return to WCA Archive Index
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n811 --------------
001 - Herman de Tollenaere (her - Buddha to Mars (was: Occult chemistry, Leadbeater and Steiner)
002 - Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis - Proliferation of crud (was: Buddha to Mars (was: Occult chemis
003 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: Proliferation of crud (was: Buddha to Mars (was: Occult
c
004 - 469593N knotes.kodak.com - Re: Proliferation of crud
005 - Herman de Tollenaere (her - Debate on anti-Semitism
006 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: Debate on anti-Semitism
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n811.1 ---------------
From: Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl)
Subject: Buddha to Mars (was: Occult chemistry, Leadbeater and Steiner)
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 20:25:02 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199806292136.OAA10227 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199806292233.PAA17573 lists1.best.com)
At 23:31 29-6-1998 +0100, Stephen Tonkin wrote:
)_Kindred Spirit_ is not a "medical quarterly", alternate or otherwise --
(By the way, the adjective "medical" for _Kindred Spirit_ is June Noble's;
not mine, as Mr Tonkin might have seen)
)it is new age publication which is heavily laden with new-age
)pseudoscience. The last issue I saw, some years ago, was infested with
)crud on "cereology" (crop circles)
So, we can all safely presume, that to Stephen Tonkin, the idea that in the
seventeenth century, the Buddha went to planet Mars "at the request of
Christian Rosencreutz" on a peace mission is also crud? So is claiming the
existence of airplanes "in ancient Atlantis"? And so is the idea that white
pregnant women should not read "negro novels" as their babies might then
turn out "mulatto"?
)and possibly the worst-informed
)article on non-Euclidean geometry I have ever had the misfortune to read
)-- nothing even remotely medical there.
)If I read in _Kindred Spirit_ that grass was green, my first instinct
)would be to go outside and indulge in a bit of independent verification.
------------------------------------------
Herman de Tollenaere
------------------------------------------
Internet site:
http://stad.dsl.nl/~hermantl/
See also:
http://www.stelling.nl/simpos/simpoeng.htm
------------------------------------------
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n811.2 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Proliferation of crud (was: Buddha to Mars (was: Occult chemistry, Leadbeater and Steiner)}
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 04:42:19 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: (199806301841.LAA24227 lists1.best.com)
Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl) wrote:
)
)So, we can all safely presume, that to Stephen Tonkin, the idea that in the
)seventeenth century, the Buddha went to planet Mars "at the request of
)Christian Rosencreutz" on a peace mission is also crud? So is claiming the
)existence of airplanes "in ancient Atlantis"? And so is the idea that white
)pregnant women should not read "negro novels" as their babies might then
)turn out "mulatto"?
Indeed, Dr de Tollenaere, you can safely presume that I believe that
there is no scientific evidence for any of the above. You can also
safely presume that I consider the following to be crud:
# The allegation that South African Waldorf schools teach only European
fairy tales.
# The implication that schools and individuals which actively opposed
apartheid (and stood up to it) are racist.
# The implication that people who actively worked for Indian
independence (and who were recognised by the likes of Mohandas Gandhi
as having done so) were racist.
# The implication that Waldorf schools are inherently racist.
--
Stephen Tonkin
(N50.9105 W1.829)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
UK Amateur Telescope Making - (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk/atm.htm)
ATM and Astronomy Books - (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk/books/books.htm)
The Astronomical Unit - (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk/astunit.htm)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n811.3 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Proliferation of crud (was: Buddha to Mars (was: Occult
chemistry, Leadbeater and Steiner)}
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 19:10:41 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199806301841.LAA24227 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199807010400.VAA00665 lists1.best.com)
Stephen Tonkin replies to some leading questions ... with the usual
slipperiness:
)Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl) wrote:
))
))So, we can all safely presume, that to Stephen Tonkin, the idea that in the
))seventeenth century, the Buddha went to planet Mars "at the request of
))Christian Rosencreutz" on a peace mission is also crud? So is claiming the
))existence of airplanes "in ancient Atlantis"? And so is the idea that white
))pregnant women should not read "negro novels" as their babies might then
))turn out "mulatto"?
)
)Indeed, Dr de Tollenaere, you can safely presume that I believe that
)there is no scientific evidence for any of the above.
[rest of Tonkin's diatribe against De Tollenarre's views on racism snipped]
KOPP says:
So, Stephen, now that you've been giving the Anthroposophical gullibles on
the A. Science list lessons in just what real science is all about, and you
have told us there is no "scientific evidence" of mumbo-jumbo, can you do
one of the following:
Admit that there is no *evidence* of any kind, scientific or otherwise, for
the mumbo jumbo; or
Tell us what the other evidence is, so that we may become enlightened with
the wisdom of ... whatever it is ...
And, while you're at it, perhaps you'd like to go all the way, and abjure
Anthroposphy and its weirdness wholly and finally?
(Hint: I'm not holding my breath... But then, I'm told that pigs can fly ...)
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n811.4 ---------------
From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Proliferation of crud
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 09:59:36 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
From: John Calkins
Michael Kopp:
)So, Stephen, now that you've been giving the Anthroposophical gullibles on
)the A. Science list lessons in just what real science is all about, and
you
)have told us there is no "scientific evidence" of mumbo-jumbo, can you do
)one of the following:
)
)Admit that there is no *evidence* of any kind, scientific or otherwise,
for
)the mumbo jumbo; or
I think I can answer this one. The approach I take is similar to the one
Steiner recommends. I begin with his epistemological works, primarily
"Intuitive Thinking as a Spiritual Path, A Philosophy of Freedom". While
this book demands much of the reader, in one sense it is one of Steiner's
most accessible works in that almost the entire book can be understood
without having to make a leap of faith. Then the exercises and meditations
he describes in several of his other writings are useful for bringing
greater consciousness or attentiveness to the individual.
For me, this is the basis of anthroposophy. It provides a philosophical
foundation for how we know, along with techniques for extending our
capacities to know.
As Steiner admits, all human observations are subject to error, including
his own. On the one hand, I think Steiner did his best to honestly relate
his spiritual observations. I do not think he would lie. However, one
cannot take them too literally either. Steiner spoke of the difficulty of
relating spiritual knowledge in common language. I have the same
difficulty in trying to describe beauty in the arts. Furthermore, one gets
into trouble if one applies knowledge valid in the spiritual realm to the
physical realm and similarly knowledge of the physical realm to the
spiritual. Steiner is very clear about this in his "Theory of Knowledge"
(recently translated as "Science of Knowing").
Let us look at some specific examples. From his spiritual observations,
Steiner states that the human form was more malleable in past epochs.
Perhaps this does not mean that our bones were physically softer, rather we
might have been more easily transformed in an evolutionary sense. Honestly
I do not know what it implies physically. Conversely, the spirit nature of
art cannot be grasped with the scientific method. I don't think anyone can
argue that science can tell us which are the greatest paintings and musical
compositions. Similarly we do not use poetry or other spiritual truths to
predict the positions of the planets.
This is not to say that there are spiritual realities we cannot perceive
within our normal state of consciousness. That humans have a physical
body, life forces, consciousness, and self-consciousness is quite clear.
Whether these are 'spiritual' realities is subject to debate and definition
(what is spirit and spiritual?); however, I think Steiner's fourfold view
of the human being is easily understood by any reasonable person.
)Tell us what the other evidence is, so that we may become enlightened with
)the wisdom of ... whatever it is ...
)
Michael, not so long ago I thought in a way similar to the way you do, so I
understand your frustration. Unfortunately (or fortunately), there is no
scientific evidence for truths that lay outside the limits of science. We
all see the truth that it is right to be kind to your neighbor. Some have
tried to rationalize that for the self-interest of the benefits of social
cohesion, people are kind to their neighbors. There may be some truth to
this, but it does not fully explain our behavior. When a neighbor needs a
hand, any healthy human being simply knows it right to help. The thought
of social stability does not enter our mind. I do not think there is a
scientific explanation for this truth.
Perhaps the critics will be pleased to know that there are indeed limits to
knowledge gained from the spiritual perspective. The fact that no one
particular view can give us universal knowledge is what makes life so
interesting. Steiner talks of a universal view that encompasses all the
individual perspectives from which a greater universal understanding can be
achieved. The poet describes a beautiful setting of the sun; the scientist
says, "No, it is the turning of the earth." It is not so difficult to see
they are both correct, though they may never find agreement within their
limited views. One of the great strengths of Walforf Education is its
encouragement of its students to approach a subject from multiple views.
I believe much of the confusion of Steiner's work of both the critics and
people within anthroposophy stems from the failure to understand his
fundamental epistemology. People get hung up on Atlantean hover vehicles
and the various spiritual hierarchies when most of us are not able to
experience these things. As Steiner would recommend, the place to begin is
within the realm of our direct experience.
John Calkins
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n811.5 ---------------
From: Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl)
Subject: Debate on anti-Semitism
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 17:57:41 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At
http://www.pinenet.com/~rooster/diet-1.html
is a reaction (in German) by (Anthroposophists) Jens Heisterkamp and Judith
Krischik Amnon Reuveni to an anti-Semitic article in the central
Anthroposophical magazine Das Goetheanum
------------------------------------------
Herman de Tollenaere
------------------------------------------
Internet site:
http://stad.dsl.nl/~hermantl/
See also:
http://www.stelling.nl/simpos/simpoeng.htm
------------------------------------------
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n811.6 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Debate on anti-Semitism
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 11:11:07 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199807011616.JAA27895 lists1.best.com)
Herman, you wrote,
)At
)
)http://www.pinenet.com/~rooster/diet-1.html
)
)is a reaction (in German) by (Anthroposophists) Jens Heisterkamp and Judith
)Krischik Amnon Reuveni to an anti-Semitic article in the central
)Anthroposophical magazine Das Goetheanum
Could you summarize the controversy for those of us who can't read German?
-Dan Dugan
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n811 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n812 --------------
001 - Herman de Tollenaere (her - Besant and Steiner (was: Proliferation of crud (was: Buddha to
002 - Herman de Tollenaere (her - Re: Debate on anti-Semitism
003 - Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis - Re: Proliferation of crud (was: Buddha to Mars (was: Occult ch
004 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: Proliferation of crud
005 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: Proliferation of crud (was: Buddha to Mars (was: Occult
c
006 - Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis - Besant and Steiner (was: Proliferation of crud (was: Buddha to
007 - Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis - Re: Proliferation of crud (was: Buddha to Mars (was: Occult ch
008 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: Besant and Steiner (was: Proliferation of crud (was: Buddh
009 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: Proliferation of crud (was: Buddha to Mars (was: Occult
c
010 - 469593N knotes.kodak.com - Re: Proliferation of crud
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n812.1 ---------------
From: Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl)
Subject: Besant and Steiner (was: Proliferation of crud (was: Buddha to
Mars)
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 20:01:31 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199806301841.LAA24227 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199807010400.VAA00665 lists1.best.com)
At 04:42 1-7-1998 +0100, Stephen Tonkin wrote:
)Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl) wrote:
))
))So, we can all safely presume, that to Stephen Tonkin, the idea that in the
))seventeenth century, the Buddha went to planet Mars "at the request of
))Christian Rosencreutz" on a peace mission is also crud? So is claiming the
))existence of airplanes "in ancient Atlantis"? And so is the idea that white
))pregnant women should not read "negro novels" as their babies might then
))turn out "mulatto"?
)
)Indeed, Dr de Tollenaere, you can safely presume that I believe that
)there is no scientific evidence for any of the above.
As Stephen Tonkin is probably aware, all three of the examples above can be
found in Dr Rudolf Steiner's works. How about "spiritual scientific"
evidence (as Michael Kopp also asked)?
)You can also safely presume that I consider the following to be crud:
)
)# The allegation that South African Waldorf schools teach only European
fairy tales.
This "allegation" was what an eminent South African scholar found where she
was (not necessarily valid for *all the* South African Waldorf schools).
)# The implication
by whom, please?
)that schools and individuals which actively opposed
)apartheid (and stood up to it) are racist.
Is it "crud" to consider South African Anthroposophist authors Picard and
Downer, whose work is [I do hope: *was*; but I certainly am not sure; I
have just hope, no evidence] used at Waldorf schools, racist? *Their* book
was published by the South African Anthroposophical publishers Novalis.
Probably, other South African Anthroposophists opposed Picard and Downer's
views. However, *their* views were *not* published.
)# The implication that people who actively worked for Indian
)independence (and who were recognised by the likes of Mohandas Gandhi
)as having done so)
Whom does Stephen Tonkin mean? Alice Bailey? Annie Besant? Then, probably,
he did not read Besant's [and Bailey's] writings, explicitly against Indian
[and Irish] independence, as India and Britain, both "Aryan" [Besant's
word] should be in the same "Aryan empire". And please, show me where in
Gandhi's works I might find a statement that Mrs Besant "worked for Indian
independence". And what "likes" are meant, please?
)were racist.
I do think it is possible to be for Indian Home Rule within the British
empire [as Besant was; so, not for independence], and be racist as well. I
also think it is possible to be for complete Indian independence and Indian
nuclear bombs [as the present governing party, the BJP, is], and be racist
as well. I also think it was possible (for some individuals, like E.V.
Ramaswami Naicker Periyar at some points in his career) to be against
Indian independence from non-racist motives.
)# The implication
by whom, please?
)that Waldorf schools are inherently racist.
No one said "inherently". However, a committee set up recently by the
executive of the Dutch Anthroposophical Society concluded that "Racial
Ethnography" courses at Waldorf schools were racist.
)
)--
) Stephen Tonkin
------------------------------------------
Herman de Tollenaere
------------------------------------------
Internet site:
http://stad.dsl.nl/~hermantl/
See also:
http://www.stelling.nl/simpos/simpoeng.htm
------------------------------------------
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n812.2 ---------------
From: Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl)
Subject: Re: Debate on anti-Semitism
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 22:24:36 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
References: (199807011616.JAA27895 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199807011812.LAA20179 lists1.best.com)
At 11:11 1-7-1998 -0700, Dan Dugan wrote:
)Herman, you wrote,
)
))At
))
))http://www.pinenet.com/~rooster/diet-1.html
))
))is a reaction (in German) by (Anthroposophists) Jens Heisterkamp and=
Judith
))Krischik Amnon Reuveni to an anti-Semitic article in the central
))Anthroposophical magazine Das Goetheanum
)
)Could you summarize the controversy for those of us who can't read German?
Jens Heisterkamp and Judith Krischik Amnon Reuveni react to Irene Diet:
=BBAuf den Spuren der Opfer. Anmerkungen zu Barbro Karlen und Yonassan
Gershom=AB, in Das Goetheanum, Nr.20, of 17 May 1998. According to Rabbi
Yonassam Gershom, Diet's article is anti-Semitic.
According to Diet, Steiner said repeatedly that the ancient Hebrew people
were =BBdas Volk per excellence [THE people]=AB, =BBby whom the group soul
qualities revealed themselves within humanity [durch das sich das
Gruppenseelenhafte innerhalb der Menschheit offenbarte.=AB To Anthroposophy,
"group soul qualities" are bad and should be overcome. Diet accuses Gershom
(wrongly, say Jens Heisterkamp and Judith Krischik Amnon Reuveni) of
narrow-minded Jewish fanaticism.=20
Diet concludes that Yonassan Gershom [and Swedish author Barbro Karlen,
claiming to be Anne Frank reincarnate; in itself a claim about which I am
"a bit" skeptical, speaking as an Anne Frank Foundation local
correspondent] are "tools of black magic forces". The aim of those forces
is, Diet claims, to divert the attention of humanity away from the
re-appearing Christ, to "Ahasverus" [the "wandering Jew" in anti-Jewish
mythology].=20
According to Jens Heisterkamp and Judith Krischik Amnon Reuveni, Diet's
article is "full of anti-Jewish cliches"; a "bad setback" for dialogue
between Anthroposophists and Judaism, especially Rabbi Yonassam Gershom
[Gershom differs from most Jews, by the way, in accepting a [Hasidic] kind
of reincarnation theory]. They criticize the editors of Das Goetheanum for
publishing Diet's article. They remind readers of Gennadi Bondarew, Russian
Anthroposophist leader (according to Heisterkamp and Judith Krischik Amnon
Reuveni, recently "excluded" by the Anthroposophical Society leadership):
Bondarew claimed the Shoah by the Nazis was "a Jewish invention". [An
invitation to Bondarew as a speaker at a conference in The Netherlands
caused a big row among Dutch Anthroposophists, as I wrote earlier].=20
------------------------------------------
Herman de Tollenaere
------------------------------------------
Internet site:
http://stad.dsl.nl/~hermantl/
See also:
http://www.stelling.nl/simpos/simpoeng.htm
------------------------------------------
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n812.3 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Proliferation of crud (was: Buddha to Mars (was: Occult chemistry, Leadbeater and Steiner)}
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 16:30:53 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: (199807010712.AAA24724 lists1.best.com)
Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz) wrote:
)Stephen Tonkin replies to some leading questions ... with the usual
)slipperiness:
Nice to see you back, Michael :-)
What shall we use this time? Eurythmy rods at 20 lift-carry-places?
)[rest of Tonkin's diatribe against De Tollenarre's views on racism snipped]
Diatribe? Me?
[snip examples cited by the good Dr de T]
)Admit that there is no *evidence* of any kind, scientific or otherwise, for
)the mumbo jumbo; or
Sorry, I can't. I can admit that I've never found any, but I am sure
that there are things that exist independently of my encountering them.
Others say that they do have evidence of a spiritual nature -- I'm
afraid I'm a tad underdeveloped in this realm.
John Calkins' reply is probably a lot more helpful than mine...
)
)Tell us what the other evidence is, so that we may become enlightened with
)the wisdom of ... whatever it is ...
Sorry, I can't (see reasons above), but perhaps you may like to consider
whether "absence of evidence" can be equated with "evidence of absence".
)And, while you're at it, perhaps you'd like to go all the way, and abjure
)Anthroposphy and its weirdness wholly and finally?
Errmmm -- No, thank you, but I appreciate your concern for my spiritual
develpment.
)(Hint: I'm not holding my breath... But then, I'm told that pigs can fly ...)
Only inflatable ones, once moored at Battersea Power Station.
--
Stephen Tonkin
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n812.4 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Proliferation of crud
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 13:10:32 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199807011402.HAA20782 lists1.best.com)
)From: John Calkins
)
)Michael Kopp:
))So, Stephen, now that you've been giving the Anthroposophical gullibles on
))the A. Science list lessons in just what real science is all about, and
)you
))have told us there is no "scientific evidence" of mumbo-jumbo, can you do
))one of the following:
))
))Admit that there is no *evidence* of any kind, scientific or otherwise,
)for
))the mumbo jumbo; or
)
)I think I can answer this one. The approach I take is similar to the one
)Steiner recommends. I begin with his epistemological works, primarily
)"Intuitive Thinking as a Spiritual Path, A Philosophy of Freedom". While
)this book demands much of the reader, in one sense it is one of Steiner's
)most accessible works in that almost the entire book can be understood
)without having to make a leap of faith. Then the exercises and meditations
)he describes in several of his other writings are useful for bringing
)greater consciousness or attentiveness to the individual.
)
)For me, this is the basis of anthroposophy. It provides a philosophical
)foundation for how we know, along with techniques for extending our
)capacities to know.
KOPP says:
Clairvoyance as epistemology. Wow. I'm not impressed.
)As Steiner admits, all human observations are subject to error, including
)his own.
KOPP says:
What other kind of observations are there? As far as I know -- because it
hasn't been demonstrated otherwise to me with tangible evidence -- we
humans are the only ones around this planet to think about our
"observations".
)On the one hand, I think Steiner did his best to honestly relate
)his spiritual observations. I do not think he would lie. However, one
)cannot take them too literally either. Steiner spoke of the difficulty of
)relating spiritual knowledge in common language. I have the same
)difficulty in trying to describe beauty in the arts.
KOPP says:
Your implication is that arts are spiritual, similar to Steiner's philosophy.
But lots of people don't have that difficulty, and use words quite
eloquently to describe beauty in art: try Robert Adams, "Beauty in
Photography; Essays in Defense of Traditional Values". This difficulty of
yours (and mine and Steiner's) has less to do with there being something
esoteric, occult, spiritually foreign and "higher", than with our own
inadequacies of language or thought.
I read Steiner as a poet, not a scientist of any kind at all, trying to
grapple with the weirdness of his own mind.
That he founded a religion based on this weirdness is fine with me; anyone
is welcome to believe anything they want. (John Calkins certainly seems
much more imbued with belief now, after a year of Anthroposophical
indoctrination, than he did previously.)
But not for me, not for my kids, not in a state or state-funded school, and
not by the stealth by which it is inculcated in kids through a
spiritually-loaded curriculum that parents don't understand and are duped
about by false advertising and incomplete information upon enrolment.
(Whew.)
)Furthermore, one gets
)into trouble if one applies knowledge valid in the spiritual realm to the
)physical realm and similarly knowledge of the physical realm to the
)spiritual. Steiner is very clear about this in his "Theory of Knowledge"
)(recently translated as "Science of Knowing").
)
)Let us look at some specific examples. From his spiritual observations,
)Steiner states that the human form was more malleable in past epochs.
)Perhaps this does not mean that our bones were physically softer, rather we
)might have been more easily transformed in an evolutionary sense. Honestly
)I do not know what it implies physically. Conversely, the spirit nature of
)art cannot be grasped with the scientific method. I don't think anyone can
)argue that science can tell us which are the greatest paintings and musical
)compositions. Similarly we do not use poetry or other spiritual truths to
)predict the positions of the planets.
KOPP says:
Of course we do, as we did in our early days, and it's washing over us
again as a tide of uncritical acceptance of mumbo jumbo born of child-like
credulousness, in people whose lives are dimmed by the seductive allure of
fairy-tales (especially modern, mass-media pseudo-life).
)This is not to say that there are spiritual realities we cannot perceive
)within our normal state of consciousness. That humans have a physical
)body, life forces, consciousness, and self-consciousness is quite clear.
)Whether these are 'spiritual' realities is subject to debate and definition
)(what is spirit and spiritual?); however, I think Steiner's fourfold view
)of the human being is easily understood by any reasonable person.
)
))Tell us what the other evidence is, so that we may become enlightened with
))the wisdom of ... whatever it is ...
))
)
)Michael, not so long ago I thought in a way similar to the way you do, so I
)understand your frustration. Unfortunately (or fortunately), there is no
)scientific evidence for truths that lay outside the limits of science. We
)all see the truth that it is right to be kind to your neighbor. Some have
)tried to rationalize that for the self-interest of the benefits of social
)cohesion, people are kind to their neighbors. There may be some truth to
)this, but it does not fully explain our behavior. When a neighbor needs a
)hand, any healthy human being simply knows it right to help. The thought
)of social stability does not enter our mind. I do not think there is a
)scientific explanation for this truth.
KOPP says:
My frustration is not that I don't understand Steiner or Anthroposophy.
It's possible, if one wants to devote enough time, to comprehend it
intellectually. I think it's mumbo jumbo, and I'm not going to waste my
time on it, nor have my kids exposed to it any longer. My displeasure is
that it is becoming accepted as a valid alternative way of education _in
the public school system_ of New Zealand.
Altruism is explainable both scientifically and morally without need to
have reference to spirituality. Moral codes develop not for goodness but
social control. Altruism is a form of selfishness in animal terms. The
ethical culture of humanists is explainable by our tendency to organise and
codify behaviour and our desire to make life comfortable and progressive
without the need for oppressive moral or spiritual dimensions that we
cannot truly know. I do not think that children raised without social codes
would help their neighbours: that's one of the problems of modern societies
-- the breakdown of the education of our children in, or wholesale
overturning of, the social codes that took us 10 millenia to develop.
)Perhaps the critics will be pleased to know that there are indeed limits to
)knowledge gained from the spiritual perspective. The fact that no one
)particular view can give us universal knowledge is what makes life so
)interesting. Steiner talks of a universal view that encompasses all the
)individual perspectives from which a greater universal understanding can be
)achieved. The poet describes a beautiful setting of the sun; the scientist
)says, "No, it is the turning of the earth."
KOPP says:
John Calkins is raising a false dichotomy. What reason would the scientist
have to say "NO"? Scientists appreciate poetry. Poets often don't
understand science, but that's okay, because they add wonderful views of
life. It's not a question of whether one or the other is RIGHT, or CORRECT!
Description of what we see is rarely accurate in terms of the causation or
mechanism involved. Poets rarely try to actually explain phenomena; in
fact, poetry may be said to be the opposite: mystification. Wonderful, but
not real. Illuminating, but not explanatory.
)It is not so difficult to see
)they are both correct, though they may never find agreement within their
)limited views.
KOPP says:
Better to say they are both useful, for different purposes. Poetry cannot
help me understand the movements of the Universe. Science cannot tell me
why I am so awed at it. We need poetry and science for a balanced life. We
do not need mumbo jumbo to run our lives, which is what Anthroposophy
provides, rather than poetry.
)One of the great strengths of Walforf Education is its
)encouragement of its students to approach a subject from multiple views.
KOPP says:
That is also one of its principle failings. My children foundered in this
miasma.
One of Waldorf Education's (Anthroposophy's) great weakenesses is that it
denigrates and disparages one of those views -- science and materialistic,
critical thinking -- in favour of the mantra that all things are possible
of truth. The fact that science can show evidence for its truths is
submerged, drowned in the overwhelming wash of sentimental, spiritualistic,
pap that passes for knowledge.
(I've cited so many of these, without any rebuttal, I grow weary, but, just
for any newcomers to the list, here's my favourite: My children's English
teacher (English teacher, for god's sake!) told their classes that Greek
epic poetry developed dactylic hexameter because of a relationship between
the ratio of human heartbeat to respiration, and the number of human
breaths in a lifetime and the number of years in the "Platonic Year" [known
to science as the precession of the equinoxes, but _unknown_ to the Greeks
at the time of the development of Homeric poetry, and, indeed, unknown for
at least another 400 years].
This numeralogical mumbo jumbo is still going the rounds over on the
Anthroposophical Science (A-S) mailing list. I'm still waiting for an
answer from my children's former school as to some evidence for this
astounding assertion about a simple coincidence and artifact of the solar
system. Steiner makes much of the Platonic Year, too. But no appeal to
astrological influences succeeds, because there can be no constancy in the
stars: everything is always changing, everything is in motion, five or six
different kinds of motion, and the stars that would have influenced
STeiner's ancients are no longer where they were then, nor is any
astronomical periodic phenomenon the same today as then.)
If we're going to have multiple views, and the proponents of those views
wish them to be taken seriously, as do the proponents of Anthroposophy,
then we have to have multiple proofs, and the scientific method is the best
for that. Except that, as John Calkins admits above, science cannot "prove"
anything about intangibles (it never tries), and everything Steiner talks
about is intangible. So much of the education in Waldorf schools is about
intangibles, and scientific proof is never mentioned, taught or desired,
even in the teaching of what passes for normal science!
)I believe much of the confusion of Steiner's work of both the critics and
)people within anthroposophy stems from the failure to understand his
)fundamental epistemology. People get hung up on Atlantean hover vehicles
)and the various spiritual hierarchies when most of us are not able to
)experience these things. As Steiner would recommend, the place to begin is
)within the realm of our direct experience.
)
)John Calkins
KOPP says:
And the major flaw with his "epistemology" is that Steiner claimed "direct
experience" of things that NO ONE SINCE has been able to duplicate; that
neither he nor anyone else has ever been able to _demonstrate_ outside
their own fevered brains; that do not even admit of an acceptable lingua
franca for both the experiencer and the outsider; but that Steiner proceded
to proselytise in such a huge body of mumbo jumbo that it's almost
impenetrable.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n812.5 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Proliferation of crud (was: Buddha to Mars (was: Occult
chemistry, Leadbeater and Steiner)}
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 13:38:55 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199807010712.AAA24724 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199807012108.OAA04045 lists1.best.com)
Stephen Tonkin gets curiouser and curiouser:
)Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz) wrote:
))Stephen Tonkin replies to some leading questions ... with the usual
))slipperiness:
)
)Nice to see you back, Michael :-)
)
)What shall we use this time? Eurythmy rods at 20 lift-carry-places?
Let's try sticking to something we both know and appreciate: empiricism and
evidence. I doubt that I could lift a Eurythmy rod. What do you do with
them -- a kind of dowsing for spiritual water?
))Admit that there is no *evidence* of any kind, scientific or otherwise, for
))the mumbo jumbo; or
)
)Sorry, I can't. I can admit that I've never found any, but I am sure
)that there are things that exist independently of my encountering them.
What say? How can you be *sure*?
)Others say that they do have evidence of a spiritual nature -- I'm
)afraid I'm a tad underdeveloped in this realm.
So are they: they can't produce any evidence -- for you, who *want* to
believe, apparently, in nature and supernature at the same time, or for me,
who is satisfied with what IS, and doesn't need to seek what can't, by your
own admission, be "encountered".
)John Calkins' reply is probably a lot more helpful than mine...
Probably not, I'm afraid, as I've said elsewhere.
))Tell us what the other evidence is, so that we may become enlightened with
))the wisdom of ... whatever it is ...
)
)Sorry, I can't (see reasons above), but perhaps you may like to consider
)whether "absence of evidence" can be equated with "evidence of absence".
No, I just want you or any other spiritualist to SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE of
what you say exists. And don't put words in my mouth, Stephen, it's a
return to your old style. I have never, ever said that I do not believe
there can be anything supernatural or "supersensible". All I've said is,
show me. Like you, I'm perfectly prepared to admit the possibility that
there is something more to the Universe than I now know. But you want to
believe there is; I don't need to. I'm a patient fellow; I can wait a few
more reincarnation cycles.
))And, while you're at it, perhaps you'd like to go all the way, and abjure
))Anthroposphy and its weirdness wholly and finally?
)
)Errmmm -- No, thank you, but I appreciate your concern for my spiritual
)develpment.
No, your spiritual development is no concern of mine. Your belief in mumbo
jumbo and defence of its use in schools and your own belief in science as
well ARE concerns of mine, because we share a few traits, among them an
enquiring nature and some (in your case) and much (in my case) skepticism
about pseudo-science.
I'm simply trying to get you to live in one world or the other, OR provide
me with evidence that it is possible to live in BOTH worlds at the same
time, without having to go through the looking glass.
Cheers from Godzone (where pigs fly regularly, especially in Parliament),
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n812.6 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Besant and Steiner (was: Proliferation of crud (was: Buddha to Mars)
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 05:23:12 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: (199807011918.MAA05590 lists1.best.com)
Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl) wrote:
)At 04:42 1-7-1998 +0100, Stephen Tonkin wrote:
))Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl) wrote:
)))
)))So, we can all safely presume, that to Stephen Tonkin, the idea that in the
)))seventeenth century, the Buddha went to planet Mars "at the request of
)))Christian Rosencreutz" on a peace mission is also crud? So is claiming the
)))existence of airplanes "in ancient Atlantis"? And so is the idea that white
)))pregnant women should not read "negro novels" as their babies might then
)))turn out "mulatto"?
))
))Indeed, Dr de Tollenaere, you can safely presume that I believe that
))there is no scientific evidence for any of the above.
)
)As Stephen Tonkin is probably aware, all three of the examples above can be
)found in Dr Rudolf Steiner's works.
Yes, I am aware of that.
)How about "spiritual scientific"
)evidence (as Michael Kopp also asked)?
See response to Michael.
))You can also safely presume that I consider the following to be crud:
))
))# The allegation that South African Waldorf schools teach only European
)fairy tales.
)
)This "allegation" was what an eminent South African scholar found where she
)was (not necessarily valid for *all the* South African Waldorf schools).
But that's not precisely what you posted to this list, is it?
)
))# The implication
)
)by whom, please?
See archives if you really want to know.
)
))that schools and individuals which actively opposed
))apartheid (and stood up to it) are racist.
)
)Is it "crud" to consider South African Anthroposophist authors Picard and
)Downer, whose work is [I do hope: *was*; but I certainly am not sure; I
)have just hope, no evidence] used at Waldorf schools, racist? *Their* book
)was published by the South African Anthroposophical publishers Novalis.
)Probably, other South African Anthroposophists opposed Picard and Downer's
)views. However, *their* views were *not* published.
I'm actually much more interested in what people *do* rather than what
they *say* or *write*. The converse of what you cite are the cohorts of
woolly liberals who say and write a lot but are nowhere to be found when
there is a need to actually stand up to evil. The South African Waldorf
schools stood up to apartheid; European liberals spoke and wrote about
it from the comfort of their ivory towers.
)
))# The implication that people who actively worked for Indian
))independence (and who were recognised by the likes of Mohandas Gandhi
))as having done so)
)
)Whom does Stephen Tonkin mean? Alice Bailey? Annie Besant?
The latter.
)Then, probably,
)he did not read Besant's [and Bailey's] writings, explicitly against Indian
)[and Irish] independence, as India and Britain, both "Aryan" [Besant's
)word] should be in the same "Aryan empire".
Again, I'm more interested in what she did (eg as President of the
Indian National Congress) than what she said. If there appears to be a
conflict, I tend to believe the action rather than the word.
) And please, show me where in
)Gandhi's works I might find a statement that Mrs Besant "worked for Indian
)independence".
Sorry, can't cite - heard/saw it on TV years (decades?) ago.
)I do think it is possible to be for Indian Home Rule within the British
)empire [as Besant was; so, not for independence],
Empire or Commonwealth, Herman?
))# The implication
)
)by whom, please?
See archives (& possibly PLANS web site -- it's ages since I've looked
there) if you really want to know.
)
))that Waldorf schools are inherently racist.
)
)No one said "inherently".
I seem to recall that I used he word "implication", not "statement".
Please don't set up straw men -- I stopped falling for that before I
started shaving.
) However, a committee set up recently by the
)executive of the Dutch Anthroposophical Society concluded that "Racial
)Ethnography" courses at Waldorf schools were racist.
Well, Herman, racial ethnography courses may have been taught in
Holland; I don't know of them being taught in the UK (of course, it is
always possible that I am woefully ignorant of what is going on under my
nose) or US.
And has it perhaps occurred to you that if the AS concludes that
something is racist it might just indicate that anthroposophists
*oppose* racism? It is a trivial matter to find words written more than
a few decades ago which, whilst perfectly acceptable at the time, are
considered racist by today's mores. As an example, look at the words and
deeds of those who held it to be "self evident" that "all men are
created equal". It's what people actually *do* -- *now* -- that is
important.
--
Stephen Tonkin
(N50.9105 W1.829)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
UK Amateur Telescope Making - (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk/atm.htm)
ATM and Astronomy Books - (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk/books/books.htm)
The Astronomical Unit - (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk/astunit.htm)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n812.7 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Proliferation of crud (was: Buddha to Mars (was: Occult chemistry, Leadbeater and Steiner)}
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 05:47:33 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: (199807020140.SAA27599 lists1.best.com)
Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz) wrote:
)))Admit that there is no *evidence* of any kind, scientific or otherwise, for
)))the mumbo jumbo; or
))
))Sorry, I can't. I can admit that I've never found any, but I am sure
))that there are things that exist independently of my encountering them.
)
)What say? How can you be *sure*?
OK, I *believe* ...
)))Tell us what the other evidence is, so that we may become enlightened with
)))the wisdom of ... whatever it is ...
))
))Sorry, I can't (see reasons above), but perhaps you may like to consider
))whether "absence of evidence" can be equated with "evidence of absence".
)
)No, I just want you or any other spiritualist to SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE of
)what you say exists.
I can't.
) And don't put words in my mouth, Stephen, it's a
)return to your old style.
I didn't (and don't) think I had I was asking you to consider something
which, as what you wrote below suggests, you already have.
) I have never, ever said that I do not believe
)there can be anything supernatural or "supersensible". All I've said is,
)show me. Like you, I'm perfectly prepared to admit the possibility that
)there is something more to the Universe than I now know. But you want to
)believe there is; I don't need to. I'm a patient fellow; I can wait a few
)more reincarnation cycles.
[...]
)Your belief in mumbo
)jumbo and defence of its use in schools
DO I defend it's use in schools? I guess it depends what you mean by
"use" -- if you mean I defend the validity of an education based on
anthroposophy, you are absolutely correct. If you mean I defend the
teaching of anthroposophy or it's beliefs, you are wrong.
)I'm simply trying to get you to live in one world or the other, OR provide
)me with evidence that it is possible to live in BOTH worlds at the same
)time, without having to go through the looking glass.
I find this particular fence to make a reasonably comfortable seat, from
which the view is quite interesting.
--
Stephen Tonkin
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n812.8 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Besant and Steiner (was: Proliferation of crud (was: Buddha
to Mars)
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 19:01:40 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199807011918.MAA05590 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199807020428.VAA27920 lists1.best.com)
Stephen Tonkin says:
)And has it perhaps occurred to you that if the AS concludes that
)something is racist it might just indicate that anthroposophists
)*oppose* racism? It is a trivial matter to find words written more than
)a few decades ago which, whilst perfectly acceptable at the time, are
)considered racist by today's mores. As an example, look at the words and
)deeds of those who held it to be "self evident" that "all men are
)created equal". It's what people actually *do* -- *now* -- that is
)important.
)
)--
) Stephen Tonkin
)(N50.9105 W1.829)
KOPP says:
Are you trolling, Stephen? What is the possible meaning of your American
founding fathers example in relation to the what Anthroposophists say/do?
If you're saying that the FF were mouthing plattitudes while holding
slaves, there's enough historical scholarship to blow you out of the water
on that error of false damning.
If you're saying that Anthroposophy is "cleaner" than the American
democratic experience, you're wrong again.
And you're wrong about actions speaking louder than words. What people
write and think and say, unfortunately, has as much import to our affairs
as what they actually do. Especially if their dogma, cant, religion, cult,
etc., uses proselytising -- including covert proselytising to unsuspecting
children.
In Texas, U.S.A. at the moment, the Ku Klux Klan, America's answer to the
Broderbund, or worse, is claiming the high moral ground, while their
filthy, despicable, racist propaganda goes on openly proselytising against
blacks.
The case involves a black man lynched by three white men with KKK
connections in a particularly nasty murder during which the black man was
beaten and dragged behind a truck down a country road till he was
dismembered.
The KKK in the town, after the arrest of the three white men, disowned
them, and marched through the town to protest the murder of a black in such
a fashion and proclaim their innocence of culpability. The KKK does not
stand for lynching any more, they say. But their literature is as
bloodthirsty as ever, they still wear white sheets and hoods, and they
still strike fear into the hearts of all decent people everywhere. And
cross burnings are on the rise again, as are, now, lynchings.
Of course there is no parallel between the KKK and Anthroposophy. Or is
there? If the founder of Anthroposophy, unrepudiated, believed in racist
ideas, what is the difference whether they were "accepted" in his time?
Lynching of black men all over the Southern U.S. was "accepted" in the
heydey of the KKK (depite the founding fathers and Abraham Lincoln and
Lyndon Johnson -- yes, Lyndon Johnson, who passed more civil rights
legislation than Lincoln).
The KKK has not repudiated racism. Anthroposophy has not repudiated Steiner
-- at least not officially, from the official centre. (And don't let's
argue any more about whether A. is monolithically led from Dornach. It is
the main influence, if not the leadership.)
Is Anthroposophy's racism as dangerous as the KKK's? Probably not -- there
are too many good people like Stephen Tonkin whose morals cannot be
corrupted, and who will act on them, not Anthroposophy's agenda.
But the subtle and insidious teachings of Steiner, shot through the
curriculum of Waldorf schools, lives on. Maybe not in egregious "racial
ethnography", but in many small ways; in the teaching of history through
religious mythology -- which is itself racist -- as truth, to give just one
example.
Who can say what this does to the minds, hearts -- spirits, if you wish to
believe in them -- of our children.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
S41.17, E174.47
(About as antipodean as possible [on inhabited land] to Stephen Tonkin, in
many -- but not all -- ways. Only the Antipodes Islands are closer, and
they're barren, like Anthroposophy's racial morality.)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n812.9 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Proliferation of crud (was: Buddha to Mars (was: Occult
chemistry, Leadbeater and Steiner)}
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 19:24:31 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199807020140.SAA27599 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199807020516.WAA24658 lists1.best.com)
Tonkin:
)I find this particular fence to make a reasonably comfortable seat, from
)which the view is quite interesting.
Kopp:
I hope you're riding side-saddle.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n812.10 ---------------
From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Proliferation of crud
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 12:39:27 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
From: John Calkins
Michael Kopp, if you choose to live your life dwelling solely in the
material realm, you are certainly free to do so. But when you ask for
external evidence for something that can only be experienced internally
within the human being, you are setting yourself up for disappointment.
You are demanding evidence for something that can not be adequately
expressed in the way you want it. I can say that for me, D. Shostakovich
is the greatest composer of this century, I can try to describe the
spiritual element in his music through analogy using language, but
ultimately there is no direct evidence I can provide you. You have to
listen to the music _for_yourself_ to understand what I am talking about.
Similarly, if you are unwilling to open yourself up to the possibility of
knowing the world in a different way, outside the realm of traditional
scientific investigation, then your demands are futile. I suspect you will
not be satisfied with this explanation, but if understanding reality were
so easy, what would we strive for?
)Calkins:
))For me, this is the basis of anthroposophy. It provides a philosophical
))foundation for how we know, along with techniques for extending our
))capacities to know.
)
)KOPP says:
)
)Clairvoyance as epistemology. Wow. I'm not impressed.
I did not mention or presume clairvoyance. It is interesting how you have
introduced clairvoyance; it certainly did not come from me. Perhaps you
have an unconscious fascination with it? If you would actually read what I
wrote, the observations Steiner makes in his "Philosophy of Freedom" are
within the grasp of normal everyday consciousness. So are his basic
exercises (the first lecture in the volume "Anthroposophy in Everyday Life"
describes six exercises anyone can do to improve one's attentiveness, I
don't have all my books with me here so I can't tell you the title). There
is very little in either of these that one would consider mystical in the
usual sense. It is all rather practical stuff.
)KOPP says:
)
)What other kind of observations are there? As far as I know -- because it
)hasn't been demonstrated otherwise to me with tangible evidence -- we
)humans are the only ones around this planet to think about our
)"observations".
)
)But lots of people don't have that difficulty, and use words quite
)eloquently to describe beauty in art: try Robert Adams, "Beauty in
)Photography; Essays in Defense of Traditional Values". This difficulty of
)yours (and mine and Steiner's) has less to do with there being something
)esoteric, occult, spiritually foreign and "higher", than with our own
)inadequacies of language or thought.
Language yes, but thought no. I know what my thoughts are. Are you saying
that compared to animals, plants, and minerals, human thinking is not a
'higher' activity? Rather than foreign, I would call thinking spiritual
familiar.
)I read Steiner as a poet, not a scientist of any kind at all, trying to
)grapple with the weirdness of his own mind.
Perhaps this is why you have failed to understand his epistemology.
)KOPP says:
)
)My frustration is not that I don't understand Steiner or Anthroposophy.
)It's possible, if one wants to devote enough time, to comprehend it
)intellectually. I think it's mumbo jumbo, and I'm not going to waste my
)time on it, nor have my kids exposed to it any longer. My displeasure is
)that it is becoming accepted as a valid alternative way of education _in
)the public school system_ of New Zealand.
)From your comments with regard to Steiner's epistemology, it is clear that
you do not understand anthroposophy, intellectually or otherwise. If you
want to fairly criticize anthroposophy, I suggest that you read and
understand his "Philosophy of Freedom". Without this fundamental
understanding of his way of knowing the world, your criticism rests on very
shaky ground. It is easy to get lost in the "mumbo-jumbo" without the
proper foundation, you certainly are not the first.
)Altruism is explainable both scientifically and morally without need to
)have reference to spirituality. Moral codes develop not for goodness but
)social control. Altruism is a form of selfishness in animal terms. The
)ethical culture of humanists is explainable by our tendency to organise
and
)codify behaviour and our desire to make life comfortable and progressive
)without the need for oppressive moral or spiritual dimensions that we
)cannot truly know.
Are you sure about this??? To turn the tables, what scientific proof do
you have for this claim you make with such confidence? You yourself
pointed out our uniqueness from animals in our ability to think about our
observations. It appears that you are making some assumptions that are not
necessarily valid. How do you know that human consciousness evolved
directly from animal consciousness? For that matter, can you be certain
that life evolved on the earth without a pre-existing consciousness?
Again, where is your proof? Show us the evidence. Frankly, I don't see
how through scientific means these assumptions in the previous paragraph
can be validated.
)Kopp:
)(I've cited so many of these, without any rebuttal, I grow weary, but,
just
)for any newcomers to the list, here's my favourite: My children's English
)teacher (English teacher, for god's sake!) told their classes that Greek
)epic poetry developed dactylic hexameter because of a relationship between
)the ratio of human heartbeat to respiration, and the number of human
)breaths in a lifetime and the number of years in the "Platonic Year"
[known
)to science as the precession of the equinoxes, but _unknown_ to the Greeks
)at the time of the development of Homeric poetry, and, indeed, unknown for
)at least another 400 years].
The relationship between the heartbeat and breath I can understand, between
the breath and the Platonic year may be stretching it a little.
Nonetheless, can you explain to me *clearly* why these are any less
plausible than the coincidence that falling bodies follow the shape of a
conic curve (given that we don't have any proof for or knowledge of what is
the mechanism of gravity)? I don't think anyone can. You will probably
accuse me of comparing some subjective coincidence with hard science. But
if you have read my recent postings, you will understand that knowledge
gained through science is subjective by nature as well. Things are not as
clear cut as we think are. (I will be happy to forward these postings to
you if you have not read them.)
)If we're going to have multiple views, and the proponents of those views
)wish them to be taken seriously, as do the proponents of Anthroposophy,
)then we have to have multiple proofs, and the scientific method is the
best
)for that. Except that, as John Calkins admits above, science cannot
"prove"
)anything about intangibles (it never tries), and everything Steiner talks
)about is intangible. So much of the education in Waldorf schools is about
)intangibles, and scientific proof is never mentioned, taught or desired,
)even in the teaching of what passes for normal science!
Perhaps you are not familiar with the epistemology of traditional science
(this is not a criticism because most people do not understand it
properly). Science cannot prove anything about anything, tangible or
intangible. There is no such thing as a scientific proof (if you don't
believe me, try to name one), and any good scientist knows this. The
objectivity of science is a modern myth. Please refer to my earlier
postings for further clarification.
)KOPP says:
)
)And the major flaw with his "epistemology" is that Steiner claimed "direct
)experience" of things that NO ONE SINCE has been able to duplicate; that
)neither he nor anyone else has ever been able to _demonstrate_ outside
)their own fevered brains; that do not even admit of an acceptable lingua
)franca for both the experiencer and the outsider; but that Steiner
proceded
)to proselytise in such a huge body of mumbo jumbo that it's almost
)impenetrable.
Speaking for myself, there are parts of Steiner's experience that I have
been able to duplicate: those parts of the spiritual realm that are
observable to normal consciousness. Since we are focused on Steiner, let
us use his definition of what is spiritual. The life forces,
consciousness, and self-consciousness are of spirit nature, and I know they
exist. I am unable to sense the spirit nature of the physical body though.
Free thinking is the highest spiritual activity in which we can engage
within normal consciousness, so says Steiner. Of course one may argue
whether or not these are 'spiritual'. To me this is largely a question of
belief, and I don't think we will ever settle this here. If this helps you
at all Michael, these are all intangible, we know they exist, yet we cannot
show to someone else in a scientific way that they exist. Whether or not
you agree that they are spiritual, they certainly have the same qualities
of the spirit nature whose existence of which you are skeptical.
Can you explain to me where the flaw is when Steiner himself says not to
take his word for it, but to check it out for yourself. He relates his
observations, and others can do with them whatever they please. If one
finds it useful and sees the truth in an observation, then one can use it
to his advantage. If not in another, one is free to ignore it or put it on
the shelf. It seems to me Michael that you are the one treating Steiner's
observations as dogma (one you don't agree with). Speaking for myself, I
do not.
John Calkins
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n812 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n813 --------------
001 - Herman de Tollenaere (her - Re: Besant and Steiner
002 - Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis - Re: Besant and Steiner (was: Proliferation of crud (was: Buddh
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n813.1 ---------------
From: Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl)
Subject: Re: Besant and Steiner
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 1998 21:56:43 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199807011918.MAA05590 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199807020428.VAA27920 lists1.best.com)
At 05:23 2-7-1998 +0100, Stephen Tonkin wrote:
)))Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl) wrote:
))))
))))So, we can all safely presume, that to Stephen Tonkin, the idea that in
the
))))seventeenth century, the Buddha went to planet Mars "at the request of
))))Christian Rosencreutz" on a peace mission is also crud? So is claiming the
))))existence of airplanes "in ancient Atlantis"? And so is the idea that
white
))))pregnant women should not read "negro novels" as their babies might then
))))turn out "mulatto"?
)))
)))Indeed, Dr de Tollenaere, you can safely presume that I believe that
)))there is no scientific evidence for any of the above.
))
))As Stephen Tonkin is probably aware, all three of the examples above can be
))found in Dr Rudolf Steiner's works.
)
)Yes, I am aware of that.
)))You can also safely presume that I consider the following to be crud:
)))# The implication that people who actively worked for Indian
)))independence (and who were recognised by the likes of Mohandas Gandhi
)))as having done so)
))
))Whom does Stephen Tonkin mean? Alice Bailey? Annie Besant?
)
)The latter.
Then, why the plural "people", please?
)
))Then, probably, he did not read Besant's [and Bailey's] writings,
explicitly against Indian
))[and Irish] independence, as India and Britain, both "Aryan" [Besant's
))word] should be in the same "Aryan empire".
)
)Again, I'm more interested in what she did (eg as President of the
)Indian National Congress) than what she said.
Then, read, eg, my book The Politics of Divine Wisdom, especially pp.
257-270. What Mrs Besant mainly *did* as president of the Indian National
Congress was *saying* things in speeches. Mrs Besant's 1917-1918 Congress
presidency destroyed much of her popularity with Congress members
(certainly with Gandhi; see also B.G. Tilak's writings), which she had won
in 1916-1917 with her Home Rule league. Congress members accused her of,
eg, authoritarianism, while the presidency of Congress was supposed to be a
honourary job for older people.
)) And please, show me where in Gandhi's works I might find a statement
that Mrs Besant ))"worked for Indian independence".
)
)Sorry, can't cite - heard/saw it on TV years (decades?) ago.
So, have you forgotten the link of TV to Ahriman :-)?
[By the way, the title/date of that (South African? British? TV program
*would* interest me greatly. It is always interesting to track down
mistakes in historical facts to their origins]
))I do think it is possible to be for Indian Home Rule within the British
))empire [as Besant was; so, not for independence],
)
)Empire or Commonwealth, Herman?
Actually, in Besant's writings, like her editorials in The Theosophist, she
used Empire and Commonwealth interchangeably.
)) However, a committee set up recently by the
))executive of the Dutch Anthroposophical Society concluded that "Racial
))Ethnography" courses at Waldorf schools were racist.
)has it perhaps occurred to you that if the AS concludes that
)something is racist it might just indicate that anthroposophists
)*oppose* racism?
Well, it took the AS many decades after the establishment of racial
ethnography courses in the first place [A Dutch proverb says: "better late
than never"]. At least until very recently, the Dutch Waldorf schools were
among the very few schools (including government, Catholic, Protestant,
Muslim etc., schools) to refuse admission to anti-racist teaching material
by national anti-racist education organizations like the Anne Frank
Foundation. A minority at the general meeting of the Dutch Anthroposophical
Society did not want the report criticizing "Racial Ethnography" to be
accepted or published. Among the others I would say there was honest
opposition to racism; but also worry about public relations images.
For there was big pressure from the outside. In 1984-1985, there had been a
big row in the Dutch national media after criticism of Racial Ethnography
by a black Waldorf parent, and Dr Gjalt Zondergeld and other Amsterdam
historians. Ten years later, that controversy became big again, after a
barrage of criticism by parents and media.
)It is a trivial matter to find words written more than a few decades ago
The South African Anthroposophical book case which I cited was about one
decade ago
)which, whilst perfectly acceptable at the time, are
"Accepted" by many people at the time who also had racial prejudices? Or
"acceptable", to, eg, the people *at the time* who wrote Letters to the
Editor [not published, only partly quoted, in the Indonesian nationalist
Tjipto Mangoenkoesoemo's letter's case], eg, protesting against the Dutch
East Indies Theosophical magazine labeling Indonesians as either "Aryan"
[the Javanese nobility], or as non-noble Atlanteans "staring with bovine
eyes and open mouth", or still more inferior "Lemurians"?
As for actions: one prominent member of the Dutch East Indies Theosophists
was Captain Christoffel, considered by many historians as the worst killer
of civilians in the Aceh war and other colonial wars of the first decades
of the twentieth century in Indonesia.
)considered racist by today's mores.
------------------------------------------
Herman de Tollenaere
------------------------------------------
Internet site:
http://stad.dsl.nl/~hermantl/
See also:
http://www.stelling.nl/simpos/simpoeng.htm
------------------------------------------
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n813.2 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Besant and Steiner (was: Proliferation of crud (was: Buddha to Mars)
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 23:03:19 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: (199807020704.AAA11758 lists1.best.com)
Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz) wrote:
)Stephen Tonkin says:
)
))And has it perhaps occurred to you that if the AS concludes that
))something is racist it might just indicate that anthroposophists
))*oppose* racism? It is a trivial matter to find words written more than
))a few decades ago which, whilst perfectly acceptable at the time, are
))considered racist by today's mores. As an example, look at the words and
))deeds of those who held it to be "self evident" that "all men are
))created equal". It's what people actually *do* -- *now* -- that is
))important.
)KOPP says:
)
)Are you trolling, Stephen? What is the possible meaning of your American
)founding fathers example in relation to the what Anthroposophists say/do?
)
)If you're saying that the FF were mouthing plattitudes while holding
)slaves, there's enough historical scholarship to blow you out of the water
)on that error of false damning.
I think you completely misunderstood the intention of the above -- let
me try to explain: Jefferson (or so I read in history books) was
responsible for those fine words in the Declaration of Independence. He
was also a slave owner (or so I read in history books). With reference
to the mores of the time, there was no contradiction. If I remember my
history correctly, by the time Martin Luther King made his "I have a
Dream" speech (and probably before), the mores of the time definitely
found a contradiction, which MLK pointed out. Does this make Jefferson a
Hypocrite? I contend that it does not. Similarly, Steiner made comments
which were acceptable according to the time and place in which he lived
-- some of them are not acceptable now. I am trying to say that we
should not judge him by current mores; we can, however, use today's
mores to say "That is no longer an acceptable position". What we can
judge by current mores is what Waldorf schools (or anthroposophists) do
*now*.
Is that a bit clearer?
You also said:
)Is Anthroposophy's racism as dangerous as the KKK's? Probably not -- there
)are too many good people like Stephen Tonkin whose morals cannot be
)corrupted, and who will act on them, not Anthroposophy's agenda.
Thank you for the compliment, but your faith in my moral
incorruptibility is greater than mine -- but there are certainly many
people, inside and outside anthroposophy, who do have the incorruptible
morality of which you speak.
I'm going to duck out of this debate for a while -- I've picjked up a
staphylococcus infection in an eye and it's bloody difficult to
concentrate on a screen for any length of time. May join in again when
it gets better.
--
Stephen Tonkin
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n813 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n814 --------------
001 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Please consider...
002 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: Please consider...
003 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: Please consider...
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n814.1 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Please consider...
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1998 21:22:05 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
We received the following from a visitor to our web site: -dD-
)Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 22:53:02 -0700
)From: Amanda Parla (amanda inet.net)
)To: snell netshel.net
)Subject: Please consider...
)
)I'm asking you as a moral person, please do not dis-credit somthing you
)do not fully understand. I joined the waldorf community and attended a
)school from 7th through my 12th year, I have seen it's bennifts on me and
)other children. The teachers in no way teach anthroposophy, and will not
)discuse it unless a student actively seaches it out. They teach students
)to think, to care about the world and to qustion things. Having spent
)six years in public education previous to this, I feal that I have a well
)rounded experience to draw from. I found public education to be more
)like the mass produceing of macheins than educating children, it was
)memorizing and spitting back facts, not discovering answers. I leave you
)with one qustion, Is equlatly treating everyone the same, or is it it
)fully meeting everyone's individual needs? No one is forceing Waldorf
)edication on people, it isn't right for everyone. Let people decide on
)their own.
)-Amanda-
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n814.2 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Please consider...
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 17:51:59 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199807060442.VAA08714 lists1.best.com)
)We received the following from a visitor to our web site: -dD-
)
))Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 22:53:02 -0700
))From: Amanda Parla (amanda inet.net)
))To: snell netshel.net
))Subject: Please consider...
))
))I'm asking you as a moral person, please do not dis-credit somthing you
))do not fully understand. I joined the waldorf community and attended a
))school from 7th through my 12th year, I have seen it's bennifts on me and
))other children. The teachers in no way teach anthroposophy, and will not
))discuse it unless a student actively seaches it out. They teach students
))to think, to care about the world and to qustion things. Having spent
))six years in public education previous to this, I feal that I have a well
))rounded experience to draw from. I found public education to be more
))like the mass produceing of macheins than educating children, it was
))memorizing and spitting back facts, not discovering answers. I leave you
))with one qustion, Is equlatly treating everyone the same, or is it it
))fully meeting everyone's individual needs? No one is forceing Waldorf
))edication on people, it isn't right for everyone. Let people decide on
))their own.
))-Amanda-
Come on, Dan, admit it, you write these things yourself just as flamebait
for me!
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n814.3 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Please consider...
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 10:31:17 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199807060442.VAA08714 lists1.best.com)
Dear Amanda,
Thank you for your note. I shared it with the waldorf-critics mailing list.
You asked,
)I leave you
)with one qustion, Is equlatly treating everyone the same, or is it it
)fully meeting everyone's individual needs?
Regarding equality, if you're talking about law (or in Anthroposophical
terms, the "rights sphere") the answer is treating everybody the same. I'm
sure we agree that any good school does more than that.
)No one is forceing Waldorf
)edication on people, it isn't right for everyone. Let people decide on
)their own.
We agree on this, also. But PLANS sees too much Anthroposophy in Waldorf
education for it to be eligible for tax money, which is not given
voluntarily. We are also concerned that Waldorf education does not present
itself truthfully in the private schools, so the decisions that people make
are not well informed.
Sincerely, Dan Dugan
Secretary, PLANS
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n814 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n815 --------------
001 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Sacramento parent
002 - 469593N knotes.kodak.com - Re: Sacramento parent
003 - e-train mindspring.com - signoff waldorf
004 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Re: Sacramento parent
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n815.1 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Sacramento parent
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 11:00:32 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (v04011702b19a7d5a6c70 [205.149.169.113])
In-Reply-To: (3575B4C9.3C9D calweb.com)
Kelly (haar calweb.com), thanks for your note. You wrote,
)My son may attend the John Morse Waldorf Methods Magnet in the
)Sacramento CIty Unified School District.
)My question to PLANS, if you're suiing because WE is a cult religion and
)should't be in "public schools", isn't traditional public school based
)on Christian religion, ie., the pledge of allegience, "one nation under
)God", etc.
No, public schools are not based on Christian religion. Ask the Christians
about that!
)Students have been suspended for not wanting to say the pledge of
)allegience because they don't believe in God.
I was a devout Catholic child when "under God" was added to the Pledge.
Kind of cancels the "indivisible," doesn't it? I found it offensive then
and I still do now. The ACLU is always successful in defending violations
of personal freedom like children being required to pray in school, because
the constitution is quite clear. Religious people are always trying to
nibble away at church-state separation, and the Pledge is one of their
victories. I hope to see it reversed in my lifetime.
)I feel that school districts should do whatever it takes to educate the
)child the best way for that child, WE certainly benefits alot of
)divergent thinking children that have creative, non-conformists minds.
I don't know what makes you think that Waldorf encourages creativity or
non-conformity. They talk a lot about creativity, but what they actually do
is the opposite. In painting classes, everybody paints the same picture,
and the media they use are strictly prescribed by age. Encouraging
non-conformity? At Oak ridge children were required to walk between classes
with their hands crossed on their breasts (the occultist posture for
prayer).
)The public WE schools certainly don't teach religion, only their
)curriculim is based on WE, ie., no ditto sheets, standardized testing,
)and allowing art and music to be a part of education, something that has
)long been missing from our children. Doesn't PLANS understand the whole
)"hand, heart, head" thing?
The integration of art into all subjects was one of the things that
attracted me strongly to Waldorf. It's too bad it's all inextricably tied
up with occultist nonsense.
I'm copying this reply to the waldorf-critics mailing list. I encourage you
to subscribe, our list isn't censored.
Sincerely, Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n815.2 ---------------
From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Sacramento parent
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 07:35:09 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
From: John Calkins
Dan Dugan's response to Kelly:
)Kelly (haar calweb.com), thanks for your note. You wrote,
)
))My son may attend the John Morse Waldorf Methods Magnet in the
))Sacramento CIty Unified School District.
))My question to PLANS, if you're suiing because WE is a cult religion and
))should't be in "public schools", isn't traditional public school based
))on Christian religion, ie., the pledge of allegience, "one nation under
))God", etc.
)
)No, public schools are not based on Christian religion. Ask the Christians
)about that!
I was raised as a Christian, so perhaps I qualify. In my education in a
public school, we were taught not to lie, not to steal, and appropriate
sexual behavior. These sound like Christian values to me. Social Studies
was taught with a strong Judeo-Christian slant. Religiously inspired music
was often performed (Handel's Messiah, Jesu Joy of Man's Desiring,
Christmas carols to name a few). The content of studies in art, poetry,
and literature all were primarily western Judeo-Christian. These are just
a few obvious examples. I am not an educational historian, but it would
not surprise me if there are religious influences that have existed in
American education for a long time. We may not even think of them as being
so, since Judeo-Christian values are strong in our culture and thought
habits. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I can say more.
With all of these spiritual influences in public education, we still do not
see it as religious education. Dan, I am glad that you have the energy to
respond to this topic, for it is directly related to the third question of
my posting "PLANS Credibility Check". Namely, how is Waldorf education
"religious" if anthroposophy is not taught, though it influences the
curriculum? Perhaps we can gain some clarity from you as to the difference
you see?
John Calkins
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n815.3 ---------------
From: e-train mindspring.com
Subject: signoff waldorf
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 1998 10:36:58 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
signoff waldorf
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n815.4 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Re: Sacramento parent
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 1998 11:06:13 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (v04011702b19a7d5a6c70 [205.149.169.113]) (199807070636.XAA13775 lists1.best.com)
Dan Dugan wrote:
) )I feel that school districts should do whatever it takes to educate the
) )child the best way for that child, WE certainly benefits alot of
) )divergent thinking children that have creative, non-conformists minds.
)
) I don't know what makes you think that Waldorf encourages creativity or
) non-conformity. They talk a lot about creativity, but what they actually do
) is the opposite. In painting classes, everybody paints the same picture,
) and the media they use are strictly prescribed by age. Encouraging
) non-conformity? At Oak ridge children were required to walk between classes
) with their hands crossed on their breasts (the occultist posture for
) prayer).
Well, empirically speaking, what makes me think that WE encourages creativity or non-conformity is the amount of artists it 'actually' graduates. In elementary painting, students do copy from the teacher, a rather classic approach to learning
technique. Michaelangelo, Leonardo and Raphael all learned to paint by copying from the 'masters'. In HS, kids are not told to copy from a painting, though there may be requirements to their finished composition.
ezra
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n815 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n816 --------------
001 - spike (spike netshel.net) - Artists
002 - spike (spike netshel.net) - Please Consider . . .
003 - Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis - Re: Please Consider . . .
004 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: Please Consider . . .
005 - Sune Nordwall (thebee hem - Re: Please Consider . . .
006 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: Please Consider . . .
007 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: Please Consider . . .
008 - 469593N knotes.kodak.com - Re: Please Consider . . .
009 - 469593N knotes.kodak.com - Re: Please Consider . . .
010 - Humberto saint Martin (hu - Re: Please Consider . . .
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n816.1 ---------------
From: spike (spike netshel.net)
Subject: Artists
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 1998 20:57:47 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199807080710.AAA07592 lists1.best.com)
Ezra Beeman posted:
) Well, empirically speaking, what makes me think that WE encourages creativity or non-conformity is the amount of artists it 'actually' graduates.
Who are these artists? Is there a greater percentage of recognized
artists graduated from Waldorf schools as opposed to public schools?
Likewise, is there a higher percentage of people that have a
self-conception of themselves as "artists" graduated from Waldorf
schools as opposed to public schools?
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n816.2 ---------------
From: spike (spike netshel.net)
Subject: Please Consider . . .
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 1998 21:09:39 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199807070510.WAA25329 lists1.best.com)
Re: Amanda Parla's post:
Amanda Parla posted a lengthy message rife with misspellings and
grammatical errors. She is a self-described Waldorf graduate and
supportive of the Waldorf educational method. While I appreciated her
willingness to post to the list, I found her message alarmingly similar
in spelling/writing skills to those posted by Angelica Hesse this
spring. Amanda and Angelica are both Waldorf graduates.
Although my experience with Waldorf graduates is limited, I am concerned
with the apparent lack of writing skills exhibited by these students.
When I was teaching in the local school district I also experienced
former Waldorf students to be lacking in academic skills, particularly
grammar and writing skills. Does this lack of basic academic mastery
follow across the core curriculum subjects?
Kathy
) )Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 22:53:02 -0700
) )From: Amanda Parla (amanda inet.net)
) )To: snell netshel.net
) )Subject: Please consider...
) )
) )I'm asking you as a moral person, please do not dis-credit somthing you
) )do not fully understand. I joined the waldorf community and attended a
) )school from 7th through my 12th year, I have seen it's bennifts on me and
) )other children. The teachers in no way teach anthroposophy, and will not
) )discuse it unless a student actively seaches it out. They teach students
) )to think, to care about the world and to qustion things. Having spent
) )six years in public education previous to this, I feal that I have a well
) )rounded experience to draw from. I found public education to be more
) )like the mass produceing of macheins than educating children, it was
) )memorizing and spitting back facts, not discovering answers. I leave you
) )with one qustion, Is equlatly treating everyone the same, or is it it
) )fully meeting everyone's individual needs? No one is forceing Waldorf
) )edication on people, it isn't right for everyone. Let people decide on
) )their own.
) )-Amanda-
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n816.3 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Please Consider . . .
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 06:30:36 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: (199807090414.VAA10199 lists1.best.com)
spike (spike netshel.net) wrote:
)Amanda Parla posted a lengthy message rife with misspellings and
)grammatical errors.
[...]
)Although my experience with Waldorf graduates is limited, I am concerned
)with the apparent lack of writing skills exhibited by these students.
A perusal of the archives of this list will demonstrate that problems
with grammar and spelling are not limited to Waldorf graduates.
In fact, I repeatedly come across articles bemoaning the lack of basic
literacy (and numeracy) in university graduates. Usenet postings from
addresses ending in ".edu" often reinforce the perception of this lack.
--
Stephen Tonkin
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
UK Amateur Telescope Making - (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk/atm.htm)
Tonkin's Astronomy Books - (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk/books/books.htm)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n816.4 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Please Consider . . .
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 18:04:08 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199807070510.WAA25329 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199807090414.VAA10199 lists1.best.com)
Kathy Sutphen (Spike) wrote:
)Re: Amanda Parla's post:
)
)Amanda Parla posted a lengthy message rife with misspellings and
)grammatical errors. She is a self-described Waldorf graduate and
)supportive of the Waldorf educational method. While I appreciated her
)willingness to post to the list, I found her message alarmingly similar
)in spelling/writing skills to those posted by Angelica Hesse this
)spring. Amanda and Angelica are both Waldorf graduates.
)
)Although my experience with Waldorf graduates is limited, I am concerned
)with the apparent lack of writing skills exhibited by these students.
)When I was teaching in the local school district I also experienced
)former Waldorf students to be lacking in academic skills, particularly
)grammar and writing skills. Does this lack of basic academic mastery
)follow across the core curriculum subjects?
Michael KOPP says:
In my children's experience, and that of many of their mates, yes. My kids
are both having a lot of trouble coping with the workload and the academic
discipline and the depth and breadth of material in regular public schools,
now that they have switched from a Steiner school. The Steiner school is
slack in its teaching rigour (the teachers were ignorant of many things
they were supposed to teach), lackadaisical in their approach to the
students' scholarship (no negative consequences for laziness or lack of
effort), and intentionally relaxed about whether the children really
learned anything or not.
Kathy quoted the post from Amanda Parla (to which I originally replied with
a jape at Dan Dugan, who I said must fabricate these kinds of posts just as
flame-bait for me. I've resisted replying further to Amanda's post in the
same fashion as I did to Angelica's (hold the applause, defenders of the
faith), but I want to point out one flaw in her logic.
)) )Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 22:53:02 -0700
)) )From: Amanda Parla (amanda inet.net)
)) )To: snell netshel.net
)) )Subject: Please consider...
)) )
)) )I'm asking you as a moral person, please do not dis-credit somthing you
)) )do not fully understand. I joined the waldorf community and attended a
)) )school from 7th through my 12th year, I have seen it's bennifts on me and
)) )other children. The teachers in no way teach anthroposophy, and will not
)) )discuse it unless a student actively seaches it out. They teach students
)) )to think, to care about the world and to qustion things. Having spent
)) )six years in public education previous to this, I feal that I have a well
)) )rounded experience to draw from.
)) )I found public education to be more
)) )like the mass produceing of macheins than educating children, it was
)) )memorizing and spitting back facts, not discovering answers.
What is the difference between facts learned through "memorization" and
those "discovered" as "answers"? Surely what is right is right, no matter
how it is arrived at, and the knowledge learnt at a Steiner/ Waldorf/
Anthroposophical school will be the same as that learnt elsewhere? Well ...
maybe not.
The defenders of the Waldorf methods would have us believe that only by
using intuition and observation can one truly _know_ something.
Rubbish. What passes for "knowing" in the Steiner system (in my children's
empirical experience) is nothing more than "anything goes". There is no
right answer, there is no truth, there is no _fact_. There is only the
student's "observations", and what they think of those observations.
But since they have no solid framework of empirical knowledge to test their
observations and ideas against, and since the modern scientific method of
hypothesis and experimental proof is rejected, the student comes away from
a Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical education with only a loose and
diffuse range of impressions of the world from their own imagination.
What is wrong with that? say the new agers and anti-intellectuals. Surely
that's preferable to having to memorize all that stuff that nobody will
ever use.
Well, in the first place, whether they use it or not, their world-view is
critical to the success or failure of the societies we live in. My
impression is that we are entering a new dark age where mystical,
uncritical, anti-science and anti-intellectualism hold sway over a scary
percentage of the population.
Second, I don't believe that public schools, in general. simply shovel
facts into kids' memories. (Though rote memorization has its place,
particularly in mathematics. Many studies show that children who did maths
drills early in life succeed better at later maths studies. My children had
to memorise the multiplication tables in their public primary school before
coming to Steiner; their Steiner mates often did not know their times
tables, and they were the poorer at maths for it. My kids both did well.)
I doubt that a highly qualified, highly respected, prize-winning, and
highly popular (with everyone but the new-agers and bungling bureaucrats)
teacher like Kathy Sutphen, teaches by allegedly boring, rote memorization.
In fact, I imagine that her methods, and her respect for fact as opposed to
opinion, are far superior to the "science teachers" my children had at our
Steiner school. I imagine her as something like a "gee-whiz" Mrs. Wizard,
leading the students into the wonder and awe of the real through not only
observation, but practical thinking, hypothesizing, experimentation and
conclusion-drawing.
What my kids got was _anti_ science, pseudo-science, mythology, occultism
and spiritualistic mumbo-jumbo. They found _it_ boorrring, compared to the
exciting world of experimentation and scientific thinking they were taught
elsewhere.
What Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical students get is, as Angelica and
Amanda and many others like them have demonstrated here, an inflated belief
in their self-image and their world-view as the one true way. It is one
thing to instill confidence in young people through respect; it is another
to give them a false sense of security that they are so knowledgeable and
so wise, when, in fact, they are neither.
)) )I leave you
)) )with one qustion, Is equlatly treating everyone the same, or is it it
)) )fully meeting everyone's individual needs? No one is forceing Waldorf
)) )edication on people, it isn't right for everyone. Let people decide on
)) )their own.
)) )-Amanda-
This last paragraph is so illliterate that I cannot fathom what she is
getting at, and I reject the possibility of anyone (as someone else has
here) understanding it enough to agree or disagree with whatever it is she
seems to be saying.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n816.5 ---------------
From: Sune Nordwall (thebee hem.passagen.se)
Subject: Re: Please Consider . . .
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998 10:30:52 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199807070510.WAA25329 lists1.best.com) (199807090606.XAA17207 lists1.best.com)
Not intending to develop it further,
just meant as a small comment:
Quoting Amanda Parla:
) )) )I leave you
) )) )with one qustion, Is equlatly treating everyone the same, or is it it
) )) )fully meeting everyone's individual needs? No one is forceing Waldorf
) )) )edication on people, it isn't right for everyone. Let people decide on
) )) )their own.
Michael Kopp wrote:
) This last paragraph is so illliterate that I cannot fathom what she is
) getting at, and I reject the possibility of anyone (as someone else has
) here) understanding it enough to agree or disagree with whatever it is she
) seems to be saying.
Dear sir,
could the interpretation you reject as impossible be that by
))
Is equlatly treating everyone the same, or is it it fully meeting
everyone's individual needs?
))
Amanda means something in the way of:
Is it better to treat every pupil in the same way,
- meeting only the "general" pupil in the indivividual pupil and
- teaching it _only_ what society requires it to know to be economically
productive,
or is it "better" in some way to
- focus on the unique needs and potentials of every pupil as individuals
- teaching it more in the spirit, oops, sorry!, _direction_ of Socratic
maieutics?
And are not these two poles between which every teacher in every school
have to steer in their work, waldorf schools more strongly bent towards
the second one, even though you also there find more or less wide spread
tendencies to at times only look at the principal "general" pupil
developing according the "waldorf scheme"?
No one is forcing Waldorf education on people, it isn't right for
everyone (unclear?).
Let people decide on their own.
(this point being the central problem, not least to PLANS; what schools
should be "allowed" to exist, and which principles should govern the
financing of them with that part of the taxes meant for the general
school system, that _everyone_ pays?)
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
thebee hem.passagen.se
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n816.6 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Please Consider . . .
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 18:23:53 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199807090414.VAA10199 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199807090544.WAA00570 lists1.best.com)
Stephen Tonkin tries to take the wind out of Kathy Sutphen's sails:
)spike (spike netshel.net) wrote:
))Amanda Parla posted a lengthy message rife with misspellings and
))grammatical errors.
)[...]
))Although my experience with Waldorf graduates is limited, I am concerned
))with the apparent lack of writing skills exhibited by these students.
)
)A perusal of the archives of this list will demonstrate that problems
)with grammar and spelling are not limited to Waldorf graduates.
Michael KOPP says:
Well, Stephen, come on, let's have a little statistical and qualitative
analysis here, not just a generalisation. How many other people, besides
the Waldorf graduates we're concerned with, have such bad communication
skills? I can think of only one other poster who has any real problem with
language skills -- and you used to give him a hiding every time he opened
his mouth. You even give the Anthropsophical Science list weirdos, with
their pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo, a hard time. How come it is that you
never give the expression or thought of a Waldorf _supporter_ or _graduate_
a hard time on this list, but defend them by generalising about others?
)In fact, I repeatedly come across articles bemoaning the lack of basic
)literacy (and numeracy) in university graduates. Usenet postings from
)addresses ending in ".edu" often reinforce the perception of this lack.
Where do you see these egregious illiterates? Here? If elsewhere, and
you're making a comment on the state of education generally, how about some
facts and figures? How about some literacy, reading comprehension, and
vocabulary tests for Steiner/ Waldord/ Anthroposophical graduates -- a
large cross section, as exists with public schools, not a minuscule mention
of one school in the UK and a few others elsewhere?
We are concerned with the repeated evidence from Waldorf graduates, seen
here on this list, of illiteracy and inarticulateness -- not to mention
fundamental logical and factual deficiencies that we, as critics, find
startling.
Waldorf is supposed to be a superior educational system (by its own press
releases, not by any empirical data). So how come its most vocal and
visible products are so inferior in these fundamentally important areas?
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n816.7 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Please Consider . . .
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 00:46:45 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199807070510.WAA25329 lists1.best.com)
(199807090606.XAA17207 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199807090832.BAA22117 lists1.best.com)
Sune Nordwall attempts to interpret (and embellish) Amanda Parla's
illiterate and indecipherable babble:
)Not intending to develop it further,
)just meant as a small comment:
)
)Quoting Amanda Parla:
)) )) )I leave you
)) )) )with one qustion, Is equlatly treating everyone the same, or is it it
)) )) )fully meeting everyone's individual needs? No one is forceing Waldorf
)) )) )edication on people, it isn't right for everyone. Let people decide on
)) )) )their own.
)
)Michael Kopp wrote:
)) This last paragraph is so illliterate that I cannot fathom what she is
)) getting at, and I reject the possibility of anyone (as someone else has
)) here) understanding it enough to agree or disagree with whatever it is she
)) seems to be saying.
)
)
)Dear sir,
)
)could the interpretation you reject as impossible be that by
)))
)Is equlatly treating everyone the same, or is it it fully meeting
)everyone's individual needs?
)))
)Amanda means something in the way of:
)Is it better to treat every pupil in the same way,
)- meeting only the "general" pupil in the indivividual pupil and
)- teaching it _only_ what society requires it to know to be economically
)productive,
)or is it "better" in some way to
)- focus on the unique needs and potentials of every pupil as individuals
)- teaching it more in the spirit, oops, sorry!, _direction_ of Socratic
)maieutics?
)And are not these two poles between which every teacher in every school
)have to steer in their work, waldorf schools more strongly bent towards
)the second one, even though you also there find more or less wide spread
)tendencies to at times only look at the principal "general" pupil
)developing according the "waldorf scheme"?
[snip]
KOPP says:
My point was why should anyone care to try to decipher such babble?
And aren't you putting an awful lot of pretty sophisticated Steiner/
Waldorf/ Anthroposophical dogma into the mouth of a rather naive,
unsophisticated teenager?
How can you possibly attribute such reasoning to someone who can't make an
English sentence work? Writing is a reflection of thinking; we think in
words. If the writing is so weak, can the thought be as developed as your
interpretation?
Your interpretation (not Amanda's) is that public schools teach all
students according to the lowest common intellectual denominator, and with
the ulterior motive of only making economic units. I reject that notion,
though I am not blind to the faults of our schools today. (One of them is
the failure to teach effectively reading, writing and thinking. Butthis is
more a factor of educational trends -- "whole language" learning instead of
phonics, for example -- and is prevalent in the Steiner/ Waldorf/
Anthroposophical schools too.)
Finally, this is the first time I have heard the Steiner pedagogy referred
to as "Socratic". I think that is a superficial description that won't hold
water, in my experience at least. I didn't find, despite the "personal
attention and respect" paid to my children individually, that their
education was Socratic in any way; it was in fact subtly led by the
teachers towards just the esoteric points they wished to promulgate. True
Socratic education requires the student to justify his views with logic and
fact, not just personal observations and intuition, as is the norm in
Steiner/ Waldorf/ ANthroposophical schools.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n816.8 ---------------
From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Please Consider . . .
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 11:01:15 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
From: John Calkins
Michael KOPP says:
)Where do you see these egregious illiterates? Here? If elsewhere, and
)you're making a comment on the state of education generally, how about
some
)facts and figures? How about some literacy, reading comprehension, and
)vocabulary tests for Steiner/ Waldord/ Anthroposophical graduates -- a
)large cross section, as exists with public schools, not a minuscule
mention
)of one school in the UK and a few others elsewhere?
Ezra recently cited the failure of a high percentage of education graduates
who failed some sort of aptitude test in Massachusetts. I have deleted the
posting so I may not have my facts straight, but I recall the English test
to be at an 8th grade reading level. If you want to see the facts and
figures Michael, I'm sure someone can show you.
Public schools as well as Waldorf schools have difficulties attracting
qualified teachers. I have heard that for both public and Waldorf schools:
about 1/3 of the teachers probably should not be teaching, about 1/3 of the
teachers do an acceptable job, and about 1/3 of the teachers are
exceptionally good. We should not make light of this serious problem by
finger pointing. It is a general issue (at least in the U.S.) for both
private and public education which needs to be addressed.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n816.9 ---------------
From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Please Consider . . .
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 11:59:07 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
From: John Calkins
KOPP says:
)What is the difference between facts learned through "memorization" and
)those "discovered" as "answers"? Surely what is right is right, no matter
)how it is arrived at, and the knowledge learnt at a Steiner/ Waldorf/
)Anthroposophical school will be the same as that learnt elsewhere? Well
...
)maybe not.
)
It sounds to me like you are saying the product is more important than the
process. You must advocate that it is just as good to learn how the phases
of the moon are caused from a diagram than it is to arrive at the same
conclusion starting with observations of the real moon and sun? I hope you
are not planning on founding a school on this principle. In Norman
Davidson's "Sky Phenomena", he cites a survey where faculty and graduates
at Harvard University were asked the two simple questions: "Why does the
moon go through phases?" and "Why is it warmer in the summer?" 90% of them
could not answer the questions correctly, the creme de la creme of American
education! Clearly this does not speak well for orthodox education. How
can this happen? It happens when abstract learning is valued more than
knowledge gained through direct experience.
(In case anyone was wondering, the most common _incorrect_ answers
respectively are: "The shadow of the earth appears on the moon." and "The
earth moves in an ellipse around the sun and is further away from the sun
in the winter." It is interesting to note that an uneducated medieval
peasant would never have given either of these answers. I'm sure Stephen
Tonkin can fill you in if anyone wants a better explanation, if he doesn't
mind being put on the spot.)
)The defenders of the Waldorf methods would have us believe that only by
)using intuition and observation can one truly _know_ something.
)
)Rubbish. What passes for "knowing" in the Steiner system (in my children's
)empirical experience) is nothing more than "anything goes". There is no
)right answer, there is no truth, there is no _fact_. There is only the
)student's "observations", and what they think of those observations.
)
)But since they have no solid framework of empirical knowledge to test
their
)observations and ideas against, and since the modern scientific method of
)hypothesis and experimental proof is rejected, the student comes away from
)a Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical education with only a loose and
)diffuse range of impressions of the world from their own imagination.
)
Michael, you still seem to think there is such a thing as an "experimental
proof". The greatest scientific thinkers of our time agree there is no
such thing as a scientific proof. The "solid framework" we thought we had
in the 19th century has crumbled away. It's time you moved into the 20th
century before the 21st arrives!
John Calkins
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n816.10 ---------------
From: Humberto saint Martin (humberto xibalba.ifisicam.unam.mx)
Subject: Re: Please Consider . . .
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 98 13:00:36 CDT
In-Reply-To: (199807091726.KAA24415 lists1.best.com); from "469593N knotes.kodak.com" at Jul 9, 98 11:59 am
) From: John Calkins
(snip)
) Michael, you still seem to think there is such a thing as an "experimental
) proof". The greatest scientific thinkers of our time agree there is no
) such thing as a scientific proof. The "solid framework" we thought we had
) in the 19th century has crumbled away. It's time you moved into the 20th
) century before the 21st arrives!
)
HSMP:
I have not participated in this discussion because I am extremely busy at the
moment. I just want to say that I am in disagreement with almost all of John
Calkins' views on science. I would like to ask John for references to his above
statement on the great scientific thinkers who deny the existence of scientific
proof.
Thank you, John.
--
Humberto Saint Martin
__________________________________________________________________
Laboratorio de Cuernavaca, IFUNAM | Tel.: (52-73) 135688
Apartado Postal 48 - 3 | 175388
Calle Estrada Cajigal 510, | (52-5) 6227796
Colonia Tezontepec |
62251 Cuernavaca, Morelos | Fax: (52-73) 173077
MEXICO | 111603
| (52-5) 6227775
__________________________________________________________________
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n816 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n817 --------------
001 - Michael Hirsch (hirsch ma - Re: Please Consider . . .
002 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Re: Please Consider . . .
003 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Re: Please Consider . . .
004 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Re: Artists
005 - 469593N knotes.kodak.com - Re: Please Consider . . .
006 - 469593N knotes.kodak.com - Re: Please Consider . . .
007 - Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis - Re: Please Consider . . .
008 - Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis - Re: Please Consider . . .
009 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: Please Consider . . .
010 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: Please Consider . . .
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n817.1 ---------------
From: Michael Hirsch (hirsch mathcs.emory.edu)
Subject: Re: Please Consider . . .
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 15:39:51 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: (53921646 toto.iv)
469593N knotes.kodak.com (John Calkins) writes:
)
) Michael, you still seem to think there is such a thing as an "experimental
) proof". The greatest scientific thinkers of our time agree there is no
) such thing as a scientific proof. The "solid framework" we thought we had
) in the 19th century has crumbled away. It's time you moved into the 20th
) century before the 21st arrives!
I'm not the "Michael" John is referring, too, but John has made this
point too many times without anyone replying for me to let it pass
again. What follows is diatribe about what makes science a science
and a non-science not a science. The main point is that though there
may be no absolute proof in science, it is the best way we know of
ruling out false things. This is enormously valuable.
I agree with these great scientific thinkers that there is no such
thing as "scientific proof" in any true philosophical sense. (I wish
that made me a great thinker, too.) We can't "prove" that there are
central force fields, electrons or ghosts.
Fortunately, "proof" is not what distinguishes science from
pseudo-science. Science is all about "disproof". A theory in an
experimental science (I am not talking here about some of the more
descriptive sciences such as taxonomy) is something that is in
principle disprovable.
Scientific theories:
1) Planets travel in epicycles about the earth. This was shown to be
false when every system of epicycles failed to correctly predict
the positions of the planets. Everyone could agree on how to show
it was false. (N.B. It was known for a long time that this was
false, even when they tried to use epicycles upon epicycles.
Multiple epicycles is a different, more complex, and harder to
disprove theory, but still nicely disprovable.)
2) Planets travel in ellipses about the Sun. This was a nice theory
because it made very good predictions about the location of planets
(not that that proved anything). It was also shown to be false,
for instance, when Neptune's orbit was found to be perturbed.
3) Matter attracts matter under a central force law. This was nice
because it predicts theory 2) and even explains Neptune's orbit
(Neptune was also attracted by the as yet undiscovered Uranus). Not
that that proves anything. This was disproved by the precession of
Mercury.
4) Matter curves space-time according to general relativity. This is
nice because it explains 3) and also explains the precession of
Mercury. As far as I know, it has not yet been disproved. But it
is easy to think of ways it could be disproved.
5) Wearing a crystal is good for your health. This is a tricky one
because to disprove it you have to understand a little about
placebo effects and statistical methods, but a good controlled
study could disprove it. Even then one could quibble about whether
it is really a disproof, or just made is statistically unlikely to
be true. I don't know if the proper studies have been made to test
the theory.
Non-scientific theories:
6) There is a God. No one has yet come up with a potential way to
disprove this statement. That doesn't make it false, just not
science. (Arguably, the statement "There is no God" might be
considered a scientific theory. If God were to show Herself then
the statement would be disproved.)
6) We all have a life force. How could I demonstrate the lack of a
life force? I can't even think of a way to prove this without
first making it disprovable.
7) Ghosts and spirits are all around us. This is easily
provable--just show me some.
The experimental method is not about "proof" but disproof. It is the
most effective means known of refining your beliefs. If is a way of
winnowing the wheat from the chaff. The fact there there is no proof
in science is it's strength, not a weakness. It forces scientists to
keep an open mind, to search for ways to show they are wrong, to look
for alternate explanations.
Science deals with ruling out the false. Though we have no proof of
our theories, we do have proof that lots of other theories are false.
Thus, though we can never be absolutely certain, there is no need to
despair. We don't have to say "Since nothing is provable, everything
is equally true." Lots of things are known to be false. Lots of
other things are known to be impossible to disprove, so lets not call
them scientific questions, but rather religious or spiritual questions.
Someone on this list once said that Anthroposophy is "science-like".
If so, what things does it claim that are disprovable? What
experiments have been done to test it? Is there an ebb and flow of
conjecture and argumentation from which some positions are disproven?
IMHO these are the only valid tests of whether something is truly
science-like.
I know little about Anthroposophy, but what I know of other new age,
theosophical and/or eastern influenced viewpoints is that they have no
means of disproof, and are thus religions or philosophies. Not that
that is bad in itself, but it should not try to pass itself off as
objective truth, either.
Okay, enough ranting for the day,
--
Michael D, Hirsch Work: (404) 727-4969
Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322 FAX: (404) 727-5611
email: hirsch mathcs.emory.edu http://www.mathcs.emory.edu/~hirsch/
Public key for encrypted mail available upon request (or finger
hirsch cssun.mathcs.emory.edu).
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n817.2 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Re: Please Consider . . .
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998 14:06:15 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199807070510.WAA25329 lists1.best.com) (199807090606.XAA17207 lists1.best.com)
Michael KOPP says:
) In my children's experience, and that of many of their mates, yes. My kids
) are both having a lot of trouble coping with the workload and the academic
) discipline and the depth and breadth of material in regular public schools,
) now that they have switched from a Steiner school. The Steiner school is
) slack in its teaching rigour (the teachers were ignorant of many things
) they were supposed to teach), lackadaisical in their approach to the
) students' scholarship (no negative consequences for laziness or lack of
) effort), and intentionally relaxed about whether the children really
) learned anything or not.
Have you read about the teachers in MA? If not, I would be happy to send you a copy of Reuters or AP news feed. The latest is that their are offering a US $20,000 bounty for new hires. My experience in WE was decidedly different. I spent more
time on school work in my 7th, 8th and 11th years in WE education than in 4 years of 'elite' liberal arts classes. Finally, the only subsequent teacher with any grasp of Strunk and White was a government professor at Claremont McKenna College by the
name of Jack Pitney who is a national pundit on things Republican.
) What is the difference between facts learned through "memorization" and
) those "discovered" as "answers"? Surely what is right is right, no matter
) how it is arrived at, and the knowledge learnt at a Steiner/ Waldorf/
) Anthroposophical school will be the same as that learnt elsewhere? Well ...
) maybe not.
I think she was commenting on learning how to think instead of what to think. Both may yield the same answer.
) The defenders of the Waldorf methods would have us believe that only by
) using intuition and observation can one truly _know_ something.
Is this a gut feeling on your part? I, a defender (and 'product') of Waldorf methods, would have you believe no such thing.
) Second, I don't believe that public schools, in general. simply shovel
) facts into kids' memories. (Though rote memorization has its place,
) particularly in mathematics.
Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Botany. Why do you allow the luxury of believe all of a sudden?
) Many studies show that children who did maths
) drills early in life succeed better at later maths studies. My children had
) to memorise the multiplication tables in their public primary school before
) coming to Steiner; their Steiner mates often did not know their times
) tables, and they were the poorer at maths for it. My kids both did well.)
We (at SWS) new our times tables backwards and forwards, we did head problems and in Mathletes we usually finished mid pack. This may not seem like much (Mathletes performance), but we were a motley crew of volunteers with no advanced math. And
most of use were there for the cookies. Still, a kid two years ahead of me went to Harvey Mudd, the uncontested, number one engineering school in the nation.
) I doubt that a highly qualified, highly respected, prize-winning, and
) highly popular (with everyone but the new-agers and bungling bureaucrats)
) teacher like Kathy Sutphen, teaches by allegedly boring, rote memorization.
Why do you point to exceptions to prove your rules? Not the most sound of syllogisms.
e
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n817.3 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Re: Please Consider . . .
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998 14:21:53 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199807070510.WAA25329 lists1.best.com)
(199807090606.XAA17207 lists1.best.com) (199807091258.FAA23150 lists1.best.com)
Could we keep the quotes to the absolute minimum for those of us with short attention spans (and large email boxes)?
Michael Kopp wrote:
) KOPP says:
)
) My point was why should anyone care to try to decipher such babble?
I assume this must be rhetorical as it makes no sense otherwise. Why 'should' anyone care about anything? Where does this line of reasoning brings to?
) And aren't you putting an awful lot of pretty sophisticated Steiner/
) Waldorf/ Anthroposophical dogma into the mouth of a rather naive,
) unsophisticated teenager?
Please clarify who is the presumptive one?
) How can you possibly attribute such reasoning to someone who can't make an
) English sentence work? Writing is a reflection of thinking; we think in
) words. If the writing is so weak, can the thought be as developed as your
) interpretation?
So are you saying that illiterate people are morons? Moreover, is sloppy writing the product of a sloppy mind? When I am coding, something that demands syntactic precision of the highest order, I usually pay more attention to program structure and
algorithm looping than if I misspelled that last aggragate function call.I seem to remember a psych-studie where anal-retentive people were mentally disorganized. Turns out that they compensated for their mental innadequacies by keeping up outward
appearences of order.
) Finally, this is the first time I have heard the Steiner pedagogy referred
) to as "Socratic". I think that is a superficial description that won't hold
) water, in my experience at least. I didn't find, despite the "personal
) attention and respect" paid to my children individually, that their
) education was Socratic in any way; it was in fact subtly led by the
) teachers towards just the esoteric points they wished to promulgate.
Ummm, and what did Socrates do? (Not that I am in agreement with the rest of Mr. Kopp's statement).
) True
) Socratic education requires the student to justify his views with logic and
) fact,
Well, as I recall the various dialogues, Socrates dealt mainly with the metaphysical: Justice, virtue, death and etc. Not a great many facts, except his debt of a rooster, for Socrates to reason from. But mostly he used his observations and
intuition.e
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n817.4 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Re: Artists
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998 14:37:07 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199807080710.AAA07592 lists1.best.com) (199807090402.VAA01612 lists1.best.com)
All my fellow students are quite capable of drawing, painting and sculpture. Does this necessarily make them artists? Not in my mind, but neither are the droves of 'art' students incapable of illustrating Dick and Jane books.
Perhaps someone will suggest nationwide testing for artistry?
e
spike wrote:
) Ezra Beeman posted:
) ) Well, empirically speaking, what makes me think that WE encourages creativity or non-conformity is the amount of artists it 'actually' graduates.
)
) Who are these artists? Is there a greater percentage of recognized
) artists graduated from Waldorf schools as opposed to public schools?
) Likewise, is there a higher percentage of people that have a
) self-conception of themselves as "artists" graduated from Waldorf
) schools as opposed to public schools?
)
) Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n817.5 ---------------
From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Please Consider . . .
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 17:57:31 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
From: John Calkins
Michael D, Hirsch:
)I'm not the "Michael" John is referring, too, but John has made this
)point too many times without anyone replying for me to let it pass
)again. What follows is diatribe about what makes science a science
)and a non-science not a science. The main point is that though there
)may be no absolute proof in science, it is the best way we know of
)ruling out false things. This is enormously valuable.
)
. . . and it continues.
Michael, you have stated it very well, and I am largely in agreement with
you. What we have learned through science is nothing but miraculous, and I
am one of its great admirers.
)Someone on this list once said that Anthroposophy is "science-like".
)If so, what things does it claim that are disprovable? What
)experiments have been done to test it? Is there an ebb and flow of
)conjecture and argumentation from which some positions are disproven?
)IMHO these are the only valid tests of whether something is truly
)science-like.
The questions you ask get into a science known as phenomenology, and the
processes you describe do not take place in it (at least not in the way
they do in orthodox science). Phenomenology is based on a different
epistemology, and it is not necessarily a branch of anthroposophy, though
many in anthroposophy have contributed. I don't think this forum can do it
justice, but if one is interested in this subject, I can recommend a
collection of essays edited by Seamons and Zajonc entitled "Goethe's Way of
Science", published by S.U.N.Y. Press.
My main point is the orthodox scientific view is but one of many valid
perspectives. There are other ways of understanding phenomena than within
the constraints of the reductionist techniques of science (which you
explained so well). Orthodox science cannot deal with knowledge that
cannot be quantified, and therefore has an inherently subjective limitation
to what it can help us know. Students should be made aware of and in fact
are able to understand this limitation. Forgive me for repeating myself,
but the Waldorf curriculum has been criticized for teaching science in a
non-scientific way. This may be correct, but what such criticism fails to
understand is that we can know the world in ways outside the subjective
limits of science. A more orthodox view is certainly presented before the
students finish high school. The Green Meadow Waldorf School in Spring
Valley, New York offers a class in calculus-based physics.
This is not directed specifically at you Michael, but is this subjective
limitation of science really so difficult to understand. I know it is not
a typical way of thinking, but once one is aware of this idea, I don't
think it is so difficult to grasp. It's not rocket science.
John Calkins
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n817.6 ---------------
From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Please Consider . . .
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 18:08:44 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
From: John Calkins
Humberto Saint Martin:
)I have not participated in this discussion because I am extremely busy at
the
)moment. I just want to say that I am in disagreement with almost all of
John
)Calkins' views on science. I would like to ask John for references to his
above
)statement on the great scientific thinkers who deny the existence of
scientific
)proof.
)
)Thank you, John.
Humberto, I think Michael Hirsch has responded quite well to your request.
Most of my books are in boxes in Spring Valley where I cannot get at them
just now. If you still want a specific reference, I have one or two books
with me here within which I can find a specific quote for you. If you are
not satisfied with Michael's response, I would be happy to dig out one or
two for you. Just let me know.
John
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n817.7 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Please Consider . . .
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 23:30:10 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: (199807091202.FAA26651 lists1.best.com)
Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz) wrote:
)Well, Stephen, come on, let's have a little statistical and qualitative
)analysis here
It would be nice, wouldn't it? However, I don't think the data exists to
enable such statistics to be drawn. However, if anyone wants to fund me
to carry out such a study.....
--
Stephen Tonkin
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
UK Amateur Telescope Making - (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk/atm.htm)
Tonkin's Astronomy Books - (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk/books/books.htm)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n817.8 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Please Consider . . .
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 23:32:29 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: (199807091726.KAA24415 lists1.best.com)
469593N knotes.kodak.com wrote:
)I'm sure Stephen
)Tonkin can fill you in if anyone wants a better explanation, if he doesn't
)mind being put on the spot.)
I don't mind -- history of astronomy is one of my abiding interests
(I've spent most of the last year nearly making a good living from it
(g)). However, it is well off-topic for this list, so I suggest that any
requests are by private email.
--
Stephen Tonkin
(N50.9105 W1.829)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
UK Amateur Telescope Making - (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk/atm.htm)
Tonkin's Astronomy Books - (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk/books/books.htm)
The Astronomical Unit - (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk/astunit.htm)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n817.9 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Please Consider . . .
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 09:43:28 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199807091458.HAA28565 lists1.best.com)
)From: John Calkins
)
)Michael KOPP says:
)
))Where do you see these egregious illiterates? Here? If elsewhere, and
))you're making a comment on the state of education generally, how about
)some
))facts and figures? How about some literacy, reading comprehension, and
))vocabulary tests for Steiner/ Waldord/ Anthroposophical graduates -- a
))large cross section, as exists with public schools, not a minuscule
)mention
))of one school in the UK and a few others elsewhere?
)
)Ezra recently cited the failure of a high percentage of education graduates
)who failed some sort of aptitude test in Massachusetts. I have deleted the
)posting so I may not have my facts straight, but I recall the English test
)to be at an 8th grade reading level. If you want to see the facts and
)figures Michael, I'm sure someone can show you.
But I'm not the one making the claims about the failure of public schools.
You and the other defenders of the Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthoroposophical
schooling are. You're saying your way is better. But the evidence of all
the graduates who post here is not impressive confirmation of your claims.
YOU and your friends are the ones who should provide the quantitative and
qualitative evidence that Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical schools are
better.
)Public schools as well as Waldorf schools have difficulties attracting
)qualified teachers. I have heard that for both public and Waldorf schools:
)about 1/3 of the teachers probably should not be teaching, about 1/3 of the
)teachers do an acceptable job, and about 1/3 of the teachers are
)exceptionally good. We should not make light of this serious problem by
)finger pointing. It is a general issue (at least in the U.S.) for both
)private and public education which needs to be addressed.
Again, this is NOT the issue here. The issue here is a cult-like religious
schooling which claims to be BETTER than the norm, but can't prove it, and
is wearing the emperors new finery while parading its graduates.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n817.10 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Please Consider . . .
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 10:15:26 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="============_-1312097921==_ma============"
In-Reply-To: (199807091726.KAA24415 lists1.best.com)
--============_-1312097921==_ma============
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
)From: John Calkins
)
)KOPP says:
))What is the difference between facts learned through "memorization" and
))those "disco