him, primarily the Waldorf school people; but you
) are not going to find anything written about Steiner I would say in the
) last 40 years by other than these people. I had to go back to the turn of
) the century just to find a footnote in one book.
)
) Q Does this indicate to you that his philosophy and writings are generally
) accepted?
)
) A He's very--as a person his ideas are extremely obscure, and that's the
) only word for it, obscure.
)
) Q Okay. And have you had an opportunity to investigate Waldorf schools?
)
) A Yes.
)
) Q And do you have an opinion about Waldorf schools and their place and
) context in the American educational system?
)
) A The Waldorf schools are what I would call--and this is my word...I use it
) as a descriptor for lack of a better term--what I would call an example of
) an educational tabloid. ... {S}omething like what the *Inquirer* or the
) *Star* would be compared to the *New York Times* or the *Washington
) Post*... By no means is it anywhere near or close to a position of being in
) the middle of accepted standards. That's why I call it an educational
) tabloid because...it doesn't really do anything...other than just primarily
) appeal to what a lot of people want to hear.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n685.2 ---------------
From: Daniel Sabsay (danielsabsay earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Free judgment
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 98 12:26:05 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Per Hallstr=F6m (per.hallstrom mbox3.swipnet.se) wrote)
)[...] Complementary knowledge can be attained by using complementary data,
)complementary frames of reference and complementary analogies.
)
)Examples of complementary data, complementary frames of reference and
)complementary analogies is abundant in the work of Rudolf Steiner among
)others. Whether the outcome is regarded as complementary _knowledge_ or =
not
)depends on the outcome of your own evaluation.
Anthroposophists re-define "knowledge".
)[...] Whether you appreciate the idea of reincarnation or not must not be =
a
)question of belief. You may consider it an assumption, a hypothesis.
)It can be tested and evaluated and used as a working hypothesis (about the
)eventuality of existence of experiences and consciousness before =
conception
)and after death) even if it cant be proved.
Anthroposophists re-define "religion."
)[...]A person who believes in everything Rudolf Steiner said would not be
)considered an anthrosophist, at least not by me and most of the
)anthroposophists I know, mostly because this person seems unable to think
)for him/herself and is a dogmatic "believer".
)A person who believes in everything Rudolf Steiner said, except
)reincarnation is a totally hypothetic person, and would not be considered
)an anthroposophist.
And, of course, anthroposophists re-define "free judgement."
-- Daniel Sabsay, president
East Bay Skeptics Society
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n685.3 ---------------
From: per.hallstrom mbox3.swipnet.se (Per =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hallstr=F6m?= )
Subject: Re: Free judgment
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 10:01:20 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear mr Sabsay
I have been trying to understand your questions and trying to answer them
in a correct way.
It seems to me though, that you are not really interested in what I try to
say or how I think about these matters.
And maybe thereby this thread - originally regarding the question of
presumed actuality of "faith in a fixed body of scripture" among
anthroposophists - is getting a bit worn out.
With best regards
Per Hallstr=F6m
----------------------------------
Last parts of the thread:
Hallstrom:
))))The scientific knowledge reached by people working anthroposophically
))))inspired in various fields of scientific research (not to mention the
))))common sense knowledge reached by people working anthroposophically
))))inspired in various fields of profession) is not contradictory to the
))))knowledge reached by natural sciences alone; they are complementary.
Sabsay:
)))Please a few examples of this "complementary" knowledge. Do you include
)))the inspired "fact" that "the heart is not a pump"?
Hallstrom:
))Yes, the heart does its work, it can be studied empirically. If these
))studies are limited to the physical movement of the heart, if your frame o=
f
))reference is limited to sense experience of other physical objects, and if
))you prefer to look for analogies among man made machines, then conclusion
))is evident: the heart is a pump.
))Complementary knowledge can be attained by using complementary data,
))complementary frames of reference and complementary analogies.
))Examples of complementary data, complementary frames of reference and
))complementary analogies is abundant in th