The Lion is About to Roar
From: golden3000997
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 4:44 pm
Subject: The Lion is About to Roar
"Mandated" Waldorf
education Diana Winters
Feb 10, 2004 09:50 PST
Here is a fascinating dialogue
from Anthroposophy_Tomorrow. Christine speaks against Waldorf
in public schools, as she has done before, seeming to "get"
where these problems lie:
"Whether the methods
and techniques of a private school system are 'good' universally,
the very existence of a 'religious' or 'spiritual' background
is enough to justify keeping them out of the public school classroom."
But then she loses control
for a moment and suggests that . . . (YOU HAVEN'T SEEN LOSING
CONTROL, YET, B***)
"Perhaps some day far
in the future, Waldorf Education will be so universally desirable
within society at large, that it will be mandated for all schools."
Whoa . . .
In this Christine actually
echoes Eugene Schwartz, who also opposed Waldorf's move into
the public system in the US, though mainly, if I understand him
correctly, on the grounds that society isn't ready for Waldorf
yet. Leaving open at least the hope that some day it will be,
presumably. (HER INTERPRETATION)
But Christine is called on
her slip of the tongue by new member Linda (who has previously
enjoyed sneering at critics on the WC list and thinks critics
of Waldorf education are "nutty"; anyway even stalwart
Waldorf supporter Linda has the good sense to be a wee bit discomfited
by "mandated" Waldorf education):
"Could you elaborate
on this idea? I understand your point that public education today
rejects the all religious or spiritual elements, and that one
day this may relax. But then you seem to leap to suppositions
about which 'spiritual elements' would win out and ultimately
become mandatory in public education.
Surely, the idea that any
one particular view could or would become 'mandatory' is reason
enough to dissuade society from 'moving in a more spiritualized
direction' in public education. I'm not sure I understand why
it needs follow, why making a particular view 'mandatory' would
be the inevitable outcome. And speaking for myself, I wouldn't
be at all reassured about any 'spiritual' mandates in education
just because they were Waldorf-brand spiritualisms."
(Go, Linda. Thanks for summing
up the arguments for separation of church and state, particularly
in schools. Exactly because to some people it is a breathtakingly
quick leap from Maybe-society-will-get-more-spiritual-someday,
to And-then-my-spiritual-beliefs-will-be-mandatory-for-everyone.)
(HER INTERPRETATION - NOT MY STATEMENTS)
Christine attempts to soften
her statement:
"I meant in a few more
centuries, when (hopefully) the entire view of the human being
will have matured. I certainly don't mean the infantile, egotistical
views of 'spirituality' that many people entertain today."
Oh! Don't worry, this is centuries
away! (But we could always get a head start, and open a few charters.)
(HER INTERPRETATION - NOT MY STATEMENTS)
Note the certainty that someday,
everyone will accept a particular version of spirituality. The
literally hundreds of religions and spiritual beliefs and practices,
the millions on millions of fervent believers worldwide today,
are "infantile." Someday we'll all be anthroposophists?
(HER INTERPRETATION - NOT MY STATEMENTS)
Linda (understandably not
quite reassured but trying to be a good sport):
"I'm a little troubled
at the idea that in the future our 'spirituality' may mature
to the point where society would mandate Waldorf education in
public schools. Mandating any particular public education system
because it is 'perceived' to have the Best Spirituality component
seems a major step backwards to me."
Now Christine redefines the
word "mandate," perhaps realizing it does carry some
unpleasant connotations:
"Sorry again - to clarify
- not mandated by Government- but by the totality of the social
environment."
Oh much better. (sarcasm)
The "totality" of the social environment. Whew. You
really don't understand why some people are scared of totalistic
spiritual visions imposed on an entire society? We aren't
all anthroposophists, Christine. Yes, you would have to make
a "total social environment" from anthroposophy before
some of us "get it." Put it in the drinking water,
or in the air we breathe, perhaps. (HER INTERPRETATION - NOT
MY STATEMENTS)
"Please try to understand
I am fantasizing a very different human community than what we
live with today."
Exactly, Christine - you are
fantasizing about a world where everyone agrees with you, and
if a few don't, "mandates" will keep them in line.
(HER INTERPRETATION - NOT MY STATEMENTS)
"You are trying to fit
it into today's world and social/ political reality. That is
not what I was trying to say. It's like French schools teach
in French because the people in their society speak French. The
government doesn't have to 'mandate' it by law. Schools in a
more 'spiritual' society will teach in a more 'spiritual' way
because that will be the 'language' of the people in that society."
Christine, if Waldorf is some
day perceived as "universally desirable," then where
would "mandating" it need to come into the picture?
Interesting slip. (HER INTERPRETATION - NOT MY STATEMENTS)
(Linda also noted that the
language example was a poor one, in fact governments do sometimes
try to officially regulate language use; that has happened in
the US, where in some cities it became illegal for government
workers to speak Spanish to each other while on the job, and
in fact the French, also, are pretty keen on "official"
use of French.) (PRETTY KEEN AND MANDATING BY GOVERNMENT ARE
TWO DIFFERENT THINGS)
(Linda ends up deciding to
get comfy with all this, after all she's new on the list, and
any problems from mandated spiritual education are centuries
in the future.) (HER INTERPRETATION - NOT LINDA'S STATEMENTS)
Look at what Christine originally
said one more time: She dreams (HER INTERPRETATION - NOT MY STATEMENTS)
of a day Waldorf is "mandated" in "all schools."
Diana
DO YOU ****** BELIEVE THIS???? THIS WOMAN
IS PUBLISHING WHOLE DIALOGUES OF
MINE ON ANOTHER WEBSITE AND DOING HER OWN ***** INTERPRETATIONS
OF MY ATTITUDES,
WHAT I MEAN, WHAT I AM "DREAMING ABOUT"
WHAT I AM "FANTASIZING" ABOUT - AND I HAD NO IDEA SHE
WAS DOING THIS!!
DOES ANYONE KNOW A GOOD LAWYER, BECAUSE THERE
ARE THOUSANDS OF THEM IN MIAMI AND I AM GOING TO GET ONE NOW!
NO ONE HAS A RIGHT TO DO WHAT THIS B******
IS DOING AND IT IS GOING TO STOP. YOU CAN QUOTE ME ON THAT DIANA.
CHRISTINE
[see
reference in "Fwd: In Your Neck of the Woods"]
...................................................................................................................................
From: Linda Clemens
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 6:35 pm
Subject: Re: The Lion is About to Roar
Christine
Just a guess. Choleric?
I'm teasing you. I don't blame you for being
angry.
Back at the WC list, Dan Dugan should appear
shortly to serve you notice. "Administrative Warning: 'you
are a SNAKE'" is an ad hominem argument. Please direct your
remarks to the arguments, not the person".
And I can be fairly sure that Diana won't
be getting one herself. I'm not sure I why, but arguing (often
more like "heckling" than arguing) against misrepresentations
or misperceptions of another's personal "motives",
"feelings", "dreams", and "schemes"
doesn't qualify as "remarks against the person"--unless,
of course, the person making using this in argument is a Waldorf
ed supporter.
L
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 6:50 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: The Lion is About to
Roar
I don't give a flying rat's ass WHAT kind
of warning Dan Dugan wants to give me!
I have 6 - count'em 6! planets in Leo, One
in Taurus and One in Scorpio - you're damned right I'm angry
and if they don't want me to say so on their site,
I'll say it in court and call Diana every
name in the book under oath!
I am cc'ing both groups and will continue
to do so until one or both kicks me off. (on this particular
topic).
There has to be an objective truth to all
of this, and I intend to pursue it until it is brought out into
the open and recognized by all parties concerned. If it takes
a court case to do so, I will pursue it as far as the system
will allow. There are both precedents and precedents yet to set.
Innocent bystanders better get off the sidewalks.
Christine
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 8:48 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: The Lion is About to
Roar
I just forwarded the whole post that states
my unequivocal position on that issue. I do not think they are
legal and I do not think they should be there. I have elaborated
on why.
Christine
...................................................................................................................................
From: Linda Clemens
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 9:36 pm
Subject: Re: The Lion is About to Roar--Dang!
--- Linda Clemens wrote:
Back at the WC list, Dan Dugan should appear
shortly to serve you notice. "Administrative Warning: 'you
are a SNAKE'" is an ad hominem argument. Please direct your
remarks to the arguments, not the person".
----and at Feb 10, 2004 20:47 PST Moderator
to WC List wrote:
"Admin: ad hominem warning
[Fwd: The Lion is About to Roar] [to Christine] You wrote:
NO ONE HAS A RIGHT TO DO
WHAT THIS B****** IS DOING AND IT IS GOING TO STOP.
SHOUTING is discouraged, but
it's OK occasionally, everybody understands that this is a subject
people devote their lives to, and feel strongly about. But name-calling
is not OK at any time."
It was the B*****? And not snake? My miscall
would warrant a minor deduction at most.
Despite finding myself involved on that board
in some of the kookiest discussions I've ever had anywhere (and
having lived on a radical college campus in the early 70's, I
suffered more than my share), I have to say that the these "warnings"
were probably one of the most bizarre elements to the mix.
Monty-Pythoned up but only just a bit, they
look something like this:
"Hello. Rudolf Steiner was a fake, a
flake, a flack and a fluke. Waldorf is a parochial school for
Anthroposophy, an illegitimate religion based on fakery, flakery,
flackery and flukery. You're either a fake, flake, flack, fluke
OR you have been brainwashed into believing fakery, flakery,
flackery, flukery isn't employed to torture children. Waldorf
f's are sadists who abuse children in an endless
variety of ways! If you can't admit this, then you're duped!"
To which one might reply "Will you listen
to yourself? You're acting like a lunatic!"
And then, like a familiar sounding bell, comes
the "Administrative warning. Lunatic is ad hominem. Please
keep your remarks to the subject "
Hard not to laugh, isn't it?
L
...................................................................................................................................
From: b m
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 6:31 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] The Lion is About to Roar
There's something so utterly pathetic in not
having anybody to argue with in your own WC that you have to
get messages from other lists to comment on. This goes to show
how poorly frequented and desperate for ideas the WC has become.
As for Diana, it proves that the only way she can come across
as having made a point is by making sure the message's author
is not around to rebute her silly smartass remarks. How sorry.
It shows lack of guts and character. If I ever said anything
nice about Diana, I would like to use this opportunity to take
it back. The lady is obviously a tramp.
Bryan
...................................................................................................................................
From: b m
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 8:03 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] apology
I shouldn't write before running, I'm afraid,
since I am usually not at my best behaviour. After a wonderful
5 miler, I realise I wasn't very nice to Ms. Winters and would
like to apologise for calling her a tramp. She's not a tramp,
I am sure. I stand by what else I wrote.
As for the toilet talk she made reference
to, I suggest they change their group's denomination if they
want the jokes to end, although I personally believe the name
is amazingly appropriate.
Bryan
...................................................................................................................................
From: Mike Helsher
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 7:42 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] The Lion is About to Roar
Bryan Writes:
If I ever said anything nice about Diana, I would like to
use this opportunity to take it back. The lady is obviously a
tramp
To which Mike responds:
Dude, thats harsh man. :-O
I think Christine is quite a a lady though (hey weren't we talking
about some kind of "ladies" recently?). So if your
accusation is true, we could have quite a different version of
The "Lady and the Tramp" story starting to unfold...
Truth and Love
Mike
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 8:26 am
Subject: Lady Is a Tramp
At 17:03 11.02.2004, Bryan wrote:
I shouldn't write before running, I'm afraid,
since I am usually not at my best behaviour. After a wonderful
5 miler, I realise I wasn't very nice to Ms. Winters and would
like to apologise for calling her a tramp. She's not a tramp,
I am sure. I stand by what else I wrote.
As for the toilet talk she made reference
to, I suggest they change their group's denomination if they
want the jokes to end, although I personally believe the name
is amazingly appropriate.
Bryan
b m wrote:
There's something so utterly pathetic in
not having anybody to argue with in your own WC that you have
to get messages from other lists to comment on. This goes to
show how poorly frequented and desperate for ideas the WC has
become. As for Diana, it proves that the only way she can come
across as having made a point is by making sure the message's
author is not around to rebute her silly smartass remarks. How
sorry. It shows lack of guts and character. If I ever said anything
nice about Diana, I would like to use this opportunity to take
it back. The lady is obviously a tramp.
Uncle Taz museth:
Well now, the context at hand makes the apology
understandable, and I applaud you for it. But if it were only
the statement alone, "The lady is obviously a tramp,"
it might have been the greatest compliment any lady could possibly
receive - especially if it came from an anarchosophist.
Let me explain: I love the legacy of Frank
Sinatra, Chairman of the Board, Jilly, the crooner of crooners,
one of the extremely rare saloon singers (besides Tony Bennett),
and a nice movie actor too. The man who made his own rules and
lived by them. The honest outlaw who *never lied*. The guy who
took a firm stand against racism when it really counted and was
included on McCarthy's list of suspects because of it. And if
you ask me for a favorite Sinatra song, "Lady Is a Tramp"
is a clear winner. Why? Not just because the tune and the song
is so dynamite, but the lyrics are so anarchist! This lady is
a tramp because she refuses to kiss ass; she is too honest to
sell her integrity to anyone. She'd rather be broke and free:
Lady Is a Tramp
She gets too hungry, for dinner
at eight
She loves the theater, but doesn't come late
She'd never bother, with people she'd hate
That's why the lady is a tramp
Doesn't like crap games, with
barons and earls
Won't go to harlem, in ermine and pearls
Won't dish the dirt, with the rest of those girls
That's why the lady is a tramp
She loves the free, fresh
wind in her hair
Life without care
She's broke, but it's o'k
She hates california, it's cold and it's damp
That's why the lady is a tramp
Doesn't like dice games, with
sharpies and frauds
Won't go to harlem, in lincolns or fords
Won't dish the dirt, with the rest of those broads
That's why the lady is a tramp
Writer(s): rodgers/hart
In other words, if Diana is THAT kind of a
tramp, she's truly a lady I have underestimated.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: b m
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 9:33 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lady Is a Tramp
Running is just another path to the Truth,
I am convinced. Impossible not to face your limits and limitations
while doing it, it humbles me more than anything else, every
time. I will add another piece of truth here, a result of the
natural soul searching that occurs whilst putting one foot after
the other at a fast pace: Diana broke my heart when she left
this list. It was like she was admitting defeat, after fighting
so valiantly. I admired her fighting and her leaving kept me
wondering if she wasn't, after all, the smart, brave lady she
seemed to be. But, I was only wondering until now. She went on
to "dish the dirt, with the rest of those girls" in
the WC and now I'm not wondering anymore. I feel betrayed. She
is not a Sinatra's tramp, and that's sad.
Bryan
...................................................................................................................................
From: holderlin66
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 9:57 am
Subject: Re: The Lion is About to Roar--Dang!
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
Linda Clemens wrote:
Well Linda, if Christine is not in the mood
to laugh or to look at Paulina's magnificent research, I loved
both. This, this wonderful piece of work has be rolling on the
carpet.. My dog doesn't give me much room, besides he seems to
be staring at me rather funny as I howl.
Monty-Pythoned up but only just a bit,
they look something like this:
"Hello. Rudolf Steiner was a fake,
a flake, a flack and a fluke. Waldorf is a parochial school for
Anthroposophy, an illegitimate religion based on fakery, flakery,
flackery and flukery. You're either a fake, flake, flack, fluke
OR you have been brainwashed into believing fakery, flakery,
flackery, flukery isn't employed to torture children. Waldorf
f's are sadists who abuse children in an endless
variety of ways! If you can't admit this, then you're duped!"
Bradford concludes;
This was simply great!
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 5:24 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Waldorf Concerns
Hello Walden,
I am going to try to paste in my reply from
a Word Document. I don't know if I will be able to send it with
the formatting intact. If this doesn't work, I can try again
to do it a different way.
Subj: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow]
Re: The Lion is About to Roar
Date: 2/11/2004 2:39:54 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: walden
Reply-to: waldorf-critics@topica.com
To: waldorf-critics@topica.com
Christine wrote:
What else would you like
to know about what I think? Just ask me - but don't take anyone
else's word for it!
OK. We seem to be on the same
page regarding Waldorf and the public purse. Waldorf schools
should not be public - do I have that right?
Yes, I agree with this statement.
There also seems to be agreement
that parents (in private Waldorf schools) should be made fully
aware of the spiritual nature of Waldorf education. Do I have
that right? I think we might have more in common than we realize.
Yes, I agree with this statement.
I am curious, Christine. Why
do you think there are so many Waldorf Critics (as opposed to
Montessori critics, Sudbury Valley critics, etc.)? Why is there
a Waldorf Survivors support group (most of whom do not post here)
and what really lies at the root of this problem? When our family
finally pulled out of the school, I had two phone calls in the
same week from ex-Waldorf parents expressing their support because
we had "left the cult." Their words, not mine. Some
weeks later I bumped into another ex-Waldorf mom who I barely
knew. She asked if we were still at the Waldorf school. I told
her we had left and she then said she believes Waldorf is "like
a cult." This scene has repeated itself after those first
few weeks. These people had no knowledge of PLANS and have no
interest in on-line discussions. And then there is the Internet....
This is a rhetoric "why"
question, regarding other school systems. There may be critics
of those other schools. This is not in my personal experience
database. I understand that there are reasons why your family
and other families have chosen to leave Waldorf Schools.
Christine - in the spirit
of reaching common ground I urge you to imagine you are the parent
of a 3 year old and you have very real concerns about her future
education. You do not want your special little toddler bumping
into a coke machine at school, nor do you want her tested or
forced to be around computers or televisions at an early age.
Your family eats mainly organic veggie food and you are not part
of what you consider a society gone mad with consumerism, materialism
and other "isms" to horrid to contemplate. You are
VERY concerned about finding the right school for your child
- a place that might reflect at least a few of your own values.
Imagine your relief when you learn about... Waldorf education!
You poke around the Internet and visit a local Waldorf school
and you cannot believe how lucky you and your daughter are to
have found a community of like-minded people.
An oasis peace in a desert
of chaos.
The information given you
by those who promote Waldorf education points to an arts based
education with no tests and plenty of nature - from food to play.
You ask about the founder - a Dr. Rudolf Steiner - and are told
over and over and over (check web sites and/or ask at Waldorf
schools) that the founder was a "scientist, educator, philosopher,
artist, thinker..." You ask about this new word - Anthroposophy
- and you are told it simply means "wisdom of Man."
You have never heard of "Eurythmy" and are told it
is a form of dance or movement. (2) You are told the children
make their own "main lesson" books and you are given
an outline of a typical day in the school. For many parents it
seems too good to be true.
All of the above points of
your personal introduction to a Waldorf School sound true to
me so far. Question - since your child was so young, you must
have walked into the Kindergarten. Did you or did you not
see a picture of Raphael's "Sistine Madonna" on the
wall? If not, then I have an issue with that
particular school. If
you did, then did you ask any questions about it? If you did,
what kind of answer did you get? If you didn't, then why not?
As time unfolds you try so
very hard to accept those parts of the education you were unaware
of at the start. Nobody ever mentioned a morning "verse"
which is obviously more like a "prayer" and you start
to feel uneasy that your child must recite this prayer
every day. (1) You start to hear the word "soul" and
"karma" at various meetings and around the school.
You begin hearing about "reincarnation" and words like
"impulse" keep popping up and all the while the name
of "Steiner" can be heard - Steiner quotes open virtually
every meeting and his "indications" are mentioned on
several occasions. You wonder about Eurythmy as your child does
not enjoy this "form of dance or movement" and many
other parents have concerns about the nature of this exercise
but you do not want to show disrespect - especially because you
are reminded time and time again that the wonderful teachers
put in so many hours and are underpaid (I agree with this observation,
btw).
Morning verses and eurythmy
are observable very quickly in any Waldorf school experience
(assuming a particular school is lucky enough to have a Eurythmist
on its faculty and be able to provide Eurythmy.) Why "over
time"? Also, if your child was three when you put him or
her in the school, I don't think they could have been doing very
extensive "Eurythmy" with him or her. I would have
to ask what exactly was being taught and why your child "didn't
enjoy it."
One day you realize that what
you were lead to believe about Waldorf education and what your
experience (and that of your child) has been ... are very different,
indeed. During your time looking into these schools (when your
child was 3 years old) there was nothing about karma, reincarnation,
soul work, occultism, etc. Yet, these concepts form the foundation
of the "impulse."
1. I used to have lots of
discussions with parents (from widely different backgrounds)
about subjects like karma and reincarnation. These conversations
usually were initiated by the parent asking general or specific
questions. I always gave answers that were honest and open to
the best of my ability.
2. If you are implying that concepts such as karma, reincarnation,
soul work and occultism are discussed with the children at a
young age, then I would disagree. One example would be our birthday
story (with several variations) that
we use when celebrating
birthdays in class. First, I always had at least one parent come
in for the whole morning to participate and I have photographs
to prove this. Two, the birthday story is about a little angel
who is brought down to earth to particular parents because they
see them from "Heaven" and love them. The story ends
with the Guardian Angel kissing them in their cradle and making
them forget their journey down, while keeping their memories
safe for them and standing by to guard and guide them through
their life on earth. This story is told as a story, not as a
catechism. It pre-supposes a pre-natal existence, which is a
belief that we generally subscribe to. In my article posted at
Anthroposophy Tomorrow, "Religion in the Waldorf Schools,"
I use William Wordsworth extensively, both his poem "Ode
on the Intimations of Immortality" and his writing about
that poem as an illustration outside of Rudolf Steiner's writings
of the existence of this belief in pre-natal existence or at
least it's consideration. Yes, this pre-supposition does set
Waldorf schools apart from any other schools that I am personally
aware of. I do not believe, based on my personal experience that
we attempt to hide or disguise this belief in any way. On the
contrary, with the kinds of artwork and stories that we readily
share with parents, we tend to me more concerned that we don't
overdo the information and make it seem like proselytizing (to
the parents). We generally do not discuss these issues direct
with children, but we allow room for them to make their own observations,
which I have heard them do many times among themselves.
Rudolf Steiner and anthroposophy
mean one thing when reading about Waldorf education and a completely
different thing to anthroposophists.
All Waldorf Teachers are not,
by definition "Anthroposophists" although there must
be some degree of agreement with many basic ideas of anthroposophy
(for example, the idea of pre-natal existence as described above)
in order for a person to choose to become a Waldorf Teacher in
the first place. There is certainly room for a wide variety of
interpretations of many of these basic ideas, however.
A couple of years ago I looked
at Waldorf school web sites - starting at those beginning with
the letter "A." I used the first 11 schools and saw
a clear pattern:
Incredibly, at each school
web site there was no mention of Rudolf Steiner's connection
or belief in Occultism, reincarnation, karma or soul work. In
short virtually everything Steiner believed in and worked from
and towards with regards to Anthroposophy and Waldorf Education
- the essence of the man - is missing from these sites. Instead,
from the sum of eleven Waldorf School web sites, we are told
that Rudolf Steiner was a - teacher (mentioned 1 time), an architect
(1), thinker (1), scholar (1), educator (5), artist (6) and a
scientist (7).
Are you saying categorically
that Rudolf Steiner was NOT
a. a teacher
b. a thinker
c. a scholar
d. an educator
e. an artist
f. a scientist
Because if you are saying
that he was not any one of these things, you are factually wrong.
This misrepresentation of
Rudolf Steiner and his work seems to be at the root of the Waldorf
communication problem. We find a much more accurate portrait
of Rudolf Steiner at other sites on the Internet.
Only a few Anthroposophy sites
are needed to find a completely different description of the
same man.
From the Anthroposophical
Society of America:
"Rudolf Steiner was born
in Austria, and grew up with the clairvoyant certainty of a spiritual
world . . . Rudolf Steiner shared the results of his spiritual
research in 40 books, and in 6,000 lectures (approx.) now available
in 300 volumes. He is increasingly recognized as a seminal thinker
of the 20th century and one of humanity's great spiritual teachers."
How is this description different
from the statements above?
From the Rudolf Steiner Archives:
"Foremost amongst his
discoveries was his direct experience of the reality of the Christ,
which soon took a central place in his whole teaching."
From the Rudolf Steiner College...
"Fundamental to all of
his work is the view that the human being is composed of body,
soul and spirit, and that the Christ event is key to the unfolding
of human history and the achievement of human freedom."
From the Anthroposophical Society, Dornach, Switzerland...
"Born in Austria, Steiner
was the leading esoteric researcher of the twentieth century,
ground-breaking in the realms of the nature of the human being,
karma research, spiritual cosmology, and the occult research
into Christianity and European cultural history."
From the Anthroposophical
Society in Florida...
"Steiner (to the first
Waldorf teachers) 'we shall only be able to achieve our task
if we see it as not only to do with the intellect and feeling-life,
but with the sphere of the moral and spiritual in the highest
sense.' The task was the following: to help the soul-and-spirit
being of the child, which has at birth descended to earth from
a pre-earthly existence, to find its place in the physical world
and to make it competent for life . . .
Rudolf Steiner shows how the developing human being on the long
and arduous path into the physical world passes through a series
of clearly defined stages, which make definite inner and outer
demands. Both the curriculum and the methods of teaching of the
new school, as he now described them, were designed to meet these
demands as well as possible through the right pedagogical measures
. . . This was Waldorf pedagogy. The campaign for a new social
order had been especially well received in the big Waldorf Astoria
cigarette-factory at Stuttgart."
And then there is Eugene Schwartz
who tells that about the religious nature of Waldorf Education,
etc.
http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/schwartz.html
His description, based on
my experience and that of many other parents, is much more accurate
than that given us by Waldorf public relations.
Are you saying that in your
opinion, if Rudolf Steiner's work concerns itself with anything
religious or spiritual, he cannot by definition be:
a. a teacher
b. a thinker
c. a scholar
d. an educator
e. an artist
f. a scientist ?
I find nothing contradictory
in any of the passages cited above, or anything in them that
Waldorf Schools try to hide from prospective or current parents
in any way. As I said before, I have always experienced a concern
that we were "overdoing" the information in the sense
that we might be too enthusiastic in the amount of info we were
offering.
Christine, I disagree with
you when you say, "There is no place for "us"
(WE & Anthros) to move to to "avoid" this particular
group of people that we disagree with about educational principles
and practices and who we might find laughable. The slurs and
defamations reach world wide through the internet and will follow
us anywhere and eat at the worldwide system like a virus."
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/1834
I gave many lectures when
I was a teacher and I have letters to prove this. I always took
Rudolf Steiner and his basic ideas (especially pre-natal existence
and Threefold Man) as my starting point. Much, though not all,
of what I spoke with parents and public about is in the articles
posted at Anthroposophy Tomorrow. There is lots more that I simply
haven't gotten written yet. I have also heard many other Waldorf
Teachers lecture to their school parents and public on all related
subjects. I also know that not all of the parents in the school
took time to come to those lectures or to read the recommended
books.
I also believe that we have
a perfect right to establish Waldorf schools and to openly state
and apply certain "spiritual" beliefs about the nature
of the human being as a spiritual being in those schools. However
I agree (and have stated this agreement before) that:
a. Waldorf Schools should remain private schools
b. Waldorf Schools and educators should be honest and forthcoming
about the basic ideas behind Waldorf Education principles and
practices
c. It should be recognized by the public at large that there
is no "church" or other religious organization to join
and therefore, no attempt is being made to recruit either parents
or children to such an organization. We honor fully the many
and diverse belief systems of the parents and children who come
to our schools within the parameters that I define in my article
"Religion in the Waldorf Schools" namely, the adherence
of any particular parent to the level of atheism or fundamental
religion of any kind that would prevent them from being able
to honor and respect the diverse religious backgrounds of the
rest of the school population and the diversity of religious
history that is contained in our eight year class curriculum.
When those who are involved
with and promote Waldorf education take it upon themselves to
share the essence of their philosophy/religion/beliefs and stop
pretending to be everything to everyone, your so-called "virus,"
I suspect, will fade into history.
You state: "What else
would you like to know about what I think?"
I would like to know what
you think about what I have written above.
Thanks.
-Walden
(1) "We will also talk
about a prayer. But there is just one thing I should like to
ask you. You know, with these things the outer form is of the
utmost importance. Never call the verse a 'prayer' but a 'school
opening verse'. Do see to it that people do not hear the expression
'prayer' used by a teacher. This will go a long way towards overcoming
the prejudice that this is an anthroposophical school."
Steiner, Rudolf. Conferences with the Teachers of the Waldorf
School in Stuttgart 1919 to 1920: Volume One: The First and Second
Years of the Waldorf School, Stuttgart. (1920) Forest Row, U.K.:
Steiner Schools Fellowship Publications, 1986, p. 45
I have never used the morning
verse as a "prayer". Prayer and meditation are, to
my understanding, inner activities and the reciting of such in
a group is a different activity. A longer discussion would be
needed to fully explore this difference.
(2) "If we work creatively
out of knowledge such as the spiritual science of Anthroposophy,
in which the direct object is to gain knowledge about the spiritual
world and to receive this spiritual world into ideas and thoughts,
into feelings, perceptions and the will, then we shall prepare
the right soil for an art which will be a sort of synthesis of
experiences before birth and after death. (...)
The limbs are the part of the human body which more than any
other part passes over into the life of the next incarnation.
They are the part that points to the future, to what comes after
death. But how do we form the movement of the limbs in eurythmy?
In the realm of the senses and in the supersensible realm we
study how the larynx and all the organs connected with speech
have brought over from the previous life and formed through the
intellectual capacities of the head and through the feeling capacity
of the breast. We link directly that which precedes birth with
that which follows death. From earthly life we take in a certain
sense only the physical material, the human being himself, who
is the tool, the instrument for eurythmy. But we allow him to
make manifest what we study inwardly, what is already prepared
in him as a result of previous lives; this is transferred to
his limbs, which are the part of him in which life after death
is being shaped in advance. In eurythmy we present in the form
and movement of the human organism a direct external proof of
man's share in the life of the supersensible world. In causing
people to do eurythmy we link them directly with the supersensible
world"
Steiner, Rudolf. Art in the
Light of Mystery Wisdom. Lectures from various dates and cities.
Trans. Gandell and H.B.M. Anthroposophic Press, 1935. First English
Edition.
This discussion of eurthmy also requires a
much longer discussion than I can begin here at this time.
Christine Natale
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 6:38 pm
Subject: Re: Waldorf Concerns
In a message dated 2/12/2004 5:01:34 PM Eastern
Standard Time, feetapparel writes:
but I am very uncomfortable
with the notion of Steiner as scientist. As far as I can tell
his academic qualifications were in philosophy not science, he
never worked as a scientist (eg in any sort of laboratory), he
published nothing in the standard scientific literature (no peer
reviewed publications in Nature or Physical Review or ...), no
book or lecture has been taken up by the scientific community
as a contribution to science.
There is a wondeful Greek movie made in 1960
called "Never on Sunday." An American man named Homer
comes to (what was in 1960) modern day Greece with his mind set
on discovering the "true Greece" - the fantasies that
lived powerfully in his soul through extensive study of ancient
Greek drama. This man is a true intellectual. He is certain that
the remnants of the glory of Ancient Greece must somehow still
be alive in the people of modern Greece, although buried under
their modern facades. He meets Ilya, a beautiful and independent
prostitute who enjoys her work close to the harbor of Piraeus,
but won't allow herself to be controlled by any man.
Homer decides to "reform" Ilya by
teaching her all about the glories of Ancient Greece and its
drama. He tries to convince her to give up her joy in life for
more serious ideals. One night, he is in a taverna with Ilya,
listening to bouzouki music and to Ilya singing and entertaining.
At one point, he becomes jealous of some of her admirers' attention
and a fight breaks out. Homer loudly berates everyone around
him for not being "Greek" enough, even though he is
the only one among them who is not Greek. At one point, he turns
to the bouzouki player and yells, "Look at him - he isn't
even a REAL musician! He can't even read music!" At this
the bouzouki player locks himself in the bathroom and refuses
to come out and play, because he is no longer a "real"
musician. No one can cajole or threaten him to come out. Finally,
Ilya whispers through the door, "Niko, what about he birds?
What about the birds, Niko? Can birds read music?"
The bouzouki player comes out and goes back
to the joy of his playing. Everyone else goes back to the joy
of their living. Everyone except Homer.
...................................................................................................................................
From: holderlin66
Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 10:01 am
Subject: Re: Waldorf Concerns
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
golden3000997 wrote:
At one point, he becomes jealous of some
of her admirers' attention and a fight breaks out. Homer loudly
berates everyone around him for not being "Greek" enough,
even though he is the only one among them who is not Greek. At
one point, he turns to the bouzouki player and yells, "Look
at him - he isn't even a REAL musician! He can't even read music!"
At this the bouzouki player locks himself in the bathroom and
refuses to come out and play, because he is no longer a "real"
musician. No one can cajole or threaten him to come out. Finally,
Ilya whispers through the door, "Niko, what about he birds?
What about the birds, Niko? Can birds read music?"
The bouzouki player comes out and goes
back to the joy of his playing. Everyone else goes back to the
joy of their living. Everyone except Homer.
Bradford says, bulls eye baby!
Christine et all, while Harvey and I appreciate
the wealth of research we are getting out of all of this, it
is the ability to see with the imagination that Christine just
demonstrated so well that is lacking in some snobby, intellectual
quarters.
It is the fear of seeing with the heart that
scares the crap out of so many souls. Seeing with the heart,
learning of the invisible symptomology, that we SEE, that cannot
be weighed and is as light as Angel air, but as solid as a thought
scares the crap out souls. like Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778)
we have to extend our insights into etheric and elemental worlds
where new categories and lexicons of insights can be gathered
that place sentient soul - intellectual soul - consciousness
soul and differences between etheric and astral data on par with
early advances of science, that scares the crap out of people.
Here stood before us a True Homer. A real
Greek. A being who had swam up stream in time, and didn't land
in some past dry lake bed of deserted perception, of what is
Greek. Phidias was Goethe and Steiner was Aristotle and you know
what, the ahrimanized intellect loves to fight on deserted, dry
and barren plains of depleted intellect.
Here before us, Tarjei and Jo Ann and Frank
and those who understand these things, was living Pauline Aristoteleanism,
bringing water to dried up sciences. Certainly depleted urnaium
and depleted, dried out husks of intellect deserve the same fate...
They poison everybody and everything they touch. Homer in this
case was as wise as Leo Strauss. But forgive us Oh Lord our ability,
as Christine, Linda, Paulina and Daniel have done - sometimes
Joel - to show how magnificent is the science that is clearer
to us than the tinted nonsense and stunted eyes of soul that
some critics must maintain to see.
It is not that Steiner can't take care of
himself, it is the dignity of the entire development and the
Courage of the heart in the qualified members of the Michael
School who carry on the reality of lifting Michael Intelligence
that is worthy fighting for.
Thanks you, you A- typical bad ass Leo! As
they said to Ripley in "Alien" 'ease back, ease down,
you broke the trans axel, your running on metal girl friend'
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
