return to WCA Archive Index
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n702 --------------
001 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Eurocentrism
002 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Re: Eurocentrism
003 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Bay Area: Eugene Schwartz talk 4/1
004 - angelica hesse (hesse96 m - Re: Defensiveness, Elitism, etc
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n702.1 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Eurocentrism
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 08:53:20 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199803310554.VAA11627 lists1.best.com)
On 31 Mar 98 , c.mcilroy wrote:
) what i see as 'eurocentrism' goes unchallenged as well. i love the whole
) mythology and evolution of human consciousness thing, but i have a
) problem with the (apparent) insistence that european 'civilisation' is
) the most superior and highly evolved.
The problem, Carl, is that this all traces back to Steiner. While many
Waldorf schools are serious about including more mythology and fairy tales
from other cultures, you're not going to pry anthroposophists away from
the idea that, at the present time, Europe is the center and culmination
of the spiritual evolution of humanity. In other words, I think you can
get some reform on the surface, and that's a good thing, but there is an
underlying bias that, I think, will not go away.
That's not limited to Waldorf, of course, but in Waldorf there is a
special problem in trying to get people to see Europe as something other
than the most highly evolved society.
Steve Premo http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
"Computers, huh? I guess they're OK... if you've got the time"
--Barry "The Flash" Allen
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n702.2 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Re: Eurocentrism
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 17:03:39 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199803311657.IAA10351 lists1.best.com)
My two cents worth...
Steve Premo wrote:
) On 31 Mar 98 , c.mcilroy wrote:
)
) ) what i see as 'eurocentrism' goes unchallenged as well. i love the whole
) ) mythology and evolution of human consciousness thing, but i have a
) ) problem with the (apparent)
I gather that this insitance, apparent or otherwise, comes from reading Steiner
with the simplistic interpretations I've read on this site? When I learned
about these other civilizations, it was NOT in an ordinal fashion. With the
exception of a cronological ranking, I remember no normative values being part
of classroom instruction. And we are talking about Waldorf education, not
Rudolf Steiner's personal beliefs, right?
) insistence that european 'civilisation' is
) ) the most superior and highly evolved.
)
) The problem, Carl, is that this all traces back to Steiner.
I would interject that it all traces back to interpretations of Steiner. In
much the same way the Nietzche was used by the Nazis and can easily be
scapegoated as a racist (again using simplistic interpretations), Steiner
(especially due to his fondness for esoterica and the gnostics) seems to lend
himself to over simplification and thus conceptual manipulation. I would point
out to those who to this day think inexorably tie Nietsche to fascist thought
that his is the intellectual birthright of the deconstructionalist and all the
(multifactional) ism's that were to follow. I hope the irony is striking, and
the parallels appreciated.One last anecdote that I leared during college,
Steiner was commissioned by Nietzsche's sister to educate her in the traditions
of her brother. Nietzsche sister had married a Nazi and cut herself off from
her brother during his lifetime. Steiner (a Nietzschean scholar, I guess) gave
it the old college try, but gave up after only a little while, saying it was a
hopeless proposition. I think I read this in Kaufman's biography, but not
sure.
) While many
) Waldorf schools are serious about including more mythology and fairy tales
) from other cultures, you're not going to pry anthroposophists away from
) the idea that, at the present time, Europe is the center and culmination
) of the spiritual evolution of humanity. In other words, I think you can
) get some reform on the surface, and that's a good thing, but there is an
) underlying bias that, I think, will not go away.
)
) That's not limited to Waldorf, of course, but in Waldorf there is a
) special problem in trying to get people to see Europe as something other
) than the most highly evolved society.
)
)
) Steve Premo http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
) "Computers, huh? I guess they're OK... if you've got the time"
) --Barry "The Flash" Allen
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n702.3 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Bay Area: Eugene Schwartz talk 4/1
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 08:43:28 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Eugene Schwartz will be giving a lecture "Adolescence: it's more than
hormones" at the East Bay Waldorf School tonight (April 1) at 7:30.
East Bay Waldorf School
3800 Clark Road
El Sobrante, CA
(510) 223-3570
(they moved summer '96)
I heard his talk "Children of the 60's, parents of the 90's" at the Marin
Waldof School last night. He's a brilliant, funny, and thought-provoking
speaker. Don't miss him if it's at all possible.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n702.4 ---------------
From: angelica hesse (hesse96 matrix.newpaltz.edu)
Subject: Re: Defensiveness, Elitism, etc
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 12:02:54 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: (199803301702.JAA22641 lists1.best.com) from "Dan Dugan" at Mar 30, 98 09:00:40 am
) )The further we move from a sense that there may be more
) )than to existence than just this earth life the closer we move to a culture
) )that is based exclusively on a 'me' concept, on materialism, on selfishness,
) )on greed.
) One could just as well say that as long as we use imaginary deities to
) justify our prejudices the longer we will stay in bondage to them.
) Materialism*, selfishness, and greed are human weaknesses that afflict the
) religious just as much as the godless.
Dan, you're missing the point of what I wrote. What I'm imagining is a
society where everyone assumes they live this life only. THe "do it while
you can, you only live once" attitude. Inevitably, I expect this would lead
to pepole living for themselves. If there is nothing else to existence,
yes, why not make the most of it? In america, making the most of things
already means having more stuff, being more successful, having more power.
This unfortunately leads to others having less of all those things. I see
it as greedy and irresponsible. My fears are that this is where society
would head if we no longer had any sense of a larger mission in our lives;
somethign beyond the here and now, beyond today, beyond the material things
of the world. And yes, materialism afflicts all of us, at least at soem
point. As do greed, etc. My feeling however, is that a snese of a greater
purpose to our lives sort of reminds us not to place possessions, power etc
ahead of everything adn everyone else.
) * I use "materialism" here in the perjorative sense, meaning attachment to
) wealth and possessions, not in the philosophical sense meaning rejection of
) the existence of a spiritual world. Religious people like to overlook this
) distinction.
WEll, and for clarity's sake, I'd like to state taht I use materialism
slightly differently again. I see it as putting material things before
social or spiritual issues (no matter what one's beliefs actually are).
) "Humanism contends that human beings are a part of nature, that they have
) emerged as a result of a continuous evolutionary process, and that all
) their values--religious, ethical, political, and social--have their source
) in human experience and are the product of their culture." (American
) Humanist Association)
One perspective, but by no means the only one. I happen to feel strongly
that human beings are not simply a product of nature, of evolution. That
our religions, etc have their roots in something beyond just our daily
experiencs. But that's my perspective. I guess no one can really say which
is truer for certain, but we can continue to examin the different
perspectives comparing them to life, seeing how they help to improve society
(or don't).
Angelica G. Hesse
hesse96 matrix.newpaltz.edu
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n702 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n703 --------------
001 - angelica hesse (hesse96 m - Re: Eurocentrism, "gringoism"
002 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Defensiveness, Elitism, etc
003 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Re: Defensiveness, Elitism, etc
004 - angelica hesse (hesse96 m - Re: Defensiveness, Elitism, etc
005 - angelica hesse (hesse96 m - Re: Bay Area: Eugene Schwartz talk 4/1
006 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Re: Defensiveness, Elitism, etc
007 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Re: Defensiveness, Elitism, etc
008 - "c.mcilroy" (c.mcilroy el - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n702
009 - Angelica (hesse96 matrix. - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n702
010 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n702
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n703.1 ---------------
From: angelica hesse (hesse96 matrix.newpaltz.edu)
Subject: Re: Eurocentrism, "gringoism"
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 12:21:13 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: (199803301736.JAA19754 lists1.best.com) from "Ezra Beeman" at Mar 30, 98 09:34:14 am
) When I was in 'lower school', those years from 1st through 8th grade, I think that
) I cannot recall having much in the way of Latin American history. It seems to me
) that the history taught flowed from the cradle of civilization (babylon and persia)
) and their myths, through the mostly occidental traditions until the culmination of
) American history. Now while it is true that greek and roman histories were a point
) of focus, as were the medieval and reformation periods, in lower school, in high
) school things changed and I had 'blocks' on Africa and Latin America.
I'll back this up with my experiences. I too recall lower school dealing
with similar things: starting with fairy tales, fables, old testament
stories, norse myths, greek and egyptian mythology, early roman history,
then the settling of america (?)... Geography studies started with our
classroom, then our village, county, state, country, and finally the world -
we were eached asked to pick a country and report on it. Looking primarily at
the early settling of these areas by the groups that live here today, as
well as the issues of the original native inhabitants. I also definitely
remember making a map of south america, which means that some extensive time
was devoted to that. My sense, however, was that in these years history
dealt predominantly on teh roots of teh cultures that settled america, in
others words teh source of our culture.
High school brought more comprehensive studies of the world: more modern history, though not a lot, of europe and the
US as well as a look at recent politics throughout the world. Also
important was a block on world religions, which looked extensively at
religions of india, china, the middle east, south america, etc.
Obviously, I have no idea how history is taught in waldorf schools in areas
whose culture has not grown out of the middle east and europe. I'd be
interested to know. To me, most of this made sense, because it was consider
predominantly where we as a culture had come from, both the good and the
bad. Other cultures were looked at as a comparison, adn presented in and
equlaly favorable light to our own. personally, I often thought other
cultures were actually more positive and successful in many ways than our
own!
) I find a great deal of the debate in this discussion group to be ironical. when it
) comes to the 'multiculturalism' of WE. Before there was multicultursalism, as it
) exist today in the university and the press, there was WE history. In fact, I
) often boast to my peers of the multicultural history I obtained in high school
) (while everyone else became exposed in college).
Yes, I'll second that. I felt I had been greatly exposed to other cultures,
especially ancient history, that many of my peers weren't as familiar with.
Sure helped in my first college history class. In fact, I drew mostly on my
memories from high schoo, and did pretty well not reading teh textbook!
) Finally, it has been my experience that WE reflects a great deal of the local
) culture. For example, at my school, the two other languages were German and
) Spanish. German the obvious bastion of Steiner and Goethe and WE in general, while
) Spanish reflected local realities (west coast). On the east coast I am told it is
) usually French and German.
Yes, on the east coast, we had french adn german. Though later classes had
spanish instead of french. I've even seen a school that does spanish and
russian (which is a bit hard in teh lower school, due to teh new alphabet).
I's interesting, having german (my family comes from switzerland, too).
It's a fairly commonly used language in teh world today, but very few people
seem to kow it. They're always impressed that I do!....
I fear I'm getting scattered a bit, but I wanted to share some of our
content, as I recall it.
Angelica G) Hesse
hesse96 matrix.newpaltz.edu
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n703.2 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Defensiveness, Elitism, etc
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 09:24:44 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
References: (199803301702.JAA22641 lists1.best.com) from "Dan Dugan" at Mar 30, 98 09:00:40 am
In-Reply-To: (199804011704.JAA22737 lists1.best.com)
On 1 Apr 98 , angelica hesse wrote:
) What I'm imagining is a society where everyone assumes they live this
) life only. THe "do it while you can, you only live once" attitude.
) Inevitably, I expect this would lead to pepole living for themselves.
) If there is nothing else to existence, yes, why not make the most of it?
Angelica, this makes sense in an abstract sort of way, but people I know
who do not believe in life after death (my parents and my in-laws) are
quite unselfish people. These examples show me that people don't need the
threat of bad karma, eternal damnation, or other after-death consequences
to live relatively selfless lives.
I suspect that a survey attempting to correlate beliefs about life after
death to selfishness would find no correlation one way or the other.
One problem, though, with assuming that people who are spiritual are more
moral, considerate of others, and so on is that it can lead to an attitude
of prejudice toward those who have not "seen the light." This is a
destructive attitude (although I'm not saying that you have exhibited such
an attitude).
Steve Premo http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
"Computers, huh? I guess they're OK... if you've got the time"
--Barry "The Flash" Allen
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n703.3 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Re: Defensiveness, Elitism, etc
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 1998 09:53:56 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199804011704.JAA22737 lists1.best.com)
angelica hesse wrote:
) ) )The further we move from a sense that there may be more
) ) )than to existence than just this earth life the closer we move to a culture
) ) )that is based exclusively on a 'me' concept, on materialism, on selfishness,
) ) )on greed.
) ) One could just as well say that as long as we use imaginary deities to
) ) justify our prejudices the longer we will stay in bondage to them.
) ) Materialism*, selfishness, and greed are human weaknesses that afflict the
) ) religious just as much as the godless.
)
) Dan, you're missing the point of what I wrote. What I'm imagining is a
) society where everyone assumes they live this life only. THe "do it while
) you can, you only live once" attitude. Inevitably, I expect this would lead
) to pepole living for themselves. If there is nothing else to existence,
) yes, why not make the most of it? In america, making the most of things
) already means having more stuff, being more successful, having more power.
) This unfortunately leads to others having less of all those things. I see
) it as greedy and irresponsible. My fears are that this is where society
) would head if we no longer had any sense of a larger mission in our lives;
I always curious as to who gets to set the larger agenda....Usually such
relativistic diologues, if they are true to their dogma, become quickly mired in
the factionalism that they are spawned from. I would also like to stand up for
me, at least as Devil's (natures) advocate. There are strong and robust arguments
for the Me in nature. Darwin and later, Stephan J. Gould (sic?), explored the role
of me in evolution and biology in general. Survival of the fittest, a distinctly
Me doctrine and an integral tenat of evolution, can still explain altruism in
nature. Briefly, momma bear would give up her life to save her three children as
each carry .5 of her genes and three times .5 is 1.5, an easy Me calcualtion. This
whole topic is explored in greater, and far more entertaining, detail in Gould's
"Ever Since Darwin." Another example of (probably good) Me is found in economic
theory, where the invisible hand of Me allocates resources efficiently in a given
Market. There is obviously alot of room for contention here, as efficient does not
equal good or just in many minds, so please don't miscontrue my comments as
(purported) fact, merely observation.
) somethign beyond the here and now, beyond today, beyond the material things
) of the world. And yes, materialism afflicts all of us, at least at soem
) point. As do greed, etc. My feeling however, is that a snese of a greater
) purpose to our lives sort of reminds us not to place possessions, power etc
) ahead of everything adn everyone else.
)
) ) * I use "materialism" here in the perjorative sense, meaning attachment to
) ) wealth and possessions, not in the philosophical sense meaning rejection of
) ) the existence of a spiritual world. Religious people like to overlook this
) ) distinction.
)
) WEll, and for clarity's sake, I'd like to state taht I use materialism
) slightly differently again. I see it as putting material things before
) social or spiritual issues (no matter what one's beliefs actually are).
As a materialist in the (hopefully) non-perjoritive sense, I appreciate Dan's
efforts at a distinction.
)
)
) ) "Humanism contends that human beings are a part of nature, that they have
) ) emerged as a result of a continuous evolutionary process, and that all
) ) their values--religious, ethical, political, and social--have their source
) ) in human experience and are the product of their culture." (American
) ) Humanist Association)
)
) One perspective, but by no means the only one. I happen to feel strongly
) that human beings are not simply a product of nature, of evolution. That
) our religions, etc have their roots in something beyond just our daily
) experiencs. But that's my perspective. I guess no one can really say which
) is truer for certain, but we can continue to examin the different
) perspectives comparing them to life, seeing how they help to improve society
) (or don't).
)
) Angelica G. Hesse
) hesse96 matrix.newpaltz.edu
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n703.4 ---------------
From: angelica hesse (hesse96 matrix.newpaltz.edu)
Subject: Re: Defensiveness, Elitism, etc
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 13:37:12 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: (199804011730.JAA18703 lists1.best.com) from "Steve Premo" at Apr 1, 98 09:24:44 am
) Angelica, this makes sense in an abstract sort of way, but people I know
) who do not believe in life after death (my parents and my in-laws) are
) quite unselfish people. These examples show me that people don't need the
) threat of bad karma, eternal damnation, or other after-death consequences
) to live relatively selfless lives.
Okay, I see where you're coming from. honestly, I tend to see it more not
as something that happens in each individual, but on a broader sense in teh
tone of the society. There are always good and upright people in the worst
societies, just as there are bad ones in the best places (and in churches,
and so on). I was imagining and overall trend. maybe it wouldn't happen,
but I get that feeling sometimes. And yes, I too have known perfectly
decent people with no spiritual beliefs.
I'd also like to note that when I speak of a sense of spirituality it's not
in the sense of a threat. TO me it's more an indication of my purpose in
this world, a direction in which to go. Religion and spirituality have
always been something possitive for me, and never made me feel threatened,
or coerced.... So maybe my perspective is somewhat different, because I
know a lot of people are driven to guilt by religions, etc...
) I suspect that a survey attempting to correlate beliefs about life after
) death to selfishness would find no correlation one way or the other.
it would certainly be interesting to do this, wouldn't it?
) One problem, though, with assuming that people who are spiritual are more
) moral, considerate of others, and so on is that it can lead to an attitude
) of prejudice toward those who have not "seen the light." This is a
) destructive attitude (although I'm not saying that you have exhibited such
) an attitude).
I dont' intend to say that they are necessarily more moral. I try very hard
not to have such an attitude, and would be ashamed if I did. Again, I'll
reiterate, I'm talking abotu a direction in life: is our purpose to acquire
things, to enjoy this life; or is it to make the world better, to try to
become a better person? I see these as two ends of a continuum, two
direction which people can choose from when deciding how to live their
lives. I would simply imagine that a belief in this one physical life only
would lead somewhat more toward the first, while a most spiritual belief
systems at least attempt to guide people more toward the second.
Does this make sense???
Angelica G. Hesse
hesse96 matrix.newpaltz.edu
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n703.5 ---------------
From: angelica hesse (hesse96 matrix.newpaltz.edu)
Subject: Re: Bay Area: Eugene Schwartz talk 4/1
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 13:40:05 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: (199804011646.IAA08289 lists1.best.com) from "Dan Dugan" at Apr 1, 98 08:43:28 am
) Eugene Schwartz will be giving a lecture "Adolescence: it's more than
) hormones" at the East Bay Waldorf School tonight (April 1) at 7:30.
) I heard his talk "Children of the 60's, parents of the 90's" at the Marin
) Waldof School last night. He's a brilliant, funny, and thought-provoking
) speaker. Don't miss him if it's at all possible.
) -Dan Dugan
I understand he's also a superb teacher. i've never seen him teachign, but
he's my godfather!! yes, definitely a very interesting person.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n703.6 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Re: Defensiveness, Elitism, etc
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 13:50:12 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199803301702.JAA22641 lists1.best.com) from "Dan Dugan" at
Mar 30, 98 09:00:40 am
In-Reply-To: (199804011704.JAA22737 lists1.best.com)
Angelica Hesse quotes Dan Dugan from a discussion they're having about
humanism versus spiritualism, but in the end she is typically dismissive of
anything but what she wants to believe (my comment at end):
)) )The further we move from a sense that there may be more
)) )than to existence than just this earth life the closer we move to a culture
)) )that is based exclusively on a 'me' concept, on materialism, on
))selfishness,
)) )on greed.
)) One could just as well say that as long as we use imaginary deities to
)) justify our prejudices the longer we will stay in bondage to them.
)) Materialism*, selfishness, and greed are human weaknesses that afflict the
)) religious just as much as the godless.
)
)Dan, you're missing the point of what I wrote. What I'm imagining is a
)society where everyone assumes they live this life only. THe "do it while
)you can, you only live once" attitude. Inevitably, I expect this would lead
)to pepole living for themselves. If there is nothing else to existence,
)yes, why not make the most of it? In america, making the most of things
)already means having more stuff, being more successful, having more power.
)This unfortunately leads to others having less of all those things. I see
)it as greedy and irresponsible. My fears are that this is where society
)would head if we no longer had any sense of a larger mission in our lives;
)somethign beyond the here and now, beyond today, beyond the material things
)of the world. And yes, materialism afflicts all of us, at least at soem
)point. As do greed, etc. My feeling however, is that a snese of a greater
)purpose to our lives sort of reminds us not to place possessions, power etc
)ahead of everything adn everyone else.
)
)
)) * I use "materialism" here in the perjorative sense, meaning attachment to
)) wealth and possessions, not in the philosophical sense meaning rejection of
)) the existence of a spiritual world. Religious people like to overlook this
)) distinction.
)
)WEll, and for clarity's sake, I'd like to state taht I use materialism
)slightly differently again. I see it as putting material things before
)social or spiritual issues (no matter what one's beliefs actually are).
)
)
)) "Humanism contends that human beings are a part of nature, that they have
)) emerged as a result of a continuous evolutionary process, and that all
)) their values--religious, ethical, political, and social--have their source
)) in human experience and are the product of their culture." (American
)) Humanist Association)
)
)One perspective, but by no means the only one. I happen to feel strongly
)that human beings are not simply a product of nature, of evolution. That
)our religions, etc have their roots in something beyond just our daily
)experiencs. But that's my perspective. I guess no one can really say which
)is truer for certain, but we can continue to examin the different
)perspectives comparing them to life, seeing how they help to improve society
)(or don't).
)
)Angelica G. Hesse
)hesse96 matrix.newpaltz.edu
KOPP says:
Humanism is "one perspective, but by no means the only one" says Hesse.
But "we can continue to examin the different perspectives comparing them to
life..."
I have never seen, on this list or any other devoted to Steiner/ Waldorf/
Anthroposophy (SWA), any real understanding, depth of knowledge, or time of
day for humanism on the part of any of the spiritualists who adhere to the
SWA way.
Like all true believers, there is only one path for them.
They mouth plattitudes, they talk about open-mindedness, they go on
ad-nauseam about their and their guru's spiritual insights (none of which
can be shown evidentially to anyone else, but have to be believed like
fairy tales).
But they begin by dismissing humanism and rationalism as a means of
understanding the world, and they end all discussion by exhorting those who
are skeptical of spiritualism to "do the work themselves" and they will
come to the same enlightenment. (It's mainly rationalism as a process
rather than humanism as a philosophy which is the general motivator of most
critical thinkers here.)
(it's cyclical, depending on the SWA newbies who arrive on this list
without reading the archives to see that we've all been there, done that
already) for the last couple of weeks. I've stayed quiet (send thanks via
private email) but I do want to remind old-timers of, and alert newcomers
to, some list realities.
I'll state my personal position yet again (for the newbies who don't read
archives)
I don't care what anyone believes about spirituality, as long as they don't
use those beliefs in any way in the education of my children. PRIVATE SWA
schools may teach anything they want based on any crazy nonsense they want.
But PUBLIC SWA schools in the U.S., and publicly-funded SWA schools
anywhere (as here in New Zealand) have higher obligations, both legal and
ethical.
In my personal experience, our Steiner school in New Zealand was guilty of
such unethical behaviour, which may also be illegal or contrary to
regulation, and this is consistent with great numbers of other reported
instances on this list.
This list is, for me, not about discussing the fine points of epistemology
or spiritualism versus rationality. It is not about a meeting of the minds
between SWA apologists, believers and defenders of the faith and doubters,
skeptics or rejectors. I am a rejector. I do not want anything to do with
SWA in any way.
This list is about the hidden spiritualist influence in SWA education, and
the duplicity of the SWA movement in not admitting its spiritualist agenda
to parents before their children are sucked in.
We and our children were duped and sucked in, despite extra search and
study before we signed on. I believe we were knowingly duped by SWA people
whose agenda was their own, not the state's or ours. SWA is guilty of false
advertising, both here and, apparently, in most places.
This list is about exposing and criticising the faults in SWA education. It
is not about helping make SWA education better (this list is replete with
horror stories of how SWA is monolithically unchanging and unchangeable).
It is about making it more honest and accountable where parents decide to
make it so in PRIVATE SWA schools, and where parents and the law demand it
in PUBLIC or publicly-funded SWA schools.
This list is also about the quality or lack thereof of the SWA _education_
in terms of knowledge and ability to think critically, not to become
wonderful people and warm human beings.
I and most, if not all, SWA critics, agree that, for the most part, SWA
education produces nice people -- but that's not enough. I think most
children survive SWA education because they are, mostly, from upper
socio-economic and intelligence levels in society -- not because they are
well-eduated.
(Our Steiner school has failed to meet state standards for teaching of the
state curriculum for all of the five years that it has been publicly funded
and required to teach the state curriculum alongside the "special
character" curriculum -- the SWA spiritualist agenda. Yet the toothless
state education review office has done little to ensure the school
complies. And the school does not anywhere report on the review to parents,
or make the review available to prospective parents, or even mention it.)
Recent thinking, comments and writing by SWA adherents and graduates on
this list leads me to the reinforcement of my belief that SWA produces
wooly thinkers who are so "open-minded" that they believe anything may be
possible and do not know how to make judgements about reality. Nor can they
actually explain, in coherent, plain, expository English, what they
actually mean or believe. And when their maunderings are challenged or
questioned, they become defensive and repeat the "open-minded" mantra.
I have also seen this wooly thinking firsthand with my own and other
children in our school. Since my children have returned to the secular
education system, they have, while at once having greater
self-possessedness and self-confidence about their own abilities,
demonstrated deficiencies in critical thought and reasoning, especially in
the use of language, which require remedial work.
I am not averse to relations with spiritualists -- except that I think most
of them are on another planet and it's difficult to have a conversation
where we're not talking past each other.
Hesse's typical dismissiveness of humanism (and reason) is an indicator of
this.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n703.7 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Re: Defensiveness, Elitism, etc
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 1998 19:01:40 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199803301702.JAA22641 lists1.best.com) from "Dan Dugan" at
Mar 30, 98 09:00:40 am (199804020150.RAA29314 lists1.best.com)
I think it was Oscar Wilde who once said that a cynic is someone who knows the cost
of everything and the value of nothing. One of my favorites. I don't know whom to
quote on the difference between a cynic and a skeptic....
Michael Kopp wrote:
) )
) )
) )) * I use "materialism" here in the perjorative sense, meaning attachment to
) )) wealth and possessions, not in the philosophical sense meaning rejection of
) )) the existence of a spiritual world. Religious people like to overlook this
) )) distinction.
) )
) )WEll, and for clarity's sake, I'd like to state taht I use materialism
) )slightly differently again. I see it as putting material things before
) )social or spiritual issues (no matter what one's beliefs actually are).
) )
) )
) )) "Humanism contends that human beings are a part of nature, that they have
) )) emerged as a result of a continuous evolutionary process, and that all
) )) their values--religious, ethical, political, and social--have their source
) )) in human experience and are the product of their culture." (American
) )) Humanist Association)
) )
) )One perspective, but by no means the only one. I happen to feel strongly
) )that human beings are not simply a product of nature, of evolution. That
) )our religions, etc have their roots in something beyond just our daily
) )experiencs. But that's my perspective. I guess no one can really say which
) )is truer for certain, but we can continue to examin the different
) )perspectives comparing them to life, seeing how they help to improve society
) )(or don't).
) )
) )Angelica G. Hesse
) )hesse96 matrix.newpaltz.edu
)
)
) I have never seen, on this list or any other devoted to Steiner/ Waldorf/
) Anthroposophy (SWA), any real understanding, depth of knowledge, or time of
) day for humanism on the part of any of the spiritualists who adhere to the
) SWA way.
Question: Is one labeled by virtue of their spiritualism, or just guilty by
association? Also, whom do the humanists point to as seminal authors in the
field? Finally, do any of the skeptics here have any "real understanding, depth of
knowledge, or time of day for" mystic tradition? This broad category would
probably span from the Hermes Trimestigus, to the Kabbalists, to the Gnostics and
present day mystics like Crowley.
)
)
) Like all true believers, there is only one path for them.
) They mouth plattitudes, they talk about open-mindedness, they go on
) ad-nauseam about their and their guru's spiritual insights (none of which
) can be shown evidentially to anyone else, but have to be believed like
) fairy tales).
Self evident truths are hard to come by, please share.
)
)
) But they begin by dismissing humanism and rationalism as a means of
) understanding the world, and they end all discussion by exhorting those who
) are skeptical of spiritualism to "do the work themselves" and they will
) come to the same enlightenment. (It's mainly rationalism as a process
) rather than humanism as a philosophy which is the general motivator of most
) critical thinkers here.)
)
) We've been treated to a spectacle of more of this spiritualist twaddle
) (it's cyclical, depending on the SWA newbies who arrive on this list
) without reading the archives to see that we've all been there, done that
) already) for the last couple of weeks. I've stayed quiet (send thanks via
) private email) but I do want to remind old-timers of, and alert newcomers
) to, some list realities.
) I'll state my personal position yet again (for the newbies who don't read
) archives)
)
) I don't care what anyone believes about spirituality, as long as they don't
) use those beliefs in any way in the education of my children.
Hmmm, unless everyone in the world is a materialist, like me, they might disagree
with such a hard line. Furthermore, I think you would be hard pressed to find
enough educators in general that fit your profile. Even most atheist I've
encountered aren't ready to embrace absolute materialism with all it's
philosophical, ethical and social ramifications.I would also use this time to point
out the distinct logical connections between metaphysical systems (spiritualism is
but one example. Ethics in general is a metaphysical discipline, ask Aristotle,
Socrates, Hume, Kant et all.) and materialism. I would argue a hard line that they
are mutually exclusive.
) PRIVATE SWA
) schools may teach anything they want based on any crazy nonsense they want.
) But PUBLIC SWA schools in the U.S., and publicly-funded SWA schools
) anywhere (as here in New Zealand) have higher obligations, both legal and
) ethical.
)
) In my personal experience, our Steiner school in New Zealand was guilty of
) such unethical behaviour, which may also be illegal or contrary to
) regulation, and this is consistent with great numbers of other reported
) instances on this list.
)
However, I wouldn't contest this. I think that Waldorf schools, as with anything
of any ideology, err in their application to some degree or other. I it my belief
that such discussion groups like this and people like Dan serve a very positive
watchdog function.
) This list is, for me, not about discussing the fine points of epistemology
) or spiritualism versus rationality. It is not about a meeting of the minds
) between SWA apologists, believers and defenders of the faith and doubters,
) skeptics or rejectors. I am a rejector. I do not want anything to do with
) SWA in any way.
)
You seem to be in conflict of your own categorical imperative.
) This list is about the hidden spiritualist influence in SWA education, and
) the duplicity of the SWA movement in not admitting its spiritualist agenda
) to parents before their children are sucked in.
)
) We and our children were duped and sucked in, despite extra search and
) study before we signed on. I believe we were knowingly duped by SWA people
) whose agenda was their own, not the state's or ours. SWA is guilty of false
) advertising, both here and, apparently, in most places.
Sounds like bitter grapes.
)
)
) This list is about exposing and criticising the faults in SWA education. It
) is not about helping make SWA education better (this list is replete with
) horror stories of how SWA is monolithically unchanging and unchangeable).
)
) It is about making it more honest and accountable where parents decide to
) make it so in PRIVATE SWA schools, and where parents and the law demand it
) in PUBLIC or publicly-funded SWA schools.
)
) This list is also about the quality or lack thereof of the SWA _education_
) in terms of knowledge and ability to think critically, not to become
) wonderful people and warm human beings.
Critical thinking is a hallmark of Waldorf education as far as my experince has
been. I don't think there is hard and fast data to back this up, but that is not
logical grounds for summary judgement. In fact, quite the contrary.
)
)
) I and most, if not all, SWA critics, agree that, for the most part, SWA
) education produces nice people -- but that's not enough. I think most
) children survive SWA education because they are, mostly, from upper
) socio-economic and intelligence levels in society -- not because they are
) well-eduated.
)
) (Our Steiner school has failed to meet state standards for teaching of the
) state curriculum for all of the five years that it has been publicly funded
) and required to teach the state curriculum alongside the "special
) character" curriculum -- the SWA spiritualist agenda. Yet the toothless
) state education review office has done little to ensure the school
) complies. And the school does not anywhere report on the review to parents,
) or make the review available to prospective parents, or even mention it.)
)
) Recent thinking, comments and writing by SWA adherents and graduates on
) this list leads me to the reinforcement of my belief that SWA produces
) wooly thinkers who are so "open-minded" that they believe anything may be
) possible and do not know how to make judgements about reality. Nor can they
) actually explain, in coherent, plain, expository English, what they
) actually mean or believe. And when their maunderings are challenged or
) questioned, they become defensive and repeat the "open-minded" mantra.
)
) I have also seen this wooly thinking firsthand with my own and other
) children in our school. Since my children have returned to the secular
) education system, they have, while at once having greater
) self-possessedness and self-confidence about their own abilities,
) demonstrated deficiencies in critical thought and reasoning, especially in
) the use of language, which require remedial work.
Wow, that is a fantastic anecdote. However, I do agree that the three R's are WE
Achilles heel.
)
)
) I am not averse to relations with spiritualists -- except that I think most
) of them are on another planet and it's difficult to have a conversation
) where we're not talking past each other.
)
) Hesse's typical dismissiveness of humanism (and reason) is an indicator of
) this.
Ezra
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n703.8 ---------------
From: "c.mcilroy" (c.mcilroy elvis.murdoch.edu.au)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n702
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 21:53:35 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
hi everyone
steve wrote..
)in Waldorf there is a
)special problem in trying to get people to see Europe as something other
)than the most highly evolved society.
according to your understanding, why is the problem more special in WE than
elsewhere, when the whole western world is constructed on the cartesian
dualistic paradigm which set up hierarchical thinking in the first place?
please explain.
to ezra..
racism, sexism, ethnocentrism etc pervade all modern western education
systems, including WE, i believe. the matter needs attending to everywhere.
how do you think they can be addressed specifically within the framework of
WE and steiner philosophy? for example, how can the study of the evolution
of human consciousness in the primary curriculum be more inclusive of
'other' cultures; how can the study of 'human' consciousness be more
inclusive of women in his-story? please remember, i am for WE, just against
the dominating 'isms', and am seeking constructive critique.
carl
)
________________________________
c.mcilroy student.murdoch.edu.au
________________________________
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n703.9 ---------------
From: Angelica (hesse96 matrix.newpaltz.edu)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n702
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 1998 11:15:11 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199804021354.FAA11488 lists1.best.com)
c.mcilroy wrote:
) racism, sexism, ethnocentrism etc pervade all modern western education
) systems, including WE, i believe. the matter needs attending to everywhere.
) how do you think they can be addressed specifically within the framework of
) WE and steiner philosophy? for example, how can the study of the evolution
) of human consciousness in the primary curriculum be more inclusive of
) 'other' cultures; how can the study of 'human' consciousness be more
) inclusive of women in his-story? please remember, i am for WE, just against
) the dominating 'isms', and am seeking constructive critique.
Carl, you might be very interested to take a look at the waldorf
supporters list. It's administered from StJohns.edu. I don't have the
exact address at the moment, but can send it to you if you want. The
list is just called waldorf,and is findable via a yahoo search. They
are currently having an interesting discussion over there on diversity
issues....
Angelica
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n703.10 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n702
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 09:25:19 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199804021354.FAA11488 lists1.best.com)
On 2 Apr 98 , c.mcilroy wrote:
) steve wrote..
) )in Waldorf there is a
) )special problem in trying to get people to see Europe as something other
) )than the most highly evolved society.
)
) according to your understanding, why is the problem more special in WE
) than elsewhere, when the whole western world is constructed on the
) cartesian dualistic paradigm which set up hierarchical thinking in the
) first place?
There are others on this list who can explain this better than I, but
basically Steiner saw different societies as having different roles in the
spiritual evolution of society. I don't recall all the details offhand,
although I have read them.
Basically, starting with Lemuria, and through Atlantis, ancient India,
Persia, Egypt, the Greeks, the Hebrews, and Europe, each society had
particular skills and attributes, and the people had particular abilities,
that were fundamentally different. In the earliest societies, people had
the ability to see the spiritual realm directly, and it was more "real" to
them than the physical realm. Later, I think it was only the kings that
had the direct line to the spiritual realm, so they really did rule by
"divine right." Finally, with the Greeks, the people became more
completely aware of the physical world, and rationality and democracy
became the order of the day.
I think the Hebrews' role was to evolve into a physical form sufficient to
receive the Christ (or Christs, I think there were two), whose coming has
some kind of special significance with respect to bringing the physical
and spiritual together.
Finally, in present-day Europe, this synthesis of the spiritual and
physical is becoming more complete, which is the hallmark of the Michaelic
age.
This is all off the top of my head. Would Dan or anyone like to step in
and correct me where I'm wrong, and explain it better?
Anyway, with this specific concept of the special role of white people in
the spiritual evolution of humanity, it is unlikely that anthroposophists
are likely to see Europeans as something other than the most spiritually
evolved people.
Now, Carl, I have some questions for you. You said:
) the whole western world is constructed on the cartesian dualistic
) paradigm which set up hierarchical thinking in the first place...
What is hierarchical thinking? What is the cartesian dualistic paradigm?
In what way did the cartesian dualistic paradigm set up hierarchical
thinking? How is the western world constructed on the cartesian dualistic
paradigm?
What you said sounds really good, but as I'm not well versed in
philosophy, I have no idea what it means.
Steve Premo http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
"Computers, huh? I guess they're OK... if you've got the time"
--Barry "The Flash" Allen
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n703 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n704 --------------
001 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n702
002 - lark involved.com (Lark J - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n702
003 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n702
004 - lark involved.com (Lark J - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n702
005 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n702
006 - angelica hesse (hesse96 m - Re: Defensiveness, Elitism, etc
007 - angelica hesse (hesse96 m - Re: Defensiveness, Elitism, etc
008 - angelica hesse (hesse96 m - Computers in waldorf
009 - angelica hesse (hesse96 m - Lark's Questions
010 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Re: Defensiveness, Elitism, etc
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n704.1 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n702
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 1998 10:22:50 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199804021354.FAA11488 lists1.best.com)
c.mcilroy wrote:
) to ezra..
) racism, sexism, ethnocentrism etc pervade all modern western education
) systems, including WE, i believe.
With the exception of a few exceptional examples, all the isms you mentioned are
evidenced in _all_cultures_. Traditions distinct to western culture set the
course for the identification and discussion of these predjudices which stem
mostly from bigotry (I would assert).If anyone would like to proffer an example
of cultural egalitariansim I have overlooked, please do.
Again, the only evidence in WE of the racism and sexism you want to address is
to be found in the time spent on the respective subjects. I, nor anyone I know
from WE, was _ever_ told, implied or otherwise conveyed, that white males from
Germany were better than anyone else. Now one may say that the message is
implicit, and I say if your paranoid, everything is implicit. Read some Kafka,
or my favorite, Pynchon.
) the matter needs attending to everywhere.
) how do you think they can be addressed specifically within the framework of
) WE and steiner philosophy?
Honestly, I Dan would be a better source of the ins and outs of Steiner
philosphy as it is written. In my 12 years of WE I never read a Steiner book.
They gave me one when I graduated and I might be able to dig it up, but I have
never been compelled to do so.
) for example, how can the study of the evolution
) of human consciousness in the primary curriculum be more inclusive of
) 'other' cultures;
Why should it be more inclusive? There are only so many hours in the day, and
it is an opinion that WE already doesn't spend enough time on fundamentals. I
would also like someone to type out the cannon of cultures to be included. When
we can all agree on the list, then we can move onto the list of other factions
(isms) and when these lists are sorted out, then we can discuss implementation.
) how can the study of 'human' consciousness be more
) inclusive of women in his-story? please remember, i am for WE, just against
) the dominating 'isms', and am seeking constructive critique.
I appreciate the spirit of your question, but I think you should consider the
opportunity costs of changing an already very liberal education. Also, I think
that such a reformation would run counter to the beliefs of the more skeptical
on this list, who are calling for a more conservative incarnation of WE.
)
)
) carl
)
) )
)
) ________________________________
) c.mcilroy student.murdoch.edu.au
) ________________________________
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n704.2 ---------------
From: lark involved.com (Lark Jarvis)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n702
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 1998 10:33:13 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199804021354.FAA11488 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199804021730.JAA10919 lists1.best.com)
At 09:25 AM 4/2/98 +0000, Steve wrote:
)Basically, starting with Lemuria, and through Atlantis,
(snip)
Is there evidence (legitimate archaelogical, historical, ect.) that
suggests Lemuria and Atlantis existed anywhere outside Steiner's
imagination? Sorry if, as a new subscriber, I'm plowing through old
territory or showing my ignorance, but that seems to me to be a rather
pertinent place to start .. . .
(snip)
You also wrote:
)Now, Carl, I have some questions for you. (snip)
I'm not Carl, but I'll try to field this one, as it seems to be my major
beef with WE's whole religious outlook . . .
you ask:
What is the cartesian dualistic paradigm?
In a nutshell, the Cartesian dualistic paradigm refers to the "deal" that
the Church made with the burgeoning field of science (exact dates are bad,
here . . . . I THINK it was around the 1500's or 1600's--sorry--my public
school education showing through, here . . ;) Anyway, the Church
essentially said it was perfectly fine with them for the scientists to
study the body as a *mechanistic* system, as long as the realm of the
spirit was left to the Church. (formally separating mind from body, in
other words). Every bit of research we now have, particularly in the field
of psychoneuroimmunology, suggests that any such division is quite
artificial (see especially the work of hard scientist Candace Pert, PhD, as
excerpted in Bill Moyers' _Healing and the Mind_. The research saying that
body/mind/spirit are inextricably connected is consistently there, from
numerous sources, but the profound philosophical/theological paradigm shift
to which such research necessarily leads us is, of course, occurring much
more slowly . . .). (Question for those who'd know--in a Waldorf
curriculum, would a high-schooler ever even be *exposed* to such research,
such profound ideas and such hard scientific research??)
Now, the personal conflict I have here, as a massage therapist who'd LOVE
for my hypothetical children to get the kind of kinesthetic education that
WE offers is: ironically, Steiner's theological sense seems to be
struggling/toying with, but not actually quite articulating the *repair* of
the Cartesian split (which we've only had actual scientific evidence for in
the last 15-20 yrs or so . . . ). But his theology doesn't quite make it.
Side note, here--a few years ago, when I first encountered a little bit of
Steiner's writings, the thing that instantly jumped out at me as quite
loopy was the bit about seeing "auras" around living things, all that. Now
that I've lived in Oregon for a while, and actually know quite a few
"perfectly regular, normal" people who see auras and feel energy fields, I
don't think that's loopy at all (and I wish I could develop those abilities
myself, as a bodyworker!) Now, however, I have problems with any system of
theological thought that in any way separates spirit from body, or god from
the world (I forget the exact theological term for that . . . ). Seems
that Steiner does both--(no fault of his, I guess--at the time he was
writing, it probably seemed to make sense . . . ). In any case, that makes
me wish I could just get the kinesthetic part of WE education without the
bizarre religious *belief system* part.
And, referring to someone's statement yesterday or day before about "people
who are more spiritual than others," well, ummmmm, see below. My experience
has been that belief systems and understanding of what spirituality
actually is (that is, that we all "have it," or more accurately, ARE it,
whether we think about it or not) are two ENTIRELY different things. Along
those lines, does anybody know of any research that delves into the
question: How many Waldorf educators who've thrived in the training
environment, or actual proponents of Anthroposophy come from backgrounds
that have more than the usual amount of religious fundamentalism? I wonder.
The *need* to cling to such complex, "revealed" belief systems usually
indicates a long family history of such belief systems . . . different
content, same structure . . .
Lark Jarvis, LMT
Portland, OR
*********************************************************
"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience, but rather
spiritual beings having a human experience."
--Teilhard de Chardin
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n704.3 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n702
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 1998 12:55:25 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199804021354.FAA11488 lists1.best.com) (199804021846.KAA18536 lists1.best.com)
Lark Jarvis wrote:
) At 09:25 AM 4/2/98 +0000, Steve wrote:
)
) )Basically, starting with Lemuria, and through Atlantis,
) (snip)
)
) Is there evidence (legitimate archaelogical, historical, ect.) that
) suggests Lemuria and Atlantis existed anywhere outside Steiner's
) imagination?
Other than oral tradition and multicultural mythology, there is probably not
alot there. Ice bridges are currently in vogue explanations of how early man got
around. Plate Tectonics, a revolutionary concept of Edward Mallory around the
turn of the century led to other important geological discoveries like sea floor
spreading. Steiner was not the first, or most original in his philosophy of
history. Lastly, Steiner's vision of history and philosophy of history is NOT
taught in WE.
) Sorry if, as a new subscriber, I'm plowing through old
) territory or showing my ignorance, but that seems to me to be a rather
) pertinent place to start .. . .
) (snip)
) You also wrote:
) )Now, Carl, I have some questions for you. (snip)
)
) I'm not Carl, but I'll try to field this one, as it seems to be my major
) beef with WE's whole religious outlook . . .
) you ask:
) What is the cartesian dualistic paradigm?
) In a nutshell, the Cartesian dualistic paradigm refers to the "deal" that
) the Church made with the burgeoning field of science (exact dates are bad,
) here . . . .
This is a political explanation (one I am vaguely familiar with). Beginning
with Descartes, and Spinoza as well, philosophers looked at the world (in a very
large sense) as being fundamentally split in nature. There was a dualism
between the physical world of the senses and the ethereal (spiritual) world of
the mind (and spirit). This perspective is probably one of the dominant
paradigms of Occidental thought.
) Every bit of research we now have, particularly in the field
) of psychoneuroimmunology, suggests that any such division is quite
) artificial (see especially the work of hard scientist Candace Pert, PhD, as
) excerpted in Bill Moyers' _Healing and the Mind_.
While I applaud your materialism, I hesitate to be so cavalier. There a
precedents in math, physics, philosophy and complex systems theory that describe
a reality that is at least dual in nature, if not more. Inconsistency theorems,
singularities and emergent systems are some of the symptoms.
) The research saying that
) body/mind/spirit are inextricably connected is consistently there, from
) numerous sources, but the profound philosophical/theological paradigm shift
) to which such research necessarily leads us is, of course, occurring much
) more slowly . . .). (Question for those who'd know--in a Waldorf
) curriculum, would a high-schooler ever even be *exposed* to such research,
) such profound ideas and such hard scientific research??)
Are students in any high school exposed to such research? Since something like
90% of American's believe in Angels, I doubt it. Furthermore, I think you are
confusing bleeding edge theory with hard science. How about the socio-economic
shift? I don't think it would be pretty.
)
)
) Now, the personal conflict I have here, as a massage therapist who'd LOVE
) for my hypothetical children to get the kind of kinesthetic education that
) WE offers is: ironically, Steiner's theological sense seems to be
) struggling/toying with, but not actually quite articulating the *repair* of
) the Cartesian split (which we've only had actual scientific evidence for in
) the last 15-20 yrs or so . . . ). But his theology doesn't quite make it.
I agree to some degree. Steiner formed his theory given the split, but was not
sufficiently skeptical to presuppose the split itself.
)
)
) Side note, here--a few years ago, when I first encountered a little bit of
) Steiner's writings, the thing that instantly jumped out at me as quite
) loopy was the bit about seeing "auras" around living things, all that. Now
) that I've lived in Oregon for a while, and actually know quite a few
) "perfectly regular, normal" people who see auras and feel energy fields, I
) don't think that's loopy at all (and I wish I could develop those abilities
) myself, as a bodyworker!) Now, however, I have problems with any system of
) theological thought that in any way separates spirit from body, or god from
) the world (I forget the exact theological term for that . . . ). Seems
) that Steiner does both--(no fault of his, I guess--at the time he was
) writing, it probably seemed to make sense . . . ). In any case, that makes
) me wish I could just get the kinesthetic part of WE education without the
) bizarre religious *belief system* part.
Could you better define your use of kinesthic in the context of your letter? I
wonder what your thoughts on Eurythmy are? As a child and young adult in WE, my
main gripe was the compulsary Eurythmy I was subject to every week. I did
everything and anything I could think of to drop the class, avoid the class,
have the class cancelled.To this day I think it was a useless waste of time, but
to be fair I am NOT a big fan of dance in any form. Personally, I would
probably place Eurythmy high on my list of Anthro influences of my childhood.
The best explanation given at the time was that it helped our social
coordination (not the sodium pentothol solution commonly ascribe to here), an
unsatisfactory explanation to me. I am almost certain that there are
"sprititual reasonings" behind my own personal hell story, but were these taught
to me? Was I indoctrinated? I don't think so, I still hate Eurythmy.
)
)
) And, referring to someone's statement yesterday or day before about "people
) who are more spiritual than others," well, ummmmm, see below. My experience
) has been that belief systems and understanding of what spirituality
) actually is (that is, that we all "have it," or more accurately, ARE it,
) whether we think about it or not) are two ENTIRELY different things. Along
) those lines, does anybody know of any research that delves into the
) question: How many Waldorf educators who've thrived in the training
) environment, or actual proponents of Anthroposophy come from backgrounds
) that have more than the usual amount of religious fundamentalism?
Most of my teachers (no Gallup polls available), came from mainstream
education. None were washouts or unsuccessfull at what they did. Quickly, my
(HS) history teacher was an AP correspondant and Yale alum, my chemistry and
physic teacher was an electrical engineer (from South America), my english
teacher was either a PhD candidate or had the credential (in English lit I
believe). My paleantology/natural sciences teacher worked for an FX company in
LA, but was an educated Paleantologist (and my introduction to Stephen J.
Gould. These are all teachers at the Sacramento Waldorf School (Next to the
Rudolf Steiner college). Most of the kids I graduated (at least at the time)
thought the RSC people were a bunch of wierdos on the hill. In fact,
Anthroposophy was constantly ridiculed by the SWS HS students. Would adolescent
rebellion have it any other way?
Ezra Beeman
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n704.4 ---------------
From: lark involved.com (Lark Jarvis)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n702
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 1998 14:01:33 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199804021354.FAA11488 lists1.best.com)
(199804021846.KAA18536 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199804022056.MAA20609 lists1.best.com)
At 12:55 PM 4/2/98 -0800, Ezra wrote, re: Lemuria, etc:
)history. Lastly, Steiner's vision of history and philosophy of history is
NOT
)taught in WE.
)
Good, that's all I wanted to know! ;)
)) Sorry if, as a new subscriber, I'm plowing through old
)) In a nutshell, the Cartesian dualistic paradigm refers to the "deal" that
)) the Church made with the burgeoning field of science (exact dates are bad,
)) here . . . .
)
)This is a political explanation (one I am vaguely familiar with). Beginning
)with Descartes, and Spinoza as well, philosophers looked at the world (in
a very
)large sense) as being fundamentally split in nature. There was a dualism
)between the physical world of the senses and the ethereal (spiritual)
world of
)the mind (and spirit). This perspective is probably one of the dominant
)paradigms of Occidental thought.
)
Agreed. Can't pin all the blame on the Church . . . ;)
I wrote: The research saying that
)) body/mind/spirit are inextricably connected is consistently there, from
)) numerous sources, but the profound philosophical/theological paradigm shift
)) to which such research necessarily leads us is, of course, occurring much
)) more slowly . . .). (Question for those who'd know--in a Waldorf
)) curriculum, would a high-schooler ever even be *exposed* to such research,
)) such profound ideas and such hard scientific research??)
)
)Are students in any high school exposed to such research? Since something
like
)90% of American's believe in Angels, I doubt it.
Well, given the high-powered types you list below as having been your
teachers, obviously we're not talking about "Joe Six-pacs," y'know? . . .
Clearly, those people are going to be bright enought that SOME coherent (?)
philosophy/worldview most likely underlies their teaching. I just wanted
to know if Steiner's ideas/worldview at all influenced what/how they taught.
Furthermore, I think you are
)confusing bleeding edge theory with hard science.
Actually, I believe Candace Pert, at one time, either received grant money
from, or worked for the NIH. They don't exactly fund bleeding edge
research, generally . . .
How about the socio-economic
)shift? I don't think it would be pretty.
WHAT socio-economic shift? I'm not sure I understand the question. Noone
argues that there are widening cultural/economic gulfs anyway . . . which
ANY private education only deepens . . . That's life.
Now, however, I have problems with any system of
)) theological thought that in any way separates spirit from body, or god from
)) the world (I forget the exact theological term for that . . . ). Seems
)) that Steiner does both--(no fault of his, I guess--at the time he was
)) writing, it probably seemed to make sense . . . ). In any case, that makes
)) me wish I could just get the kinesthetic part of WE education without the
)) bizarre religious *belief system* part.
)
)Could you better define your use of kinesthic in the context of your letter?
Meaning that movement and learning are inseparable. That is, kids with
proprioceptive problems are going to have a heck of a time learning math,
in any setting, and that reading can't occur before certain physiological
stages of development happen (binocularity of vision, etc etc--see HANDLE
Institute's website at http://www.handle.org for more info. BTW, HANDLE
actually works in conjunction with the Seattle Waldorf School, or at least
observations are done there . . .). Working on supporting physiological
developmental processes can't be all bad, right?
You ask: I
)wonder what your thoughts on Eurythmy are?
Actually, I'm wondering if you could tell me a little more about it. I
confess I've never seen it in action, and have little idea what it entails
in Real Life. It's very hard to find anything concrete about it in the
curriculum or on the Net. (hmmmm. that's never a good sign . . . ;) As a
bodyworker, I'm very curious as to what the underlying tenets and
techniques are. . .
On the surface, it sounds reasonable, and like a very good, scientifically
sound idea to have kids *moving* and learning, but how arcane is Eurhythmy
in RL? In your opinion, does it promote and enhance one's sense of somatic
grouding and sense of physical self-expression, or does it rigidly impede
it, and unwittingly reinforce most of Western Civilization's underlying
shame around bodies in general?
And, last Big Question: How is it overtly connected to Anthroposophy?
I wrote: Along
)) those lines, does anybody know of any research that delves into the
)) question: How many Waldorf educators who've thrived in the training
)) environment, or actual proponents of Anthroposophy come from backgrounds
)) that have more than the usual amount of religious fundamentalism?
)
Your reply:)Most of my teachers (no Gallup polls available), came from
mainstream
)education. None were washouts or unsuccessfull at what they did.
Quickly, my
)(HS) history teacher was an AP correspondant and Yale alum, my chemistry and
)physic teacher was an electrical engineer (from South America), my english
)teacher was either a PhD candidate or had the credential (in English lit I
)believe). My paleantology/natural sciences teacher worked for an FX
company in
)LA, but was an educated Paleantologist (and my introduction to Stephen J.
)Gould. These are all teachers at the Sacramento Waldorf School (Next to the
)Rudolf Steiner college). Most of the kids I graduated (at least at the time)
)thought the RSC people were a bunch of wierdos on the hill.
Hmmmm. Did you think the same of your *teachers*? (They were not RSC
grads, in other words??)
I'm really curious about what you have to say, here--what do you think
motivated these people to enter WE culture in the first place? Were they
people you'd want as role models for your own children (hypothetical or
no)? This is what would concern me most about sending a child to (most)
public schools--I remember very painfully well what it was like to be
smarter than the teacher, and to have teachers whose goals and worldviews
were apallingly small. I wouldn't want my child to spend 8 hrs a day with
them--sorry if that sounds elitist . . .I realize that not *all* public
school teachers are like that, but certainly many of the ones I encountered
were. That's what I'd seek to avoid. So, why do you think these people
chose Waldorf schools over any of the other private schools they could have
chosen to teach in? Did you detect a certain common rigidity in these people?
So I guess, all philosophical hair-splitting re: Steiner aside, I'd ask,
"Was your overall experience valuable, and would you send your child to a
Waldorf school? What were your least favorite, and most favorite things
about the situation and especially, the people you encountered?"
Feel free to ignore the question, and sorry if you've "been there, answered
that" too many times on the list already . .. Thanks for any input,
Lark
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n704.5 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n702
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 1998 17:20:43 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199804021354.FAA11488 lists1.best.com)
(199804021846.KAA18536 lists1.best.com) (199804022212.OAA02322 lists1.best.com)
Lark Jarvis wrote:
) Well, given the high-powered types you list below as having been your
) teachers, obviously we're not talking about "Joe Six-pacs," y'know? . . .
) Clearly, those people are going to be bright enought that SOME coherent (?)
) philosophy/worldview most likely underlies their teaching. I just wanted
) to know if Steiner's ideas/worldview at all influenced what/how they taught.
)
Yes, I would say that Steiner's ideas/worldview influenced what/how they taught.
Anybody working so hard for so little (Waldorf teachers are very underpaid, none
making over 25,000) is probably doing it for ideological reasons.
) Furthermore, I think you are
) )confusing bleeding edge theory with hard science.
)
) Actually, I believe Candace Pert, at one time, either received grant money
) from, or worked for the NIH. They don't exactly fund bleeding edge
) research, generally . . .
Don't know who she is, I'll take your word for it. My point is that there are
many contemporary examples of controversial (bleeding edge theory) "hard"
scientists. NIH=National Institute of Health? BTW Did you read the seventh
grader's refutation of touch healing? I think the people behind that are
available at www.quackwatch.com , an interesting site.
)
)
) How about the socio-economic
) )shift? I don't think it would be pretty.
) WHAT socio-economic shift? I'm not sure I understand the question. Noone
) argues that there are widening cultural/economic gulfs anyway . . . which
) ANY private education only deepens . . . That's life.
Without getting into too much detail, the ramifications of the mind as nothing
special, as merely a clockwork orange (so to speak), ripple through the social
fabric of our society. What happens to percieved social contracts (like
democracy) based on the uniqueness of the human condition (our mind). If humans
are subject to the laws fo physics, chemistry and biology then they shall be
subject to technology. And everyone knows what happens when engineers are in
charge.... ; )
) )wonder what your thoughts on Eurythmy are?
)
) Actually, I'm wondering if you could tell me a little more about it. I
) confess I've never seen it in action, and have little idea what it entails
) in Real Life. It's very hard to find anything concrete about it in the
) curriculum or on the Net. (hmmmm. that's never a good sign . . . ;)
Not suprising since WE doesn't foster computer interfacing. It was an issue to
hand in typed essays in High School. I work in IT with UNIX, and Windows NT OS,
so I don't think it was crippling. Again, it is a symptom of 'educating the whole
child.' Or whatever the credo is. There is very little, if any, specialization in
WE (a very liberal tradition).
) As a
) bodyworker, I'm very curious as to what the underlying tenets and
) techniques are. . .
) On the surface, it sounds reasonable, and like a very good, scientifically
) sound idea to have kids *moving* and learning, but how arcane is Eurhythmy
) in RL? In your opinion, does it promote and enhance one's sense of somatic
) grouding and sense of physical self-expression, or does it rigidly impede
) it, and unwittingly reinforce most of Western Civilization's underlying
) shame around bodies in general?
What is RL? Real life?Well, there is a Eurythmy alphabet which is phonetically
based, but in three dimenshional space. You learn the vowels first as a youngster
and then progress to poetry in adolescence. The alphabet consists mainly of
upperbody movements, but some, like the 'fuh' sound, involve a slight step
forward. Combine this with moving around the room (barefoot, how pagan) in
various patterns with your fellow students, and I can see how an argument for
dexterity can be made. On the one hand, students are pantomiming the teacher
(rigid), on the other, the dance is choreographed by the teacher. I'm sure that
had I the urge, I could have joined the Eurythmy club and expressed myself to my
hearts desire.Since I had a bad attitude about it, I think my self-expression was
listlessness and the rigidity of the system usually gave me a B-.
) And, last Big Question: How is it overtly connected to Anthroposophy?
No idea, ask Dan.
) Hmmmm. Did you think the same of your *teachers*? (They were not RSC
) grads, in other words??)
Most of my teachers were older individuals with life experience in contrast to the
typical "anthro" who was young and wet behind the ears. Another important
difference could be that my teachers were teachers first, anthros second
(chronologically speaking). They certainly seemed to reflect this in their
teaching (ideologically speaking). I forgot to mention my math teacher who also
taught at the local junior college. I don't know if they all attended RSC or not,
but I am sure they sympathized to one degree or another.
) I'm really curious about what you have to say, here--what do you think
) motivated these people to enter WE culture in the first place?
Altruism and desire for an appealing alternative to the industrial revolutions
answer to ediucation.
) Were they
) people you'd want as role models for your own children (hypothetical or
) no)? This is what would concern me most about sending a child to (most)
) public schools--I remember very painfully well what it was like to be
) smarter than the teacher, and to have teachers whose goals and worldviews
) were apallingly small. I wouldn't want my child to spend 8 hrs a day with
) them--sorry if that sounds elitist .
I wouldn't call them narrow especially since they are alternative pedagogues,
which is somewhat of an oxymoron.
) . .I realize that not *all* public
) school teachers are like that, but certainly many of the ones I encountered
) were. That's what I'd seek to avoid. So, why do you think these people
) chose Waldorf schools over any of the other private schools they could have
) chosen to teach in? Did you detect a certain common rigidity in these people?
That is an interesting question. What would their options be? Since our school
was so small, we competed against other private schools in the area, all but one
of which were parochial. The exception was the country day school. I was in
Montasori for pre-school, a school I think has progressive ideals (although I am
largely ignorant of the theory), but I thought it did not address anything but
early child development. They let me play with fire when I was like five ; ).They
were my teachers so I don't think that mine was an objective perspective. How
many have memories of benevolent headmasters?
Many of the students perceive a cult of Waldorf themselves. A complaint of HS
kids was how much of your personal life the teachers (your main lesson teacher in
LS and your sponsors in HS) cared about. Their job did not end a 3pm. This is
typical cult behavior, but it is also typical behavior of concerned teachers. It
is also the luxury of small class sizes that it unheard of in public education.
There are no testing grounds in public education to see if the (apparent cult
like) behavior of various waldorf schools is due to the underlying ideology, or
human behavior in general. I think that public schools with 20-25 kids in a class
and classes of no more than 50 (larger than any WE HS in the US) would be of a
very different character.
An example of the close knitted Waldorf community (cult) was attempts (by members
of the parents) to set a class curfew. My parents and a few others said
absolutely no. I've never had a curfew in my life.
I was a student of my LS teacher for 2 or more hours everyday, for 8 years. My HS
sponsors not nearly as much, but they were responsible for 4 years.
)
)
) So I guess, all philosophical hair-splitting re: Steiner aside, I'd ask,
) "Was your overall experience valuable, and would you send your child to a
) Waldorf school?
Provided I live near a school big enough to offer adequate opportunity, yes,
definately.Especially with my trained WE eye, I think that I could maximize the
benefit to my children and already plan to be very active in the education of my
children. There is nothing more fundamentally important than education (and
carbon).
There are times I wonder how I would have turned out in a big public school like
Davis, CA. Would I have taken all AP classes and honors in HS? What would have
happened if I'd learned computer programming in junior high? I don't know.
I have friends I have know for 18 years who share a very unique bond. They are
all fantastic human beings and among the most complete people I know. They range
from RSC students, to commercial airline pilots to PhD candidates in Mathematics.
Is this a product of WE or a reflection of the family environment that sent them
there? I don't know.
I can sing, act, speak a foreign language, knit, perl, sew, paint, draw, play the
saxophone, read music. I have experienced greek, latin, the violin, flute,
pottery, dance. I used to have excellent handwriting (before I started typing
everything), and a top memory (not allowed to take notes in LS). I read more than
anyone I know (Waldorf actively discourages TV in the home). Most importantly (to
me), was my extended stay in childhood (myths and stories till 3rd grade ain't all
bad).
) What were your least favorite, and most favorite things
) about the situation and especially, the people you encountered?"
Least favorite is Eurythmy and the 30 miles I had to travel each way, each day to
get to school with the school librarian and about 5-8 other students (a quick
vision of personal hell). Gardening class, growing up on a (organic) farm made it
seem especially pointless. Not enough girls to choose from (and after 10 years,
many were more like sisters).I've already outlined some of my favorites.
)
)
) Feel free to ignore the question, and sorry if you've "been there, answered
) that" too many times on the list already . .. Thanks for any input,
) Lark
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n704.6 ---------------
From: angelica hesse (hesse96 matrix.newpaltz.edu)
Subject: Re: Defensiveness, Elitism, etc
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1998 00:05:38 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: (199804011754.JAA13079 lists1.best.com) from "Ezra Beeman" at Apr 1, 98 09:53:56 am
) "Ever Since Darwin." Another example of (probably good) Me is found in economic
) theory, where the invisible hand of Me allocates resources efficiently in a given
) Market. There is obviously a lot of room for contention here, as efficient does not
) equal good or just in many minds, so please don't misconstrue my comments as
) (purported) fact, merely observation.
This point is well stated. Yes, I would have to agree that "me" has had
it's purposes in the world. I won't argue that it's entirely bad. I think
what concerns me is a growing trend, especially in the US for the "me" to
become more important than anything else. I fear that is a dangerous
tendency.
Angelica G. Hesse
hesse96 matrix.newpaltz.edu
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n704.7 ---------------
From: angelica hesse (hesse96 matrix.newpaltz.edu)
Subject: Re: Defensiveness, Elitism, etc
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1998 00:44:04 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: (199804020150.RAA29314 lists1.best.com) from "Michael Kopp" at Apr 2, 98 01:50:12 pm
) KOPP says:
[about anthroposophists]
) They mouth plattitudes, they talk about open-mindedness, they go on
) ad-nauseam about their and their guru's spiritual insights (none of which
) can be shown evidentially to anyone else, but have to be believed like
) fairy tales).
If this is truly what is happening, it is very unfortunate. Steiner himself
would have been truly dissapointed, if not seriously worried by such an
idea. He stated again and again that the ideas he spoke and wrote about
should not be taken on blind faith, that people SHOULD test the ideas for
themselves, and only accept them if they found that to be true and logical.
ANything other than that would be against the spirit (attitude) out of which
he worked. I have no doubt taht there are probably people who treat the
material in just this dangerous way. However, I would hope that not
everyone does so.
) But they begin by dismissing humanism and rationalism as a means of
) understanding the world, and they end all discussion by exhorting those who
) are skeptical of spiritualism to "do the work themselves" and they will
) come to the same enlightenment. (It's mainly rationalism as a process
) rather than humanism as a philosophy which is the general motivator of most
) critical thinkers here.)
Speaking for myself, I admit I have not studies humanism very much, am only
vaguely familiar with it's concepts (other than what I read here). However,
again speaking for myself, I have not found that such a perspective of the
world fully answers my questions about life, and it's meaning, etc. I would
also have to say that I have found a similar situation in most religious
(especially modern christian) belief systems. I have found anthroposophy to
provide better, more in depth answers to many of these questions. Perhaps
in arguing (which is dangerously easy to do), I have been somewhat
dismissive at times. I hope, however, that I do not treat the world and
its people and ideas with such contempt or dissinterest as was implied in
the text quoted here.
) We've been treated to a spectacle of more of this spiritualist twaddle
) (it's cyclical, depending on the SWA newbies who arrive on this list
) without reading the archives to see that we've all been there, done that
) already) for the last couple of weeks. I've stayed quiet (send thanks via
) private email) but I do want to remind old-timers of, and alert newcomers
) to, some list realities.
No, I for one have not read the archives (partially due to lack of time) but
primarily beause having conversations and discussions with people is more
interesting to me than reading arguments (I get enough of the latter in
school and in lectures).
) This list is, for me, not about discussing the fine points of epistemology
) or spiritualism versus rationality. It is not about a meeting of the minds
) between SWA apologists, believers and defenders of the faith and doubters,
) skeptics or rejectors. I am a rejector. I do not want anything to do with
) SWA in any way.
Admittedly, we have gotten rather off topic from the list, but somewhere
along the line it seemed important to address the issues of whether
differing (including spiritual) perspectives had a valid position in society
and thus in education. And for teh record, you are being as dismissive here
as you accused me of being a moment ago.
) This list is about the hidden spiritualist influence in SWA education, and
) the duplicity of the SWA movement in not admitting its spiritualist agenda
) to parents before their children are sucked in.
My experience has been that spiritualism is not an AGENDA of waldorf
education. It is a previously existing world view out of which the waldorf
curriculum was formed. There would be no waldorf methodology without it,
because waldorf methods are based on a view of the child as a spiritual
being. WIthout that idea, Waldorf has no foundation on which to stand. But
waldorf schools are not trying to 'convert' children or anythign like that.
I know many waldorf students, alumnae, etc. Who really know absolutely
nothing about steiner's spriritual philosophy. I'm on of those who does
becuase my parents were active in it (outside of school) adn because I have
started to read some steiner since graduating from waldorf.
) We and our children were duped and sucked in, despite extra search and
) study before we signed on. I believe we were knowingly duped by SWA people
) whose agenda was their own, not the state's or ours. SWA is guilty of false
) advertising, both here and, apparently, in most places.
When you talk about false advertising, what exactly do you mean? What was
presented, and how did it conflict with what you found?
) This list is about exposing and criticising the faults in SWA education. It
) is not about helping make SWA education better (this list is replete with
) horror stories of how SWA is monolithically unchanging and unchangeable).
What sort of an agenda is that, anyway? It seems to serve little or no
purpose. Is the assumption one in which waldorf is unquestionably bad, in
which you simply seek to show it as such? If not, then critic should be
aimed more in the direction of addressing problems and hopefully improving
them.
) It is about making it more honest and accountable where parents decide to
) make it so in PRIVATE SWA schools, and where parents and the law demand it
) in PUBLIC or publicly-funded SWA schools.
)
) This list is also about the quality or lack thereof of the SWA _education_
) in terms of knowledge and ability to think critically, not to become
) wonderful people and warm human beings.
)
) I and most, if not all, SWA critics, agree that, for the most part, SWA
) education produces nice people -- but that's not enough. I think most
) children survive SWA education because they are, mostly, from upper
) socio-economic and intelligence levels in society -- not because they are
) well-eduated.
This is obviously an issue of what was consider to be the role of education
in society. Is it simply intended to create people who can think and
function coldly and accurately? Or is it better seen as an institution
intending to create intelligent, compassionate, well-functioning,
responsible citizens of society? I would certainly hope the latter. This,
as I see it, is what waldorf is attempting to address. I would also like to
note that I have seen a number of children who were NOT surviving well, or
thriving, in the public schools systems come to waldorf and do very well.
) (Our Steiner school has failed to meet state standards for teaching of the
) state curriculum for all of the five years that it has been publicly funded
) and required to teach the state curriculum alongside the "special
) character" curriculum -- the SWA spiritualist agenda. Yet the toothless
) state education review office has done little to ensure the school
) complies. And the school does not anywhere report on the review to parents,
) or make the review available to prospective parents, or even mention it.)
I find this surprising. I know that my school meets NY state requirements,
as we all receive diplomas issued jointly by the school and the state. THey
are considered perfectly valid. But maybe this isn't the case everywhere?
In Europe, where educational standards are more rigourous I know that a 13th
year is added, in order to make room for both the waldorf curriculum and the
state prerequisites for higher education.
) Recent thinking, comments and writing by SWA adherents and graduates on
) this list leads me to the reinforcement of my belief that SWA produces
) wooly thinkers who are so "open-minded" that they believe anything may be
) possible and do not know how to make judgements about reality. Nor can they
) actually explain, in coherent, plain, expository English, what they
) actually mean or believe. And when their maunderings are challenged or
) questioned, they become defensive and repeat the "open-minded" mantra.
SInce this post was in response to an earlier message of mine, I'll respond
in part to this. I have to admit that I'm not really in a position to
explain anthroposophy as my study of is remains very limited at this point.
But beyond that, I don't really intend to explain. That's not why I'm here.
I'd like to discuss rather than prove. As for wooly thinking, I believe
you're getting a wee bit condescending here. nothin posted here (at least
by me) is a researched thesis or anything like that. It's a dialogue
between people, much like a conversation. It just happens to be typed. I
treat it as such, and with some of the spontaneity that accompanies
speaking. Including typographical stuttering and mispronunciations!!!!
) I have also seen this wooly thinking firsthand with my own and other
) children in our school. Since my children have returned to the secular
) education system, they have, while at once having greater
) self-possessedness and self-confidence about their own abilities,
) demonstrated deficiencies in critical thought and reasoning, especially in
) the use of language, which require remedial work.
This is ridiculous. Waldorf ed is based so much on thinking, and writing.
Nothing is memorized and spat back on tests. I can't speak for you
children, but I certainly know that I faired very well in college english
and philosophy courses. My second semester english teacher speaks very
positively about my writing and thinking adn reasoning abilities. By
contrast, I was surprised by some of the basic deficiencies I saw in some of
the other students in my classes -- inability to match subject and verb, for
example.
) I am not averse to relations with spiritualists -- except that I think most
) of them are on another planet and it's difficult to have a conversation
) where we're not talking past each other.
Na, we're on the same planet. We jsut see it as including more than the
physical characteristics you see!
) Hesse's typical dismissiveness of humanism (and reason) is an indicator of
) this.
Since when am I dismissing reason???
Angelica G. Hesse
hesse96 matrix.newpaltz.edu
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n704.8 ---------------
From: angelica hesse (hesse96 matrix.newpaltz.edu)
Subject: Computers in waldorf
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1998 10:36:56 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: (199804030120.RAA16101 lists1.best.com) from "Ezra Beeman" at Apr 2, 98 05:20:43 pm
) Not surprising since WE doesn't foster computer interfacing. It was an issue to
) hand in typed essays in High School. I work in IT with UNIX, and Windows NT OS,
) so I don't think it was crippling. Again, it is a symptom of 'educating the whole
) child.' Or whatever the credo is. There is very little, if any, specialization in
) WE (a very liberal tradition).
My experience with computers, etc in high school as similar. We didn't' use
them. I year after I left, the school did purchase one PC for the use of
students, and especially for putting together the yearbook, newspaper, etc.
We did have a typing class for a while, and I learned to type at home, using
my father's computer. In addition, after ninth grade I was exposed to a Mac
while on a job, and learned some basics about that. Learning to type was
the most crucial part, and has stood me well since. I did some of my 'main
lesson books' on a typewriter my last few years (with illustrations of
course!!!!).
What's interesting despite all of this, and all of the illustration and
writing by hand that I've done is that I'm going into a computer dominated
field: graphic design. And I love it. I was completely competent on a Mac
after one semester using my roommates. Then I purchased my own PC. Since
then, I've considered myself very knowledgeable about computer use, and
continue to learn very quickly. Not using computer until late in high-school
or college doesn't seem to be crippling. I guess at that age it's still
easy enough to learn things.
My $.02 worth.
Angelica G. Hesse
hesse96 matrix.newpaltz.edu
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n704.9 ---------------
From: angelica hesse (hesse96 matrix.newpaltz.edu)
Subject: Lark's Questions
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1998 10:41:14 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: (199804021846.KAA18536 lists1.best.com) from "Lark Jarvis" at Apr 2, 98 10:33:13 am
Lark,
I'd like to answer some of your questions about Waldorf, based on my
experiences. Rather than hold up the list with this, however, I'd like to
send my comments directly to you... Could you send me your e-mail address?
Thanks
Angelica G. Hesse
hesse96 matrix.newpaltz.edu
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n704.10 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Re: Defensiveness, Elitism, etc
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 10:14:49 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199804030546.VAA02989 lists1.best.com)
) I find this surprising. I know that my school meets NY state requirements,
) as we all receive diplomas issued jointly by the school and the state. THey
) are considered perfectly valid. But maybe this isn't the case everywhere?
) In Europe, where educational standards are more rigourous I know that a 13th
) year is added, in order to make room for both the waldorf curriculum and the
) state prerequisites for higher education.
Please note that everyone in Europe has 13 years (at least in Germany, I think
the UK too).In California, the state did not issue me a second diploma, I don't
think that is customary. Top ranked West Coast colleges like Pomona, Occidental
and Reed recruit on our campus.
) This is ridiculous. Waldorf ed is based so much on thinking, and writing.
) Nothing is memorized and spat back on tests. I can't speak for you
) children, but I certainly know that I faired very well in college english
) and philosophy courses. My second semester english teacher speaks very
) positively about my writing and thinking adn reasoning abilities. By
) contrast, I was surprised by some of the basic deficiencies I saw in some of
) the other students in my classes -- inability to match subject and verb, for
) example.
My HS english teacher blows away any subsequent college teachers in terms of form
and structure criticism. I would turn in essays that came back with more red
than black, Strunk and White like you wouldn't believe. As for reasoning, I
majored in Philosphy (honors) and Economics, focusing on logic and quantitative
analysis, respectively.Ezra
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n704 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n705 --------------
001 - Herman de Tollenaere (her - Atlantis (was: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n702)
002 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: Fw: K-16: 'Standards' To Blame For Rise Of 'Fuzzy Math' (f
003 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Re: Defensiveness, Elitism, etc
004 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Re: Defensiveness, Elitism, etc
005 - angelica hesse (hesse96 m - English and Reasoning (was defensiveness, etc.)
006 - Daniel Sabsay (danielsabs - Re: Heart as pump, etc....
007 - angelica hesse (hesse96 m - Re: Heart as pump, etc....
008 - mckay oro.net (David B Mc - Re: Defensiveness, Elitism, etc
009 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: Heart as pump, etc....
010 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Re: Heart as pump, etc....
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n705.1 ---------------
From: Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl)
Subject: Atlantis (was: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n702)
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 1998 00:14:46 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 10:33 AM 2/4/98 -0800, Lark Jarvis wrote:
) Is there evidence (legitimate archaelogical, historical, ect.) that
)suggests Lemuria and Atlantis existed anywhere outside Steiner's
)imagination?
There certainly is historical evidence (in Madame Blavatsky's writings) that
Atlantis and Lemutia existed in the imagination of Madame Helena Blavatsky
(1831-1891), co-founder of the Theosophical Society, and major inspiration
to Steiner.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n705.2 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Fw: K-16: 'Standards' To Blame For Rise Of 'Fuzzy Math' (fwd)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 14:19:34 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (02d501bd5f26$eec49ae0$836d45ab good_homePC.cisco.com)
My youngest son, Max, is lucky enough to attend a school whose strength is math
and reading. Good old Saxon texts are used in combination with Mathland. Max's
math foundation is solid enough that he was selected as a GATE participant. In 4th
grade, he is learning Algebra AND loving it.
Deby
) 'Standards' To Blame For Rise Of 'Fuzzy Math'
)
) Frank B. Allen, former president of NCTM
) (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics = NCTM)
)
) Date: 4/3/98
)
) The annual convention of the National Council of Teachers of
) Mathematics began Thursday in Washington. The meeting should
) focus the nation's attention on the crisis in school mathematics - and
) the NCTM's role in perpetuating it.
)
) That a crisis exists cannot be denied. Results in February of the Third
) International Mathematics and Science Study were dismal. Of 21
) countries, U.S. high school seniors beat only Cyprus and South Africa.
)
) Why such failure? Part of the reason stems from the policies endorsed
) by the NCTM in its ''Standards'' -policies that have dominated
) classrooms since these high schoolers were in grade school.
)
) A first draft of the NCTM ''Standards'' appeared in '87, but the theories
) behind it were taught in teachers' colleges long before that. Anyone
) who cares about America's disgraceful math performance should ask
) NCTM's leaders to explain themselves and their policies.
)
) ''Our policies have not had time to operate'' and ''We have been
) misinterpreted'' are not acceptable answers.
)
) It's time for NCTM to admit that it has urged the use of highly
) controversial methods of teaching before they have been tested in
) well-controlled and replicated research studies.
)
) America's schools are laboratories for experimenting with these untried
) methods. Consider a few examples:
)
) Calculators replace old-fashioned memorization. Young people have
) highly retentive memories indispensable for learning the fundamentals
) of math before the sixth grade. Mastery of these fundamentals is the
) critical foundation on which understanding of mathematical concepts is
) built. No surprise that the highest-scoring countries on the TIMSS tests
) do not allow such early use of calculators.
)
) The doctrine of ''constructivism'' is becoming pervasive. The idea is that
) students understand and remember only what they ''construct,'' or
) discover for themselves. The result? Teachers - or books for that
) matter - no longer dispense information. Instead, students in
) ''cooperative learning'' groups reconstruct the great ideas of the past,
) starting at ground zero and aided only by their equally uninformed
) peers. Teachers are demoted to the role of ''facilitator,'' wandering from
) group to group.
)
) The new ''facilitators'' now use fuzzy ''authentic'' assessment systems.
) These minimize the importance of correct answers and often include
) deliberately ambiguous questions. They use subjective, inaccurate and
) unreliable grading techniques. Worse yet are group tests, which mask
) individual performance, make individually prescribed remedial work
) impossible and destroy the validity of course grades.
)
) Proofs and logic are out, especially in geometry. While speaking of
) ''higher-order thinking'' and ''mathematical reasoning,'' the NCTM has
) watched in silence as original proof and construction problems have
) virtually disappeared from the glossy 800-page ''coffee table'' books
) that now pass for geometry texts. A vast gulf exists between what NCTM
) says and the reality of NCTM-based programs.
)
) Social engineering and self-esteem are in. Under the guise of opening
) the door to higher-level math for all students, we now have algebra and
) geometry students who have difficulty with computation and are
) generally poorly prepared. This sends students the wrong message
) and hampers instruction. Recall that Jaime Escalante, of ''Stand and
) Deliver'' fame, showed us how students can earn their self-esteem and
) triumph when properly taught and motivated.
)
) Lacking support in either research or experience, NCTM-based
) programs are worse than just fads - they're mistakes that have been
) systematized. They impair the quality and content of the mathematics
) our students are expected to learn, and our national success requires
) that they be replaced.
)
) California may have suffered the most under these fads. But the state
) is moving in the right direction. The state recently adopted standards
) that clearly describe the mathematics that students are expected to
) learn in each grade in elementary school and in each subject in high
) school. The NCTM ''Standards'' do not do this. California's new
) standards beat those of all other states and Japan, in an independent
) review sponsored by the Fordham Foundation.
)
) Concerned parents around the country should follow California's lead.
) They can demand improvements and enlist the aid of local
) mathematicians. It's time to replace ''fuzzy math'' programs with real
) programs of math instruction that will let our students compete
) successfully with their peers in other industrialized countries.
)
) Frank B. Allen is former president of NCTM and a national adviser for
) Mathematically Correct
) (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/mathman/report.htm).
)
) (C) Copyright 1998 Investors Business Daily, Inc.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n705.3 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Re: Defensiveness, Elitism, etc
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 1998 10:51:04 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199804030546.VAA02989 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199804031816.KAA16206 lists1.best.com)
Ezra Beeman adds his approval of Waldorf English teaching to Angelica
Hesse's reply to Michael Kopp's original criticism of it.
Kopp says:
I did not say all Waldorf English teaching everywhere was bad.
I said that some Waldorf graduates thinking and writing on this list did
not inspire confidence in Waldorf teaching, and that other criticisms of
Waldorf educational success were known to this list.
I said that my own children's experience, and that of their fellow
students, in our Steiner school here in New Zealand were a disaster.
I am perfectly willing to believe that somewhere there is a Waldorf/
Steiner/ Anthroposophical school which has the rigour in English and
thinking that Hesse and Beeman suggest, and that Strunk and White are
victorious.
And I will also add that this country is becoming a nation of illiterates
because of the state education system's change to the "whole language"
approach to teaching of reading, writing and the use of language. I
expected better of the Steiner school, which had a recommended English
teacher, whose own writing and speaking I found exceptional.
Alas, not so in practice. My children's work was rarely corrected,
certainly not sub-edited in the Strunk and White tradition (which is how I
learned and how I have had to teach my children in the absence of any other
teaching).
Beeman quoting Hesse's reply to Kopp:
)) I find this surprising. I know that my school meets NY state requirements,
)) as we all receive diplomas issued jointly by the school and the state. THey
)) are considered perfectly valid. But maybe this isn't the case everywhere?
)) In Europe, where educational standards are more rigourous I know that a 13th
)) year is added, in order to make room for both the waldorf curriculum and the
)) state prerequisites for higher education.
)
Beeman:
)Please note that everyone in Europe has 13 years (at least in Germany, I think
)the UK too).In California, the state did not issue me a second diploma, I
)don't
)think that is customary. Top ranked West Coast colleges like Pomona,
)Occidental
)and Reed recruit on our campus.
)
Beeman quoting Hesse's reply to Kopp:
)) This is ridiculous. Waldorf ed is based so much on thinking, and writing.
)) Nothing is memorized and spat back on tests. I can't speak for you
)) children, but I certainly know that I faired very well in college english
)) and philosophy courses. My second semester english teacher speaks very
)) positively about my writing and thinking adn reasoning abilities. By
)) contrast, I was surprised by some of the basic deficiencies I saw in some of
)) the other students in my classes -- inability to match subject and verb, for
)) example.
)
Beeman:
)My HS english teacher blows away any subsequent college teachers in terms
)of form
)and structure criticism. I would turn in essays that came back with more red
)than black, Strunk and White like you wouldn't believe. As for reasoning, I
)majored in Philosphy (honors) and Economics, focusing on logic and
)quantitative
)analysis, respectively.Ezra
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n705.4 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Re: Defensiveness, Elitism, etc
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 15:23:02 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199804030546.VAA02989 lists1.best.com) (199804032250.OAA00703 lists1.best.com)
) And I will also add that this country is becoming a nation of illiterates
) because of the state education system's change to the "whole language"
) approach to teaching of reading, writing and the use of language. I
) expected better of the Steiner school, which had a recommended English
) teacher, whose own writing and speaking I found exceptional.
There is a raging debate in this country over which method should be used for
language education in young children. I guess there is the conventional method and
then there is the 'progressive' method. The progressive method uses phonics and
used to be sold on late night tv as the 'hooked on phonics' learning system. I
would be curious to hear anyone's experience of being 'hooked on phonics.'
Your whole language approach in NZ sounds strangely like the whole math approach I
just read about in a recent post.
The situation in this country isn't much different, even among high achievers.
Many top ranked colleges offer (compulsory for some freshman) remedial english
classes to prepare incomming students for the 'rigor' of college level exposition.
In public schools especially, the incentive for teachers to make kids write is
perverse. The more the kids write, the more the parents complain and the more the
teacher has to work to make corrections. Unless your in management consulting,
there is no substitute for hard work.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n705.5 ---------------
From: angelica hesse (hesse96 matrix.newpaltz.edu)
Subject: English and Reasoning (was defensiveness, etc.)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1998 18:32:59 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: (199804032250.OAA00703 lists1.best.com) from "Michael Kopp" at Apr 4, 98 10:51:04 am
) Kopp says:
) I did not say all Waldorf English teaching everywhere was bad.
) I said that some Waldorf graduates thinking and writing on this list did
) not inspire confidence in Waldorf teaching, and that other criticisms of
) Waldorf educational success were known to this list.
That's fair enough. I'm sure not every waldorf school is as successful as
others. As for the skills of graduates, there is always variation in
individual's abilities, no matter what school system they have attended. I
only hope you were referring to the current members of this list with that
comment.
) I said that my own children's experience, and that of their fellow
) students, in our Steiner school here in New Zealand were a disaster.
That is truly unfortunate. For your sake, your childrens, and the school's
too.
) I am perfectly willing to believe that somewhere there is a Waldorf/
) Steiner/ Anthroposophical school which has the rigour in English and
) thinking that Hesse and Beeman suggest, and that Strunk and White are
) victorious.
)
) And I will also add that this country is becoming a nation of illiterates
) because of the state education system's change to the "whole language"
) approach to teaching of reading, writing and the use of language. I
) expected better of the Steiner school, which had a recommended English
) teacher, whose own writing and speaking I found exceptional.
)
) Alas, not so in practice. My children's work was rarely corrected,
) certainly not sub-edited in the Strunk and White tradition (which is how I
) learned and how I have had to teach my children in the absence of any other
) teaching).
How old were the children at the time, and was the english teacher in
question actually teaching your children? ANd forgive my ignorance, but who
are Strunk and White?
Angelica G. Hesse
hesse96 matrix.newpaltz.edu
)
) Beeman quoting Hesse's reply to Kopp:
) )) I find this surprising. I know that my school meets NY state requirements,
) )) as we all receive diplomas issued jointly by the school and the state. THey
) )) are considered perfectly valid. But maybe this isn't the case everywhere?
) )) In Europe, where educational standards are more rigourous I know that a 13th
) )) year is added, in order to make room for both the waldorf curriculum and the
) )) state prerequisites for higher education.
) )
)
) Beeman:
) )Please note that everyone in Europe has 13 years (at least in Germany, I think
) )the UK too).In California, the state did not issue me a second diploma, I
) )don't
) )think that is customary. Top ranked West Coast colleges like Pomona,
) )Occidental
) )and Reed recruit on our campus.
) )
)
) Beeman quoting Hesse's reply to Kopp:
) )) This is ridiculous. Waldorf ed is based so much on thinking, and writing.
) )) Nothing is memorized and spat back on tests. I can't speak for you
) )) children, but I certainly know that I faired very well in college english
) )) and philosophy courses. My second semester english teacher speaks very
) )) positively about my writing and thinking adn reasoning abilities. By
) )) contrast, I was surprised by some of the basic deficiencies I saw in some of
) )) the other students in my classes -- inability to match subject and verb, for
) )) example.
) )
)
) Beeman:
) )My HS english teacher blows away any subsequent college teachers in terms
) )of form
) )and structure criticism. I would turn in essays that came back with more red
) )than black, Strunk and White like you wouldn't believe. As for reasoning, I
) )majored in Philosphy (honors) and Economics, focusing on logic and
) )quantitative
) )analysis, respectively.Ezra
)
)
)
)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n705.6 ---------------
From: Daniel Sabsay (danielsabsay earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Heart as pump, etc....
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 98 20:01:39 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
angelica hesse (hesse96 matrix.newpaltz.edu) wrote )
)Daniel wrote:
)) Babies come from sex, water is ACTUALLY composed of 2 parts hydrogen & 1
)) part oxygen, and the earth is no longer flat, either. These scientific
)) facts are not a matter of bias.
)
)Hmhm, and who's contesting this? These are some of the oldest, and most
)substantiated scientific facts. I doubt anyone is arguing about this. I'm
)certainly not. What I was referring to in terms of bias has more to do with
)recent research, things that are not as yet completely and irrevocably
)proven (if such a thing is even possible). As long as there is controversy
)around a 'fact' it needs to be considered, from as many angles as possible.
Actually, there is NO controversy about the heart being a pump. Only the
followers of St. Rudy are pursuing this nonsense to make Rudy inerrant.
When we talk about "proven", we do not mean accepted by 100% of the
world's population, including religious movements like anthroposophy.
Proven, in this context means that all the relevant experts accept the
verdict; the opinion of bible scholars is not relevant. In a sporting
contest, the best team is the team that wins in a contest with the other
major contenders, not the team or the commentator who writes the most
persuasive book.
So, Angelica, have you ever asked your physician father, or your biology
professor what they think of your considered opinion that "the heart is
not a pump"?
-- Daniel Sabsay, president
East Bay Skeptics Society
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n705.7 ---------------
From: angelica hesse (hesse96 matrix.newpaltz.edu)
Subject: Re: Heart as pump, etc....
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1998 23:59:48 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: (199804040402.UAA14671 lists1.best.com) from "Daniel Sabsay" at Apr 3, 98 08:01:39 pm
) Actually, there is NO controversy about the heart being a pump. Only the
) followers of St. Rudy are pursuing this nonsense to make Rudy inerrant.
) When we talk about "proven", we do not mean accepted by 100% of the
) world's population, including religious movements like anthroposophy.
There is controvery, even if you personal don't respect the people who are
conducting the studies.
) Proven, in this context means that all the relevant experts accept the
) verdict; the opinion of bible scholars is not relevant. In a sporting
) contest, the best team is the team that wins in a contest with the other
) major contenders, not the team or the commentator who writes the most
) persuasive book.
This has nothign to do with bible scholars. This is a scientific issue, not
a biblical one.
) So, Angelica, have you ever asked your physician father, or your biology
) professor what they think of your considered opinion that "the heart is
) not a pump"?
Actually, I wasn't quite sure how to approach my bio professor on this,
though I very mcuh wanted to. it seemed a bit odd in a huge lecture class
to bring up an issue like this. Nobody in class would have cared anyway.
As for my father, he's perfectly familiar with the ideas I'm talking about
and as far as I know supports them. He was actually considering joining
this list, and if he does, I'll make sure he addresses the issue.
Angelica G Hesse
hesse96 matrix.newpaltz.edu
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n705.8 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net (David B McKay)
Subject: Re: Defensiveness, Elitism, etc
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1998 21:41:57 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Ezra wrote this in reference to Michael Kopp:
)I think it was Oscar Wilde who once said that a cynic is someone who knows
)the cost
)of everything and the value of nothing. One of my favorites. I don't
)know whom to
)quote on the difference between a cynic and a skeptic....
)
Ezra, come on, think for yourself for once, get out a Dictionary and
look it up. Why do you need someone "to quote on the difference between a
cynic and a skeptic...."?
David
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n705.9 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Heart as pump, etc....
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 23:27:04 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199804040502.VAA23205 lists1.best.com)
Angelica writes,
) As for my father, he's perfectly familiar with the ideas I'm talking about
) and as far as I know supports them. He was actually considering joining
) this list, and if he does, I'll make sure he addresses the issue.
Is your father an Anthroposophical physician? (I seem to recall that you were raised
by Anthroposphical parents..) _Please_ ask him to join our list. I have a few
questions for him. My son is left handed and suffers from Neurocardiogenic Syncope
or Long QT Syndrom. I'd love to have an Anthroposophical opinion before May 14,
when we're flying to Utah for an evaluation.
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n705.10 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Re: Heart as pump, etc....
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 1998 12:17:25 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199804040402.UAA14671 lists1.best.com)
Could someone, briefly, what Steiner's views on the heart have to do with WE?
Before joining this list I never, ever, heard such nonsensical debat on the
subject. I learned all about the cardiovascular system and there were no
suprises when I hit collegiate biology, except perhaps the innanaties of my
fellow scientists. In fact, many people's idea of the scientific method was not
applicable outside lab, where it was explicitly formulated by the Prof.
My knowledge of alchemy is limited, but I seem to remember one fundamental aspect
of it was the use of symbols. In hard core alchemy, as practiced by
Rosecrucians, Freemasons and other "secret" societies, to take the writing
literally is to completely miss the point. They wrote in a kind of code to throw
off curious wannabes. Goethe and Steiner were both deeply interested in this
esoterica (as were Alchemedes, Pythagoras, Hermes and Spinoza to name a few
prominant people). If one can see the scholarly influence, than would should at
least suspect the literary.
Daniel Sabsay wrote:
) angelica hesse (hesse96 matrix.newpaltz.edu) wrote )
)
) )Daniel wrote:
) )) Babies come from sex, water is ACTUALLY composed of 2 parts hydrogen & 1
) )) part oxygen, and the earth is no longer flat, either. These scientific
) )) facts are not a matter of bias.
) )
) )Hmhm, and who's contesting this? These are some of the oldest, and most
) )substantiated scientific facts. I doubt anyone is arguing about this. I'm
) )certainly not. What I was referring to in terms of bias has more to do with
) )recent research, things that are not as yet completely and irrevocably
) )proven (if such a thing is even possible). As long as there is controversy
) )around a 'fact' it needs to be considered, from as many angles as possible.
)
) Actually, there is NO controversy about the heart being a pump. Only the
) followers of St. Rudy are pursuing this nonsense to make Rudy inerrant.
) When we talk about "proven", we do not mean accepted by 100% of the
) world's population, including religious movements like anthroposophy.
)
) Proven, in this context means that all the relevant experts accept the
) verdict; the opinion of bible scholars is not relevant. In a sporting
) contest, the best team is the team that wins in a contest with the other
) major contenders, not the team or the commentator who writes the most
) persuasive book.
Nice analogy.
)
)
) So, Angelica, have you ever asked your physician father, or your biology
) professor what they think of your considered opinion that "the heart is
) not a pump"?
)
) -- Daniel Sabsay, president
) East Bay Skeptics Society
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n705 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n706 --------------
001 - Daniel Sabsay (danielsabs - Re: Heart as pump, etc....
002 - Angelica (hesse96 matrix. - Re: Heart as pump, etc....
003 - mckay oro.net (David B Mc - Re: Heart as pump, etc....
004 - Daniel Sabsay (danielsabs - Re: Heart as pump, etc....
005 - Angelica (hesse96 matrix. - Re: Heart as pump, etc....
006 - Angelica (hesse96 matrix. - Re: Heart as pump, etc....
007 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Bay Area: Heart lecture May 26
008 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: Heart as pump, etc....
009 - Angelica (hesse96 matrix. - attn: all HUMAN beings
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n706.1 ---------------
From: Daniel Sabsay (danielsabsay earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Heart as pump, etc....
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 98 12:32:58 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Angelica Hesse, (hesse96 matrix.newpaltz.edu) wrote )
)I dont' buy the argument that the heart is a pump!!! I've heard it this year
)in class, and it just doesnt' hold water for me, because I've read a
)published medical research article proving just the opposite!
Daniel wrote ))
)) Actually, there is NO controversy about the heart being a pump. Only the
)) followers of St. Rudy are pursuing this nonsense to make Rudy inerrant.
)) When we talk about "proven", we do not mean accepted by 100% of the
)) world's population, including religious movements like anthroposophy.
Angelica adamently rejoined )
)There is controvery, even if you personal don't respect the people who are
)conducting the studies.
Prove it. Please cite something besides the scientifically worthless
article by Ralph Marinelli of Rudolph Steiner Research Center (titled
modestly: "The Heart Is Not A Pump: A Refutation of The Pressure
Propulsion Premise of Heart Function"). I venture to guess that this
little essay was strategically provided by your parochial Steiner/Waldorf
education.
)[...] Actually, I was referring to evidence presented, and the breadth of
)considerations of what the evidence means. I'm not sure if that article
)dealt with it or not, but I remember one piece of information in
)particular which I always found interesting. (forgive the digression
)here). It was the fact that blood circulates and pulses in an embryo
)before a heart is even formed. THe heart actually seems to form from
)this, thus indicating that the blood is not completely static and that
)the heart is not entirely responsible for "forcing" it through our blood
)vessels. This is a fact that I could not ignore, not matter what else
)was presented to me.
If you had a broader education in biology, you might realize that it is
commonplace for the human embryo to migrate from one system to another
during development. Besides the switch-over to heart pumping, the blood
system also switches from one set of hemoglobin genes to another, and the
oxygen system switches from placental blood to lungs.
Furthermore, I am appalled to see how this "fact that you could not
ignore" [embryonic blood propelled by contractile endothelial cells that
initially create the vessel walls, and ultimately become the foundation
for arterial muscle cells forming the heart] has led you to the illogical
conclusion "that the blood is not completely static and that the heart is
not entirely responsible for 'forcing' it through our blood vessels".
-- Daniel Sabsay, president
East Bay Skeptics Society
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n706.2 ---------------
From: Angelica (hesse96 matrix.newpaltz.edu)
Subject: Re: Heart as pump, etc....
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 1998 17:31:20 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199804042034.MAA26735 lists1.best.com)
Daniel Sabsay wrote:
) Prove it. Please cite something besides the scientifically worthless
Oh, just lay off already Daniel. Your arrogance is is becoming really
annoying and really makes any kind of discussion on any subject next to
impossible. Hvae you, by the way, even read the article in question or
personally verified your assumption of the lack of merit of the
scientists who wrote it?
) article by Ralph Marinelli of Rudolph Steiner Research Center (titled
) modestly: "The Heart Is Not A Pump: A Refutation of The Pressure
) Propulsion Premise of Heart Function"). I venture to guess that this
) little essay was strategically provided by your parochial Steiner/Waldorf
) education.
On the contrary. This was never presented to us in school. The subject
of blood flow in the embryo, was only briefly touched on, and the
observation made that blood flows and pulses prior to the existence of a
heart. This can also be observed in flowing water. It happens that
both my parents work in the medical field and personally know one of the
physicians who was working on this study. For that reason, it showed up
in our house one day, and I was interested enough to take a look at it.
) If you had a broader education in biology, you might realize that it is
) commonplace for the human embryo to migrate from one system to another
) during development. Besides the switch-over to heart pumping, the blood
) system also switches from one set of hemoglobin genes to another, and the
) oxygen system switches from placental blood to lungs.
Look, I'm not a scientist, or a physician. I as simply pointing to the
fact that there are currently differing views on this subject. I don't
know the material enough to give a full defense. If someone who is
researchign or working with these ideas shows up on the list, perhaps
they can explain/defend the idea better. Ezra has made a good point
today: this discussion is getting WAY of target for this list, even if
it is an interesting one.
) Furthermore, I am appalled to see how this "fact that you could not
) ignore" [embryonic blood propelled by contractile endothelial cells that
) initially create the vessel walls, and ultimately become the foundation
) for arterial muscle cells forming the heart] has led you to the illogical
) conclusion "that the blood is not completely static and that the heart is
) not entirely responsible for 'forcing' it through our blood vessels".
Not my conclusion, unfortunately. Simply a very loose paraphrase of
some of the ideas I read and/or heard several years ago.
Angelica G. Hesse
hesse96 matrix.newpaltz.edu
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n706.3 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net (David B McKay)
Subject: Re: Heart as pump, etc....
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 1998 16:14:31 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
)Daniel Sabsay wrote:
)
)) Prove it. Please cite something besides the scientifically worthless
)Anelica wrote:
)Oh, just lay off already Daniel. Your arrogance is is becoming really
)annoying and really makes any kind of discussion on any subject next to
)impossible. [snip]
Angelica, you have a bad habit of putting yourself in a corner by raising
issues you seem to have only a surface understanding of and then you ask
Daniel to "just lay off". Is that the best you can do?