Bits and Pieces
From: golden3000997
Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 5:17 am
Subject: Bits and Pieces
Thank you so much Daniel!
And the aspect that I have always loved and
appreciated most about Rudolf Steiner's work is just how he does
not stand "at either end" but is constantly in motion,
running up and down and back and forth through all of the "hierarchies"
of knowledge and the interconnections of knowledge.
I like to think that there are two "basic"
forms of thinking (in terms of the ordinary, everday kind of
thinking) analysis and synthesis. Very simply, analysis takes
the whole and breaks it down into its component parts - pieces
of objects or pieces of ideas. Synthesis takes a bunch of pieces,
some apparently connected, others not apparently so and tries
to put them together to form a cohesive whole, like a jigsaw
puzzle. I myself love the synthetic kind of thinking - always
looking for the interconnectivity between phenomena or ideas.
But I certainly value quite highly those who are good at analysis.
They are both absolutely essential kinds of thinking. Those who
love to see "the whole" and don't want to be bothered
by "the bits and pieces" run the danger of staying
up in the hierarchical end of ideas that is broad and general
as Mr. Feynman outlines it - the hope, good, evil, God, etc..
end of ideas. But they may find their "castle in the sky"
ideas get very shaky as those dwarfs (very positively intended
reference here) constantly hack at the groundwork of ideas "beneath
their feet."
On the other hand, the dwarfs who are busy
"underground" mining away at the ideas of the world,
breaking them down, tearing apart the rocks in search of the
separate minerals that we call "earth" those building
blocks of knowledge and existence itself, run the risk of missing
the "big picture" from time to time and of being caught
in the minutiae of facts and figures.
During the "Age of Enlightenment"
(late 18th, early 19th century?) the world was discribed as a
"clockwork" a great construct of material parts and
mechanical laws created by God to stand on its own and run forever.
Have you ever known a child who loved to take
apart clocks? (I remember doing it once myself) It is so fascinating,
all those different bits and pieces. It's not all that difficult
to take apart, but Oh, trying to put it back together!! It is
not as easy and there are almost always bits and pieces left
over. And rarely does the clock work again - but then, we are
children! Well, as "god's children" we are doing a
pretty good job of taking the world apart bit by bit. But eventually,
somebody's got to "put it back together". And beware
of throwing away any bits just because we "think" they
don't fit or aren't important! If it came out of the world and/
or "us", then it has a meaning and a place and no matter
how insignificant, probably is integral to the functioning of
the whole.
In my experience, Rudolf Steiner, more than
any other thinker that I know of personally, put together more
bits and pieces of the puzzle than anyone else. Of course, not
the entire puzzle, because that is a collective thing - every
person that ever was, is or ever will be is needed in the effort,
because every person has his or her own unique "bit"
to contribute. But certain people have a clearer picture of what's
on the cover of the puzzle box. Possibly, some even have a set
of directions, at least to part of the puzzle. It makes sense
to at least check it out when someone claims to have a "bigger
picture" because in looking at this bigger picture for ourselves,
we might find a clue or two as to where "our bit" fits
in!
Thus the wonder and the challenge of Anthroposophy
as a "world view" - that it brings so many apparently
disparate ideas, events of history and individuals together while
at the same time throwing it all back on the individual to understand
and to make sense of. There really is nothing in Anthroposophy
to "believe" anymore than there is in nuclear physics.
It is just a matter of establishing some starting points for
research and the methods of research. There is always value in
understanding and respecting the work that has gone before us,
as there is value in re-evaluating the material from time to
time to see if it still holds up when new data is added.
There is really no "cult" of Anthroposophy
to join. There is an Anthroposophical Society, but it is a very
loosely knit organization really. There are thousands of people
who study and work with ideas presented by Rudolf Steiner who
are not members or who are technically members but have very
little really to do with the organization in Dornach or even
the Anthroposophical Society in America. There is very little
if any "control" over the work of individuals by a
larger organization. Even the name "Waldorf School"
is not copyrighted and there is no legal control over its use.
I have personally never seen anyone "recruited" into
the Anthroposophical Society and when I joined in the 70s, I
was told point blank that the only criteria for membership were
1. That the person recognized something of value in the work
of Rudolf Steiner and 2. that the person recognized the Society
located in Dornarch as the central "seat" of Anthroposophy.
I may have that a little bit wrong - it has been a long time
since I joined. So if anyone has a clearer definition, please
contribute. I have never given the Anthroposophical society any
money and I have experienced no more dire repercussions than
that I stoppped receiving the "Journal of Anthroposophy".
No one ever contacted me and asked me why I wasn't contributing
or insisted that I had some kind of "duty" to contribute
or "karmic obligation" to do anything at all with or
for the Society. I was simply placed on an "inactive"
list so that the Society in America didn't have to pay dues for
me to Dornach.
I bring this up because I have started to
investigate the WC charges of "cult" and "mind
control" in connection with the Anthroposophical Society.
Using criteria outlined by organizations actively working to
release people from the destructive cults that do exist, I wish
to examine the group to which I ostensibly belong to see if I
have indeed been brainwashed!!
More to follow, but here are some good links
that I am using:
http://factnet.org/
http://www.csp.org/development/docs/vaughan-spiritual.html
http://www.factnet.org/coerlink.htm#MOTHER%20OF%20GOD
http://www.factnet.org/orgspubs_list.html?FACTNet
There is a pretty good listing of recognized
cults - and we are NOT ON IT!!
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 7:35 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Bits and Pieces
Christine wrote:
There is a pretty good listing of recognized
cults - and we are NOT ON IT!!
Hey Christine,
You are racking them up; one great post after
another:)
Where we are recognized as a cult is on the
the list of those who give Dan Dugans Waldorf Critics money to
survive the lawsuit. I don't recall the name as it's been a while
since I have been involved on their list. (kicked off for calling
Peter Staudenmaier a fibber and then liar) The things people
do for money. Whew. If I remember correctly it is a religious
fundy group that pulls hardcore to the right.
I remember thinking Dan Dugan was selling
the soul of the critics argument by hooking up with the team
of Staudenmaier and Zegers and then the devil, with this fundy
group cult spouting group, as he follows an atheistic approach.
Good work Christine,
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 10:54 am
Subject: cults [was: Bits and Pieces]
At 14:17 06.02.2004, Christine wrote:
There is really no "cult" of
Anthroposophy to join. There is an Anthroposophical Society,
but it is a very loosely knit organization really. There are
thousands of people who study and work with ideas presented by
Rudolf Steiner who are not members or who are technically members
but have very little really to do with the organization in Dornach
or even the Anthroposophical Society in America. There is very
little if any "control" over the work of individuals
by a larger organization. Even the name "Waldorf School"
is not copyrighted and there is no legal control over its use.
Good point, Christine. On January 26 1999,
I crashed the misanthropic tea party party known as the WC with
an appeal: "Cult Victim Needing Help". DD got grumpy
about it, but it seemed I had hit the nail on the head, and when
Walden recently referred to it as evidence of my moral bankruptcy
(five years later!), I must have made quite an impression with
this stunt. The entire thread is available online in easy-to-navigate
Uncle Taz format at:
http://www.uncletaz.com/wc/wcthreads/culthelp99.html
Concerning the definition
of "cult", I kinda wrapped it up as follows:
Basically, the word "cult"
has four meanings:
1) Communion with the spiritual
world, with higher beings or gods. (This is how the word is used
in Baghavad Gita.)
2) Any religious or spiritual-philosophical
view that contradicts the doctrines of Fundamentalist Christianity
in the Religious Right. (According to this definition, you are
a cultist if you read astrology or Tarot cards, or if you believe
in reincarnation.)
3) Any spiritual philosophy
embracing beliefs that may be defined as strange or weird by
atheists or orthodox religionists because of their unfamiliarity.
(The doctrines of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and the
Ressurrection and Ascension of Christ in his physical body is
weird, but it is familiar and therefore considered normal and
acceptable.)
4) A religious group or organization
that practices coercive tactics, aggressive proselytizing, control
of members' personal life, family life, financial life etc. plus
other factors.
For a further exploration
of definition 4, I recommend the AFF Cult Group Information at
http://www.csj.org/index.html
I believe that Anthroposophy
belongs to definitions 1, 2, and 3, but not 4.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Jo Ann Schwartz
Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 2:22 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] cults [was: Bits and Pieces]
Christine wrote:
Even the name "Waldorf School"
is not copyrighted and there is no legal control over its use.
Er... here in the United States, the term
"Waldorf" is trademarked by the Association for Waldorf
Schools in North America (AWSNA) and a school is not allowed
to call themselves a "Waldorf school" unless approved
by AWSNA. With the exception of the Urban Waldorf School in Milwaukee,
public/charter schools do not have that approval, which is why
they refer to themselves as "waldorf-inspired".
I believe AWSNA took this step to avoid the
problems of Montessori schools here in the States -- where anyone
can say they have a Montessori school whether they follow Maria
Montessori's methods or not.
Cheers,
JoAnn
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 3:48 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] cults [was: Bits and Pieces]
Thank you JoAnn - the last time I participated
in a discussion of this, was, let me try to figure it out -
I think it was my teacher training year in
Fair Oaks - 1977 -78 with Ann (?) I forget her name but she was
then the head of AWSNA. I do remember that I was the one who
questioned her about it and she said that they couldn't copyright
it.
My, how quickly things change!
: ) Christine
(I'm glad, though!)
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 6:19 am
Subject: Trademark and copyright
Christine,
There is a big difference between copyright
and trademark. Copyrights cover fixed expressions of ideas, whether
film, photo, art, sculpture or written works. Only the form is
copyrighted, not the idea. The copyright allows the copyright
holder to control how copies are made (hence the name). A single
word, and even most phrases, are too short to copyright. I cannot
decide to take control of the word "green" by copyrighting
it and then tell everyone else they may not use it in any context
without my permission. Copyrights currently last for the life
of the author plus 70 years (or 90 years when a corporation registers
it) in the US.There are built-in exceptions to the power of copyright,
called "fair use" and these apply under specific circumstances.
A trademark is a word or short phrase that
a company or individual uses on its products or services. It
must be registered and continually used or it lapses. It is limited
to the sector and industry of the product. Hence, for example,
Reliant is a trademark of a financial services company and also
of an auto manufacturer. The standard for deciding disputes is
whether a reasonable consumer would confuse the one product for
the other.
"Waldorf" is trademarked by ASWNA,
meaning no one may use it for their school without permission.
It probably extends to other education-related products as well,
but AWSNA has not defended it there. Meanwhile, Waldorf salad
and the Waldorf-Astoria hotel are in different lines of business,
so AWSNA has no say over the use of the name there. The hotel
has doubtless registered their name as a trademark to prevent
other hostelries from profiting from the association most consumers
have with the name.
I hope this brief explanation suffices. For
more info on copyright see: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/index.html
For trademarks: http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/syws/trademark/trademarkFULL.html
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 7:05 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Trademark and copyright
Thank you Daniel!!
It was the use of the name that was the discussion
back then, hence it would have been "trademark" we
were talking about. Do you know when they legalized it?
: ) Christine
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
February/March
2004
The Uncle
Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files
Anthroposophy & Anarchism
Anthroposophy & Scientology
Anthroposophical
Morsels
Anthroposophy,
Critics, and Controversy
