Steiner on left handedness
From: winters_diana
Date: Tue Dec 30, 2003 9:04 am
Subject: Steiner on left handedness
One final comment from me. I have just searched
both google and the critics list archives (per Tarjei's suggestion)
to locate an indication that Michaela Glockler has renounced
or changed her position on switching left-handed children in
Waldorf schools. I can find nothing along these lines. The best
summary I can find of the traditional policy on left handers
in Waldorf is summed up in a post from Dan to the critics list
in 1997. If there is more recent info available, I would be very
grateful to anyone who can locate it. I know of no evidence Glockler
has changed her mind. I am glad to hear that Jan's child did
not experience this; as I said, I believe the practice is slowly
dying. I would also like to comment to Jan that what follows
is not "lies" and "smears," but quotes from
anthroposophical publications.
Diana
Dan wrote, April 14, 1997:
Steiner taught that left-handedness is a defect that should be
corrected, and prescribed exercises for it.
A teacher:-Asked whether children
should be broken of left- handedness. Dr. Steiner: As a rule,
yes! Whilst they are young, somewhat before the ninth year, left-handed
children can be trained to do all their school work with the
right hand. This should be avoided only if it might be harmful,
which is seldom the case. The children do not consist of a simple
additon of forces but are far more complicated than that. If
you try to bring about symmetry between right and left and get
the children to exercise both hands equally, it can lead to weakmindedness
in later life. The phenomenon of left-handedness is decidedly
karmic, in fact a karmic weakness. To take an example: If in
a previous incarnation a person has overworked, and overstrained,
himself not only physically or intellectually but in his whole
life of soul, he brings such a pronounced weakness into his following
incarnation that he is not capable of overcoming this weakness
that is now in the lower part of his being. (The part of man
arising from the life between death and a new life is, in the
new incarnation, concentrated particularly in the lower part
of his organisation, whereas what springs from the previous life
appears more in the head region.) Therefore, what is usually
strong becomes weak, and to compensate for this the left leg
and left hand are called in to help. The preponderance of the
left hand leads to the right frontal convolutions of the brain
instead of the left being engaged in speech. If we give way to
this too much this weakness may persist into the following (third)
incarnation. If we do not give in to it the weakness will be
sorted out."
[Steiner "Conferences
with Teachers-Volume 4" p. 29]
Audrey McAllen is the A. (I
will abbreviate Anthroposophical hereafter) expert on learning
disabilities and therapy. In her book "The Extra Lesson"
she says "[C]areless handling or over- stimulation of the
sensory organism can cause what whould have been a normal right-sided
dominance to vary from one side of the body to the other. ...The
decision for any handedness change may only be made by the school
doctor in consultation with parents and carried out under his
supervision." (p. 23).
There is a lengthy discussion
of the A. approach to left-handedness in Glockler and Goebel's
"A Guide to Child Health," pp. 314-318:
"In Waldorf schools,
left-handed children are encouraged to write with their right
hands. ... [I]n state schools children are mostly given a free
hand on the grounds that branding the children as left- handed
and making them change over leads to traumatic problems. ...
[W]e see these symptoms as the result of changeover methods based
on compulsion and pressure, aggravated by the timescale in which
writing has to be learnt in most state schools. ... A further
objection is that the speech organs will be impaired. It is however
an incorrect notion that the speech centre is developed in the
half of the brain opposite to the dominant hand. ... There are
three reasons for learning to write with the right hand ... Strengthening
the will: Learning to write with the right hand is...an exercise
of will for every child; but for the left-handed one it is especially
so... Qualities of right and left: It is not a matter of indifference
whether it is the right or the left hand which is used for writing.
... Values of right and left are expressed in the words "dexterity"
from the Latin dexter, a right hand, and "sinister"
from the Latin for left hand. Many more examples of this kind
can be found in other languages and cultures. We find a similar
disparity when we study the human organism and the distribution
of those organs which are not in pairs, like liver, gall, heart
and spleen. ... [N]ot only are there cultural and linguistic
values given to left and right but related qualities are to be
found in the bodily functions. ... Aspects of destiny: A left-handed
person enters life with tasks and qualities different from those
of a right-handed person. In a lecture to teachers, Rudolf Steiner
describes how left-handedness of varying degrees is the result
of a former earth-life in which the individual has overtaxed
himself either physically or emotionally. The right side is weakened
and allows the left to seem stronger. ... If the left-handed
child learns to write with his right hand his left side will
be relieved of the burden of this activity which is not of its
nature."
The "Bulletin of the
Remedial Research Group" No. 7-Autumn 1987, from Rudolf
Steiner College, Fair Oaks, is mostly devoted to left- handedness.
(It contains a notice that it is not for public circulation-Waldorf
teachers only.) It has a long reprint from Glockler and Gobel
and several other articles. Some quotes: Robert M. Dudney, M.D.,
says "The increasing occurrence of children preferring the
left hand is a symptom of tendencies to cultural decay. ... Some
left-handers need no other remediation than learning to write
with their right hand. Others require remedial lessons and or
medical treatment."
At the May, 1987 Remedial Teachers Conference in the Netherlands,
Else Gottgens said: "One of the most vital things is that,
on the first day in Class One, the children are told that people
all have a writing hand and a drawing hand. With some people,
they are the same hand, and with other people, they are two different
hands.
Then, using one's authority, we say, 'The hand on that side,'
pointing to our writing hand (right side of the body) 'is our
writing hand, and we shall all learn to write with that
hand, and we are going to start right now. ...' We introduce
the straight line and curved line, telling the children 'Later
on, we shall find these in writing.' When they first start to
draw the straight line and curve, it is good that they hold something
beautiful in the left hand--a flower or a crystal."
"Rudolf Steiner's Indication for Changing Lefthanded Children"
is reprinted, attributed to the Teachers' Conferences (without
volume or page). It is an exercise in which the child follows
with his eyes the teacher's finger tracing each arm up and down
three times. This is typical of Steiner's quack "therapy."
The Bulletin recommends a book: "The Problem of Lefthandedness:
For Medical-Therapeutic Eurythmy Work. Excerpts and Contributions,
Compiled and with an introduction by Gerda Hueck." Trans.
R.E.M. Finser. Spring Valley, NY: St. George Publications.
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Tue Dec 30, 2003 2:54 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Steiner on left handedness
Diana wrote:
"Rudolf Steiner's
Indication for Changing Lefthanded Children" is reprinted,
attributed to the Teachers' Conferences (without volume or page).
It is an exercise in which the child follows with his eyes the
teacher's finger tracing each arm up and down three times. This
is typical of Steiner's quack "therapy."
But why do you have to say "Quack Therapy"?
How do you know that this exercise is not efficatious?
As in the material you have brought forth
here - the issue is Writing with the right hand. In light of
dominance studies some 40 to 60 years later, there seems to be
some basis for recommending that children learn to write with
the right hand, as it draws on analytic processes which will
assist intellectual development through the years.
I personally never heard that the class on
the first day was to specify the right hand or that one was a
writing and one a drawing hand. This doesn't really sound right
to me, because the same children have been drawing with their
dominant hands through kindergarten. I knew that Steiner was
against training the children to be totally ambidextrous, but
I still think of the exercises as harmonizing and balancing in
their effects.
Also, the material you just quoted by Audrey
McAllen specifies the need for parents and a medical doctor to
be involved in these decisions and they should be made carefully
and applied with love and discretion. NEVER should an individual
child feel singled out for something or be made to consider something
like this a "defect". If it makes him or her feel bad
about him or herself, then a bigger problem is caused, to my
way of thinking. There are many qualities which teachers and
parents see in their children that are "problems" or
"behavior problems" or "learning problems"
and these need to be worked with, for sure, but the child should
not be made to feel that he or she is "the problem"!
Maybe it is more of a problem with perspective
and letting something like this get blown out of proportion.
Maybe it gets worse when people get defensive.
Maybe people need to take more time to really
investigate and examine their own techniques before applying
them and be more willing to re-think them if necessary.
It takes a lot of communication between parents
and teachers and between teachers and teachers to investigate
each child's real needs. Sometimes there is too much hurry and
not enough time taken. I personally don't think that any First
Grade teacher can know enough about his or her children on the
first day of class to do anything even remotely remedial. Even
with the best case scenario of the teacher being in the school
community for some months the previous year, meeting all of the
families on a one to one basis and having lengthy discussions
with the Kindergarten teacher and other faculty members, a teacher
must face his or her class on the first day and honestly say
to herself " Oh God, I have no idea who is in front of me
and what I should do for them!" This, only the children
can teach her in the course of eight years!
: ) Christine
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Thu Jan 15, 2004 2:05 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Steiner on left handedness
At 18:04 30.12.2003, Diana Winters wrote:
One final comment from me. I have just
searched both google and the critics list archives (per Tarjei's
suggestion) to locate an indication that Michaela Glockler has
renounced or changed her position on switching left-handed children
in Waldorf schools. I can find nothing along these lines. The
best summary I can find of the traditional policy on left handers
in Waldorf is summed up in a post from Dan to the critics list
in 1997. If there is more recent info available, I would be very
grateful to anyone who can locate it. I know of no evidence Glockler
has changed her mind. I am glad to hear that Jan's child did
not experience this; as I said, I believe the practice is slowly
dying. I would also like to comment to Jan that what follows
is not "lies" and "smears," but quotes from
anthroposophical publications.
OK, I'll play the messenger boy here concerning
a topic of which I must plead ignorance. Jean Yeager at the Anthroposophical
Society of America has received the following response from Michaela
Glöckler at the Goetheanum:
Dear Jean
I'm sorry to be late with
my answer to your question from December. My view points to practice
of the treatment of left-handed children, I've documented in
the book: the guide to child health (ISBN-0-86315-390-9) which
is now published newly. It is easy to get. It is true, that I
speak against a left-handed switching and instead of that, a
careful guided learning process of right-handed writing. Rudolf
Steiner never recommended the left-handed switching. That means,
that the child is able to use his left hand for all things it
wants to. But it is helped to learn writing with his right hand.
That is not more difficult to learn than to learn to play an
instrument with the fingers of the left hand, which is in the
beginning for right-handers more difficult. If this left-handed
writing process is accompanied with love by teachers and parents,
no problem can occurred. But it is necessary, that beside that
the child is allowed to use his left hand along his / her wishes.
All the best for 2004
Yours,
Michaela Glöckler
Grit Müller (nach Diktat)
Mitarbeiterin der Medizinischen Sektion
Medizinische Sektion am Goetheanum
Michaela Glöckler, Dr. med.
Leitung
Postfach, CH-4143 Dornach 1
www.goetheanum.ch
Diana Winters just does not get it: that she
has been mixing up my desciption of black and white magic, or
left- and right-handed occultism, with hand-switching in the
classroom. After having pointed out her misunderstanding several
times, she wrote:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/967 (scroll down to last paragraph)
I think that's sad. I think
it's sad that it isn't possible to interest you in the topic.
You are only indignant that your "right-handed magic"
was attacked - the actual applications of such, the way ancient
superstitions about the left and right hands, play out in real-life
classrooms today, for children sitting in desks lined
up in rows in the morning, isn't interesting to you.
Trying to clear it up this confusion seems
to be of no use. It may be cruel to say so, but I think it's
hilariously funny, and my amusement is perceived by her as terrible,
terrible cruelty. Perhaps Diana and I are evolving that kinky
occult sado-masochistic relationship Catherine MacCoun was fantasizing
about when she wrote about Rudolf Steiner and Alice Sprengel
in "Work On What Has Been Spoiled."
Anyway, I have sent the story about Diana's
confusion to Glocker, who I hope will find this tale about how
teaching lefties to write with their right hand has become a
method to prevent the profilation of magicians who sacrifice
virgins to Satan at midnight so entertaining that I'll get commissioned
to write a play about it to be performed at the Goetheanum as
a comic relief from Faust and the Mystery Dramas. "A Comedy
of Occult Waldorf Errors" or something like that.
Many blissful cheers and laughs to you all,
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Thu Jan 15, 2004 8:04 am
Subject: Re: Steiner on left handedness
Hello everyone,
I've read the many replies to my earlier posts
and will shortly answer them on critics. I can't handle any more
mailing lists, but I guess I better finish what I started. Lots
of people wrote to me weeks ago, and I just can't keep up. I
know most of you sometimes read critics, or if you don't, you
can pop over there if you're interested.
Tarjei, I very much appreciate your looking
for this information about left-handedness, and communicating
with Michaela Glockler etc. I would like to post her message
that you sent here, on critics. Shall I assume that since you
have posted it here, on a public Internet board, that this will
be okay with her? Or should I expect reprisals? I could speak
with her directly I suppose. Still thinking about this because
I hate to waste time with a bunch of recriminations from anthroposophists
regarding reposting of supposedly "private" mail posted
on public forums. Do let me know. I can paraphrase her
if it will avoid endless accusations and counter-accusations.
Briefly, though I would to clarify what you
write here:
Diana Winters just does not get it: that
she has been mixing up my desciption of black and white magic,
or left- and right-handed occultism, with hand-switching in the
classroom.
<snip>
Trying to clear it up this confusion seems
to be of no use. It may be cruel to say so, but I think it's
hilariously funny, and my amusement is perceived by her as terrible,
terrible cruelty. Perhaps Diana and I are evolving that kinky
occult sado-masochistic relationship Catherine MacCoun was fantasizing
about when she wrote about Rudolf Steiner and Alice Sprengel
in "Work On What Has Been Spoiled."
I have sent the story about Diana's confusion
to Glocker, who I hope will find this tale about how teaching
lefties to write with their right hand has become a method to
prevent the profilation of magicians who sacrifice virgins to
Satan at midnight so entertaining that I'll get commissioned
to write a play about it to be performed at the Goetheanum as
a comic relief from Faust and the Mystery Dramas. "A Comedy
of Occult Waldorf Errors" or something like that.
Tarjei, I agree it would be amusing if this
were the mistake I were making - and I can also see from my earlier
comments how you might have thought that. I have not, however,
tried to claim that Waldorf teachers are preventing use of the
left hand in their students in order to prevent their dabbling
in black magic. Since I used phrases like "applications
in the classroom," I can see how you might have thought
I am the one making this literal mistake.
Tarjei, I understand what your article
was about and that you were not speaking of classroom
practices. I also understand that Waldorf teachers, in the classroom,
are not attempting to get their students to learn black or white
magic - their reasons for switching left handers have nothing
to do with this. They may or may not have an interest in magic
of any kind, and are rarely trying to teach it to their students.
What I am claiming is that most likely the
origin of the practices is the same. Not that some Waldorf
teachers switch left-handers, today, consciously, for reasons
related to magic, black or white. Many cultural practices and
preferences have unexamined origins dating back centuries. Today's
younger Waldorf teachers did not grow up in an era when left
handed people were suspected of having something wrong with them,
and if they are told by Michaela Glockler, for instance, that
there are pedagogical reasons that writing with the right hand
is preferable, that is probably why they are doing it. But they
need to examine why, historically, left handers were often
pressured to switch. It is hard not to notice that these practices
derive from earlier eras when left-handers were indeed suspected
of being defective or even demon-possessed. (Considering how
quickly people here accuse anyone who disagrees with them of
being demon-possessed or serving a "dark god," these
superstitions are far from dead.)
In other words, Tarjei, I am talking about
historical origins of things going on in different places - magical
lodges . . . classrooms . . . Does anyone here find it terribly
humorous to suggest that there are occult explanations for a
lot of things going on in society today?! I think not, from the
general discussions I read here!
Superstitions persist in many forms long after
people are aware of their origin. I doubt Waldorf teachers are
ever told in training, or consciously examine for themselves,
ideas such as left = sinister = black magic, thus make little
Johnny stop using his left hand! (I carp on the left = sinister
connection because it is a direct quote from Glockler in support
of switching left-handers.) My suggestion is that becoming
aware of the unexamined superstition on which a practice was
founded should lead to abandoning the practices that today have
no use, in fact often cause harm.
The rest of the educational world did this
a long time ago - caught on that nothing is wrong with use of
the left hand and that children are caused unnecessary pain and
confusion by forced switching.
I greatly appreciate your obtaining an updated
statement from Michaela Glockler. It makes crystal clear that
she has not in any way renounced switching of left handers. It
makes no difference if it is done with "love," and
it is hardly less abusive if the child is allowed to use his
left hand for everything but writing. (That was always the case
- unless an adult monitors the child 24/7, how are you going
to stop them? The lefties who were switched often went on doing
stuff with the dominant hand when the adults weren't watching.)
It is an abusive practice that should not
be tolerated in any classroom.
see you later,
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: holderlin66
Date: Thu Jan 15, 2004 9:34 am
Subject: Re: Steiner on left handedness
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
winters_diana wrote:
In other words, Tarjei, I am talking about
historical origins of things going on in different places - magical
lodges . . . classrooms . . . Does anyone here find it terribly
humorous to suggest that there are occult explanations for a
lot of things going on in society today?! I think not, from the
general discussions I read here!
Bradford comments;
'to suggest that there are occult explanations...'
who are you kidding? The unfolding of crawling, standing, speaking,
etheric body unfoldment, childhood illnesses- mumps, measles,
chick-pox..change of teeth..premature overshadowing of the astral
body, premature development of 11 and 10 (even 8 and 9) year
old girls...Time and historical differences from the middle ages
to the present in the maturity and ripeness of young girls, has
radically changed. What type of acceleration is good? Are educators
allowed to try to get the Barbie mentality of the premature development
of the astral body, caught up with a real ripening of the child?
We call this the science of education, with the science of understanding
what type of physical/spiritual being has now merged with culture.
The nature of a speeded up culture with MOTH,
like electronic light, sound, radio, t.v. and head set baby sitters,
speeding up the process of premature adolescence, pressing the
biological development into the mystery of the Eustachion and
Fallopian relationships to pineal- pituitary and Light, 24/7,
has also accelerated adolescence? Well we call this science and
sometime we can walk it through for you so you get it.
We call Dr. Steiner's fully researched and
first of its kind outline of actual unfolding development of
how the uncoiling of the hidden memory of a pre-existing human
being, as it unfolds itself, uncoils itself, unwinds itself through
his/her etheric memory sheath that is connected to the cultural
epochs, that we all experienced in ancient times, part of the
scroll of the memory of humanity, we call this a Science. It
is not merely the change of teeth and a physical expression,
but the inner education of the child is unfolding in itself an
etheric memory of mankind. There look the Plant unfolds and at
first it is just green like every other plant, but we see, ah-ha,
it will be a Rose or a Lily..the etheric is the very nature of
us being particpants in mankind and human history. This is a
science.
The Waldorf Curriculum is the first of its
kind to understand that a child is not a Tabla Rosa or an empty
scroll, but hidden in the unfolding development of a child are
the lost experiences of ancient times. These would be part of
the etheric growth that merges into ripening development with
the astral body as children begin showing signs of overshadowing
of the astral body as early as the 5th grade.
Here a social wrangling that arises prior
to full blown adolescence shows itself. Some parents even promote
the leopard skin sexy style short tea shirts and runway modeling
of JonBenet Ramsey. Spoiling the emerging astral body and infecting
it with premature and false desires for beauty, fame and the
latest teen idol. Look at Michael Jackson today. The film "Donnie
Darko" is an excellent study in failed education. But excuse
us for understanding that Waldorf Education was as close to the
science of the unfolding human blueprint as has yet been developed.
Now as to if you - If you - understand that
a past incarnation could have found a soul very overtaxed, overindulged,
overplayed, exhausting some of its forces and differing, resting,
leaning on left handedness as an indicator, if you can grasp
such an encompassing idea? Because when we look at the child,
we look at a unique stellar composition, a unique system of indentity
that has been brought back into manifestation; reconstituted.
Bearing in its inherent nature the etheric memory of humanity
as it has participated with us, with us in time and is expected,
even in the classroom, it is expected that these children might
have found their way under very specific destiny factors to your
home, to a hospital in your neighborhood.
The incarnation of the child has found parents
and collected, brought them together in advance, so that certain
capacities that the child would like to develop further, as worked
with their Angels before incarnation, finds the right Love -
i.e.- hereditary stream to reconstitute itself and carry it's
development further.
Given 1/10 of these parameters, the question
is, do you understand that someone could very well have overtaxed
themselves, over indulged or been very different than the one
we see before us in the child? That leaning on the Left hand
side was just a faint indicator. We leave it to the teachers
and parents to grasp these things.
The only thing Steiner bravely did, was to
hand such rich information over to people who fall away from
clarity instead of growing towards understanding. The only thing
Steiner did was to trust that the higher understanding of humanity
would grow toward what the whole of the cosmos knows and the
Angel of the child knows. So we are not required to lift our
understanding up to the level of Angelic insight in the human
sphere, even if it is handed to us. Because it is so hard to
lift our intelligence up to humanism in its highest manifesation,
we prefer denial.
So, as to understanding about magic and brotherhoods
and blah, blah, blah.. I know for a fact that you wouldn't understand
an Angelic idea, a gift from higher reason, unless it popped
out of fortune cookie at a Chinese restaurant. Then, only then
do we consider for 2 seconds of our lives the depth of coincidence
and the patterns we might live in.
As for the first time Science of the education
of our children and full physical, etheric, astral and ego unfolding
scaffolding of psychology and education, you are years away,
years of any grasp. In the meantime you cause more harm than
good in your children and in your relationships by stubborn blindness.
As the Italians would say... Forrrgettt About
it!
...................................................................................................................................
From: eyecueco
Date: Thu Jan 15, 2004 12:52 pm
Subject: Re: Steiner on left handedness
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
holderlin66 wrote:
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, winters_diana
wrote:
In other words, Tarjei, I am talking about
historical origins of things going on in different places - magical
lodges . . . classrooms . . . Does anyone here find it terribly
humorous to suggest that there are occult explanations for a
lot of things going on in society today?! I think not, from the
general discussions I read here!
Bradford comments;
'to suggest that there are occult explanations...'
who are you kidding? The unfolding of crawling, standing, speaking,
etheric body unfoldment, childhood illnesses- mumps, measles,
chick-pox..change of teeth..premature overshadowing of the astral
body, premature development of 11 and 10 (even 8 and 9) year
old girls...Time and historical differences from the middle ages
to the present in the maturity and ripeness of young girls, has
radically changed. What type of acceleration is good? Are educators
allowed to try to get the Barbie mentality of the premature development
of the astral body, caught up with a real ripening of the child?
We call this the science of education, with the science of understanding
what type of physical/spiritual being has now merged with culture.
The nature of a speeded up culture with
MOTH, like electronic light, sound, radio, t.v. and head set
baby sitters, speeding up the process of premature adolescence,
pressing the biological development into the mystery of the Eustachion
and Fallopian relationships to pineal- pituitary and Light, 24/7,
has also accelerated adolescence? Well we call this science and
sometime we can walk it through for you so you get it.
We call Dr. Steiner's fully researched
and first of its kind outline of actual unfolding development
of how the uncoiling of the hidden memory of a pre-existing human
being, as it unfolds itself, uncoils itself, unwinds itself through
his/her etheric memory sheath that is connected to the cultural
epochs, that we all experienced in ancient times, part of the
scroll of the memory of humanity, we call this a Science. It
is not merely the change of teeth and a physical expression,
but the inner education of the child is unfolding in itself an
etheric memory of mankind. There look the Plant unfolds and at
first it is just green like every other plant, but we see, ah-ha,
it will be a Rose or a Lily..the etheric is the very nature of
us being particpants in mankind and human history. This is a
science.
The Waldorf Curriculum is the first of
its kind to understand that a child is not a Tabla Rosa or an
empty scroll, but hidden in the unfolding development of a child
are the lost experiences of ancient times. These would be part
of the etheric growth that merges into ripening development with
the astral body as children begin showing signs of overshadowing
of the astral body as early as the 5th grade.
Here a social wrangling that arises prior
to full blown adolescence shows itself. Some parents even promote
the leopard skin sexy style short tea shirts and runway modeling
of JonBenet Ramsey. Spoiling the emerging astral body and infecting
it with premature and false desires for beauty, fame and the
latest teen idol. Look at Michael Jackson today. The film "Donnie
Darko" is an excellent study in failed education. But excuse
us for understanding that Waldorf Education was as close to the
science of the unfolding human blueprint as has yet been developed.
Now as to if you - If you - understand
that a past incarnation could have found a soul very overtaxed,
overindulged, overplayed, exhausting some of its forces and differing,
resting, leaning on left handedness as an indicator, if you can
grasp such an encompassing idea? Because when we look at the
child, we look at a unique stellar composition, a unique system
of indentity that has been brought back into manifestation; reconstituted.
Bearing in its inherent nature the etheric memory of humanity
as it has participated with us, with us in time and is expected,
even in the classroom, it is expected that these children might
have found their way under very specific destiny factors to your
home, to a hospital in your neighborhood.
The incarnation of the child has found
parents and collected, brought them together in advance, so that
certain capacities that the child would like to develop further,
as worked with their Angels before incarnation, finds the right
Love - i.e.- hereditary stream to reconstitute itself and carry
it's development further.
Given 1/10 of these parameters, the question
is, do you understand that someone could very well have overtaxed
themselves, over indulged or been very different than the one
we see before us in the child? That leaning on the Left hand
side was just a faint indicator. We leave it to the teachers
and parents to grasp these things.
The only thing Steiner bravely did, was
to hand such rich information over to people who fall away from
clarity instead of growing towards understanding. The only thing
Steiner did was to trust that the higher understanding of humanity
would grow toward what the whole of the cosmos knows and the
Angel of the child knows. So we are not required to lift our
understanding up to the level of Angelic insight in the human
sphere, even if it is handed to us. Because it is so hard to
lift our intelligence up to humanism in its highest manifesation,
we prefer denial.
So, as to understanding about magic and
brotherhoods and blah, blah, blah.. I know for a fact that you
wouldn't understand an Angelic idea, a gift from higher reason,
unless it popped out of fortune cookie at a Chinese restaurant.
Then, only then do we consider for 2 seconds of our lives the
depth of coincidence and the patterns we might live in.
As for the first time Science of the education
of our children and full physical, etheric, astral and ego unfolding
scaffolding of psychology and education, you are years away,
years of any grasp. In the meantime you cause more harm than
good in your children and in your relationships by stubborn blindness.
As the Italians would say... Forrrgettt
About it!
Bradford,
STOP!
STOP!
STOP!
You are the one who is totally clueless!
If you don't get it about the issue of handedness and think the
correct response is your typical jitter-bug of quotations, movie
themes, poems and tomes, then you really are beyond help.
You insult Diane who is not a stupid woman,
nor someone who has shown any ill will to anyone at anytime,
then you top it off with nonsense, utter, absurd mish-mash nonsense.
Is this supposed to be a defense for changing
handedness?
Did you, when you had a job in WE, attempt
to change the leftie to a rightie?
Why would you defend this?
There is an indisputable correspondence between
handedness and which hemisphere of the brain the Broca speech
center is located. In 95% of right-handers, the left side of
the brain is dominant for language. In 60-70% of left-handers,
the left side of brain is used for language. Almost one half
of the left-handed population have reversed cerebral lateralization,
meaning the Broca Center is in their right hemisphere. 56% to
70% of left-handers have the same lateralization as right-handers.
40% of left handers have reversed lateralization. This gets even
more interesting when reseraching inverted and non-inverted writing
postures (meaning how the dominant hand is held when writing,
in either what would be considered a normal position, or a C-curved
position where the hand is bent back toward the body). In one
study I have notes on 60% of left handed inverted writers were
found to have the same lateralization as right handed writers
while 1% of right-handed inverted writer were foundto have the
same lateralization as left-handed writers.
There have been just too many studies done
world-wide on handedness and the correspondence of the Broca
speech center for far too many years for those involved with
WE to justify ignorance.
Not only does the Broca area have a direction
relationship with handedness, but, also controls voluntary eye
movement, head rotation, and motor speech expression.
If the WE instructor gets involved with the
handedness of a child in his or her care then that instructor
is getting involved with how the brain in that child is developing,
and that is not acceptable! Period.
Additionally, when anyone in education starts
talking about 'love' instead of craft in one's discipline I find
myself quite unhappy. What exactly is the objective, verifiable,
measurable, outcome that verifies that 'love' has been used to
accompanied a specific 'process' or activity? Yes, of course
love should stand behind the practice of one's craft/discipline/profession
whether it be that of a doctor, nurse, therapist, teacher, etc.,
but, 'love' is not the craft itself. That is why teachers in
public schools in this country, at least, have to be certified
byway of a Practicum after having gone through a degree program
in the secular world, i.e., to practice application their craft,
not their 'love' for children or teaching.
Please!
I stand with Audrey McAllen on this issue
of handedness. If any teacher is going to involve his or herself
with the changing of handedness in a child it had better be done
as a result of diagnosis by a medical doctor, specifically a
neurologist.
Lastly, when you try and defend what is wrong
in WE by implying that WE is the result of Steiner's thoroug
research, you are just kidding yourself. RS gave certain indications,
that is all. He was very busy. He was not a school administrator,
nor did he write curriculum. He was a kind responder. When Molte
came up to him and said he wanted a school for his factory workers
children, Steiner, as usual, responded, to the best of
his tiem and ability. He tapped people like W.J. Stein on the
shoulder and asked them to join the effort. He trusted
them to work out of their intelligence and inner forces from
a perspective of spiritual science. He vistied the schools, advised,
but, he did not intent what when on to be etched into stone forever.
He was a man of his time. He kept up with his time and place.
He walked in two worlds. I wish that I could say the same for
WE today. If you think that Steiner would just sluff off the
brain reserach that has come done in the past decades, think
again! And if you think that he would defend what has happened
and continues to happen in some schools because of some very
unthinking teachers, who lack common sense or imagination, and
would even attempt to justify the kinds of things that go on
such as what happened to Lisa Ercola's child Olivia, think again!
I do not think I can speak for Steiner, but I have studied Anthroposphy
and WE depth and have implimented WE mongrams enough into my
own curriculum with success and postive outcome to be able to
'get it' about he was trying to do WITH HIS INDICATIONS.
We certainly need to defend Steiner when he
has been slandered, but, we are morally and ethically obligated
to look objectively at the criticisms being leveled, and when
possible (with Peter S. it is not possible because he is using
learned propaganda techniques to manipulate WC just like he and
his affilates use so many other organizations to fufill their
politcal agenda) address these criticisms with thoughtful consideration.
The issue of changing handedness in a child in the 21st century
is one of those criticisms and WE doesn't have a leg to stand
on in this matter.
Does it ever occur to people like you that
the kind of absurd defense you have carelessly thrown out here
is the very thing that has kept what is good and true and wonderful
and healing about WE from reaching the multitude of children
who are being destroyed by our schools and society today.
You owe Diane an big apology for the insults
you have slung at her here today!
You owe the rest of us an apology for your
untamed horse which is trampling the sprouting seedling of intelligent
dialogue in the gardent of AT. (You do know that you should be
riding it, instead of it riding you, right? :-)
Paulina
...................................................................................................................................
From: holderlin66
Date: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:41 pm
Subject: Re: Steiner on left handedness
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, eyecueco
wrote:
You owe Diane an big apology for the insults
you have slung at her here today!
You owe the rest of us an apology for your
untamed horse which is trampling the sprouting seedling of intelligent
dialogue in the gardent of AT. (You do know that you should be
riding it, instead of it riding you, right? :-)
Paulina
Bradford responds;
There Paulina, don't you feel better now that
you got all that pent up antipathy off your chest. I sure do.
Plus I truly admire how you went much deeper and elaborated some
of the background of the Borca organ and the C curve of the hand.
Left Brained and Right brained dominance at least brings some
of the vast well springs of Waldorf Education up to the level
of current research. I applaud the way you were able to kick
me with your antipathy, and rise to the occasion. Some times
good ole anger brings out the best in us eh? But it has been
latent for a long time and I was tired of just watching it flit
by without using my swatter.
Now that that is over with, Paulina has given
a wonderful opportunity to uncover many of the secrets of education
that are just left out of any discussion when it comes to the
Child's unfolding development and catching the various indications
from the nature of the child. Be glad dear Paulina that I consider
your contribution, kicking and screaming at me, a very fine -
potent and at times truly marvelous post.
Keep up the good work. Especially with that
finely tuned sense of sympathy and antipathy to different modes
of expression. It serves you well.
Oh, by the way, I owe no one an apology.
Bradford
...................................................................................................................................
From: eyecueco
Date: Thu Jan 15, 2004 11:26 pm
Subject: Re: Steiner on left handedness
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
holderlin66 wrote:
Bradford responds;
There Paulina, don't you feel better now
that you got all that pent up antipathy off your chest. I sure
do.
Actually, I don't have any pent up antipathy,
Bradford. I've always been straight forward about my postion
on how you express your frustrations of the world not turning
on an orbit to your liking.
Plus I truly admire how you went much deeper
and elaborated some of the background of the Borca organ and
the C curve of the hand.
The C curve is just my own verbal effort to
give an image of the inverted hand, it is not a term used in
the domain of brain or handedness research.
Left Brained and Right brained dominance
at least brings some of the vast well springs of Waldorf Education
up to the level of current research.
Really?
How so?
I applaud the way you were able to kick
me with your antipathy, and rise to the occasion. Some times
good ole anger brings out the best in us eh? But it has been
latent for a long time and I was tired of just watching it flit
by without using my swatter.
I'm not angry, Bardford, just irritated with
your antics.
Now that that is over with, Paulina has
given a wonderful opportunity to uncover many of the secrets
of education that are just left out of any discussion when it
comes to the Child's unfolding development and catching the various
indications from the nature of the child.
"Secrets of education?"
And to what discussion of the child's unfolding development are
you referring?I am of the opinion that in the 21st century we
have abundant understanding of the child's unfolding development
.If all Waldorf teachers were required, as Sunbridge College
now requires, thanks to New York state, to include modern educational
psychology courses in the teacher certification program there
would be much less of a problem with the likes of the WC folks.
Be glad dear Paulina that I consider your
contribution, kicking and screaming at me, a very fine - potent
and at times truly marvelous post.
Don't smooze me, Brad. I can be had, but I
'aint' cheap.
Bring it on.
Keep up the good work. Especially with
that finely tuned sense of sympathy and antipathy to different
modes of expression. It serves you well.
Ok, clueless, here is your assignment:
1. Take a piece of unlined paper.
2. Take a pencil.
3. Take a straight edge
4. With the paper turned horizontally, draw a line across the
paper with the straight edge.
5. On one end (left or right, who cares) write 'Antipathy' and
on the opposite end mark the line 'Sympathy'.
Now, look at that line. SEE all that empty
space running across that papge between the two words in opposition
to each other?
OK, next...
6. Take a ruler, and using short verticle
lines divide the empty horizontal space into 1/2" divisions,
better yet, 1/4", 1/8" or 1/16" divisions.
When finished look at all the varying vertical
positions that are represented by those
vertical pencil mark between 'Sympathy' and 'Antipathy'.
Can't speak for you, but I don't function
from either extreme end, and if you cannot identify objectively
which point along that continum I am speaking from on the issue
of handedness, then please don't just cop out by throwing around
meaningless terms such as 'antipathy', 'sympathy', and 'anger'.
Oh, by the way, I owe no one an apology.
Oh, Brad, you really should just go into town
and have a beer. Try the Continental Club. Some of the musicians
featured there are really worth hearing. I know at least one
who can teach you a thing or two about sympathy.
Paulina
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Thu Jan 15, 2004 2:33 pm
Subject: Re: Steiner on left handedness
Laughing my you know what off!!
My 10-year-old just peered over my shoulder,
seeing my fascinated attention to this message, and read a bit
of Bradford-ese:
uncoiling of the hidden memory of a pre-existing
human being, as it unfolds itself, uncoils itself, unwinds itself
through his/her etheric memory sheath
He comments:
"I don't remember that."
Me (startled):
"You don't remember what?"
He says:
"I'm not sure about the pre-existing part, but I definitely
don't remember unwinding an etheric memory sheath before I was
born."
I'll try to get back to you later Bradford
:)
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: Sune Nordwall
Date: Thu Jan 15, 2004 6:32 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on left handedness
Hi Diana,
Thought you had gone, as you said you would.
Glad to see you're still here!
You write:
Hello everyone,
I've read the many replies to my earlier
posts and will shortly answer them on critics. I can't handle
any more mailing lists, but I guess I better finish what I started.
Lots of people wrote to me weeks ago, and I just can't keep up.
I know most of you sometimes read critics, or if you don't, you
can pop over there if you're interested.
You wrote here. Why not post your answers
here, and send a CC to the WC instead?
I'd very much appreciate an answer here on
this list to my answer to you.
Best wishes,
Sune
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Sat Jan 17, 2004 6:00 am
Subject: Re: Steiner on left handedness
Sune:
Glad to see you're still here!
<snip>
I'd very much appreciate an answer here
on this list to my answer to you.
Sune, I appreciated the Christmas greetings,
and I'm sorry not to reply. I will try. Various people wrote
to me both here and offlist and it is very time-consuming. I
re-read your post to me from a couple of weeks ago, and I have
to say, I find you difficult to follow at times. (I confess I
almost never follow your links. There are too many.) Best I can
tell, you want me to explain in a general way, how I can possibly
have anything to do with other Waldorf critics, if I appreciate
Peter Staudenmaier's contributions. You quote me thanking Peter
on the WC list for his contributions and say that you have sympathy
for me as a person, except for this.
Sune, I really don't think it would be very
helpful for me to attempt to summarize Peter's views versus your
views, post a long analysis of who said what when, and whether
one of you is "lying." I do not believe Peter is lying,
but I am happy to admit that both you and Peter know more on
these topics than I do. I do find Peter's work convincing, and
don't believe he has ever "forged" anything or misrepresented
Steiner. I believe you have been asked a number of times to document
evidence that Peter "forged" something. I notice in
your last post, it is now a "spiritual forgery." This
is just a concept I really cannot work with! You will have to
forgive me if on these higher spiritual realms, I wander cluelessly.
I do not know what a "spiritual forgery" is so I cannot
judge whether Peter might be guilty of it :) On the mundane,
earthly level, it seems to me you would have quite a bit of work
to do to justify your claims of either "forgery" or
"libel."
If you want me to get into the topic, you
will have to ask me something more specific than just, in general,
how dare I ever say anything nice about Peter Staudenmaier?
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Sat Jan 17, 2004 5:23 am
Subject: Re: Steiner on left handedness
Bradford, I appreciate your reply, but have
no idea what you are talking about, and probably can't make what
you would consider meaningful spiritual contributions to this.
(This comes as no surprise to you.)
As best I can discern, you have been a Waldorf
teacher, but are not at the present (you just can't be, or you
couldn't spend all day writing this stuff)? When you taught,
did you try to make the left-handed kids use the right hand?
The Waldorf Curriculum is the first of
its kind to understand that a child is not a Tabla Rosa
I hope the "Tabla Rosa" is perhaps
an obscure Rosicrucian reference (in a later post you refer to
an "etheric scroll" we bring with us at birth?), and
not your misspelling of "tabula rasa" (the "blank
slate"). If you are referring to the blank slate, Waldorf
is certainly not the "first of its kind" to view the
child as "not a tabula rasa." Philosophers, educators,
scientists, poets - parents - have debated this for centuries.
Nobody believes today that the child is a tabula rasa. Try Steven
Pinker.
What Waldorf does is fetishize a particular,
supposedly universal course of spiritual development that is
actually of Eurocentric derivation. Teachers straining to peer
into children's souls determined to see a revelation of ancient
spiritual truths are really asking a great deal of a child.
hidden in the unfolding development of
a child are the lost experiences of ancient times.
This is a romantic notion imposed on Waldorf
children – which many resist (explaining some of the behavior
problems, IMO). No – do not ask the children to provide
you a glimpse of "lost experiences of ancient times."
Get your spiritual fix some other way! (this list seems to work
pretty well for you).
Some parents even promote the leopard skin
sexy style short tea shirts and runway modeling of JonBenet Ramsey.
I don't have a daughter – if I did, I'd
have a problem with all the sexy clothes for little girls. Why
do you go on and on about JohBenet Ramsey?
I know for a fact that you wouldn't understand
an Angelic idea, a gift from higher reason, unless it popped
out of fortune cookie at a Chinese restaurant.
Oh – isn't the stuff in fortune cookies
true? My 10-year-old thinks it may be.
Ok, Brad, I don't talk to angels, and you
do. You better hope I'm not your karma. Maybe next time I'll
be the teacher, and you'll be the left-handed kid.
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Thu Jan 15, 2004 11:37 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on left handedness
At 17:04 15.01.2004, Diana wrote:
Tarjei, I very much appreciate your looking
for this information about left-handedness, and communicating
with Michaela Glockler etc. I would like to post her message
that you sent here, on critics. Shall I assume that since you
have posted it here, on a public Internet board, that this will
be okay with her?
I have no idea. I didn't write to her; Jean
Yeager did and sent me the correspondence.
Or should I expect reprisals?
Don't have a clue, but I doubt it.
I could speak with her directly I suppose.
Still thinking about this because I hate to waste time with a
bunch of recriminations from anthroposophists regarding reposting
of supposedly "private" mail posted on public
forums.
Supposedly private
mail? Could you explain? If I subscribed to the Waldorf Survivors
list as a mole under an assumed name and published what I found
juicy, how would Dan and Gary react?
Do let me know. I can paraphrase her if
it will avoid endless accusations and counter-accusations.
I'll forward your question, being the messenger
boy again. When do I get a promotion and raise for playing the
gopher?
Tarjei, I agree it would be amusing if
this were the mistake I were making - and I can also see from
my earlier comments how you might have thought that. I have not,
however, tried to claim that Waldorf teachers are preventing
use of the left hand in their students in order to prevent their
dabbling in black magic. Since I used phrases like "applications
in the classroom," I can see how you might have thought
I am the one making this literal mistake.
OK, I'll temporarily grant you the benefit
of the doubt.
It is hard not to notice that these practices
derive from earlier eras when left-handers were indeed suspected
of being defective or even demon-possessed.
There you go! So you do indeed believe that
thwe hand-switching is linked to the technical expressions used
to describe occult practices!
(Considering how quickly people here accuse
anyone who disagrees with them of being demon-possessed or serving
a "dark god," these superstitions are far from dead.)
Benefit of the doubt withdrawn.
In other words, Tarjei, I am talking about
historical origins of things going on in different places - magical
lodges . . . classrooms . . . Does anyone here find it terribly
humorous to suggest that there are occult explanations for a
lot of things going on in society today?! I think not, from the
general discussions I read here!
Personally, I find it amusing when people
associate occultism with something spooky that goes bump in the
night. They've ben reading too much of Stephen King.
Superstitions persist in many forms long
after people are aware of their origin. I doubt Waldorf teachers
are ever told in training, or consciously examine for themselves,
ideas such as left = sinister = black magic, thus make little
Johnny stop using his left hand! (I carp on the left = sinister
connection because it is a direct quote from Glockler in support
of switching left-handers.) My suggestion is that becoming
aware of the unexamined superstition on which a practice was
founded should lead to abandoning the practices that today have
no use, in fact often cause harm.
In other words, you do assume that
switching lefties into righties (or whatever they were doing
or not doing) was founded on the "unfounded superstition"
of black and white magic and the technical expressions used for
such practices: "left-handed" and "right-handed"
?
The rest of the educational world did this
a long time ago - caught on that nothing is wrong with use of
the left hand and that children are caused unnecessary pain and
confusion by forced switching.
I have to plead ignorance of pedagogy and
educational practice, whether it's Waldorf, Montessory, public
or whatever.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Thu Jan 15, 2004 12:50 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on left handedness
I wrote:
I have no idea. I didn't write to her;
Jean Yeager did and sent me the correspondence.
Oh shit, sorry about that: I did send
Glocker a copy of my mail to Jean Yeager, so I have written
to her. But I don't know who she is or what she thinks or how
she reacts.
Tarjei
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Sat Jan 17, 2004 5:29 am
Subject: Re: Steiner on left handedness
Tarjei:
I have no idea. I didn't write to her;
Jean Yeager did and sent me the correspondence.
Right – if I understand correctly, it
was sent privately, between two individuals, or three. And you
had no compunction about popping it up on this public list. This
is what you insist Waldorf critics should never do – right?
I agree with you, actually, just noting there is a bit of a double
standard here.
I'll forward your question, being the messenger
boy again. When do I get a promotion and raise for playing the
gopher?
Thanks! We'll consider your compensation :)
What would you like to be promoted to?
(I wrote:)
It is hard not to notice that these practices derive from
earlier eras when left-handers were indeed suspected of being
defective or even demon-possessed.
Tarjei:
There you go! So you do indeed believe that thwe hand-switching
is linked to the technical expressions used to describe occult
practices!
Tarjei – think about the meaning of "derive
from earlier eras." Sometimes something widely believed
in an earlier era carries over, filters down, and is applied
in various contexts, long after people have forgotten why it
was originally done. A general cultural belief. A piece of the
Zeitgeist. (Isn't that an actual spiritual being?) :) Yes? It
doesn't mean the teacher does it specifically because she wants
to stop her children from black magic – the teacher probably
doesn't know or care about magic, black or white. It means –
perhaps – that she believes something is bad about left-handedness.
It was so for centuries. It was assumed. Well into the
20th century, lefties were switched, the reasons evolving slowly
from old beliefs about left-handedness being a mark of the devil.
The practice continued with various justifications, and only
slowly dropped off. It has dropped off in Waldorf schools, too
– but much more slowly. Teachers often don't know the origins
of some things they are teaching, or methods they are using –
even Waldorf teachers who have usually had a big serving of anthroposophy
in teacher training. (I've talked to a number of Waldorf teachers
who tried hard to keep their hands over their ears, so to speak,
during all the anthroposophic indoctrination in their teacher
training classes.)
But regardless of the individual teacher's
level of understanding of it, Waldorf pedagogy is occult derived.
Please don't say it's not so, always yak-yakking here about Steiner
reading the Akasha. A prejudice against the left-handed would
carry influence longer than it might elsewhere. The movement
is a bastion of resistance to change from outside influences,
and rejects many scientific advances. That's fine. Can't have
it both ways, though. If you want to reject modern science (which
debunked the need to make a left- handed child use their right
hand) for occult beliefs about bad qualities associated with
left-handedness, why hoot at me for suggesting the occult connection?
(Y'all on this list chat late into the night about the occult
origin of everything else in the world!!)
Bradford went on an on about karmic weakness.
This is the Steiner version of left handedness being some sort
of defect. It's an improvement over stuff like mark of the devil.
In the era of disability and remediation, left-handedness became
a "weakness." Many things previously considered "sinful"
became "diseases."
Benefit of the doubt withdrawn.
LOL!! Really. I sat here laughing when I saw
my benefit of the doubt withdrawn! You are so funny, Tarjei,
I like you a lot. You can dish it out and you can usually take
it :)
Personally, I find it amusing when people
associate occultism with something spooky that goes bump in the
night. They've ben reading too much of Stephen King.
I've never read Stephen King.
In other words, you do assume that
switching lefties into righties (or whatever they were doing
or not doing) was founded on the "unfounded superstition"
of black and white magic and the technical expressions used for
such practices: "left-handed" and "right-handed"
?
Tarjei – you put "unfounded superstition"
in quotes. If you think the left/bad, right/good scheme is not
an unfounded superstition, but instead an "occult truth,"
an insight into deeper spiritual realities that dogged materialists
like me can't access – if this is so, then why would it
be wrong to apply this insight in a pedagogical context? Why
would you fight me on this? Isn't the rest of Waldorf derived
from occult insights? Bradford seems to think so. I sat in Waldorf
faculty meetings for 2 ½ years, and correct me if I'm
wrong, but I believe I heard the teachers mention that Waldorf
pedagogy derived from Steiner's occult insights.
cheers to you too,
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sat Jan 17, 2004 6:33 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on left handedness
At 14:29 17.01.2004, Diana wrote:
Tarjei:
I have no idea. I didn't write to her;
Jean Yeager did and sent me the correspondence.
Right – if I understand correctly,
it was sent privately, between two individuals, or three. And
you had no compunction about popping it up on this public list.
This is what you insist Waldorf critics should never do –
right? I agree with you, actually, just noting there is a bit
of a double standard here.
It was sent as a response to your inquiry.
When it comes to subjects about which I must plead ignorance,
I only post what I'm told as the gopher and messenger boy I am.
Double standard? The private lists you're referring to weren't
mine. Wasn't it the owners/moderators who complained?
Thanks! We'll consider your compensation
:) What would you like to be promoted to?
Internet guru with an occult twist.
Well into the 20th century, lefties were
switched, the reasons evolving slowly from old beliefs about
left-handedness being a mark of the devil.
What is your source of reference here, about
left-handed people bearing the
mark of the devil in former centuries?
The movement is a bastion of resistance
to change from outside influences, and rejects many scientific
advances.
What movement is that?
That's fine. Can't have it both ways, though.
If you want to reject modern science
If I have expressed a desire to reject modern
science, please quote me, Diana, or demonstrate instances when
I have uttered such things. I do object to certain applications
of science for ethical reasons, such as weapons production (especially
weapons of mass destruction), cruel animal research, and there
are areas such as cloning that I know too little about, but not
because I refuse to learn about it. I consider blind and unbridled
enthusiasm for every aspect of modern science to be questionable
and potentially dangerous. Is that what you mean?
(which debunked the need to make a left-handed
child use their right hand) for occult beliefs about bad qualities
associated with left-handedness, why hoot at me for suggesting
the occult connection?
Because in occultism, left and right are technical
expressions, just like they are symbolic expressions in politics.
If you mix these things up indiscriminately, you'll end up claiming
that anthroposophists must be politically conservative because
"left-wing" is a dirty word.
I've never read Stephen King.
You don't have to. Christian bookstores are
full of warnings against the spiritual world, and interest in
it will lead to seances and Satan-worship and even worser things
and you'll get gobbled up like a cookie in the mouth of the apocalyptic
beast.
In other words, you do assume that
switching lefties into righties (or whatever they were doing
or not doing) was founded on the "unfounded superstition"
of black and white magic and the technical expressions used for
such practices: "left-handed" and "right-handed"
?
Tarjei – you put "unfounded superstition"
in quotes.
Of course. Good and evil exist, gods and demons
exist, black and white magic exist. It's superstitious to believe
that it doesn't exist.
If you think the left/bad, right/good scheme
is not an unfounded superstition, but instead an "occult
truth," an insight into deeper spiritual realities that
dogged materialists like me can't access – if this is so,
then why would it be wrong to apply this insight in a pedagogical
context? Why would you fight me on this?
You still don't get it! Left and right are
technical terms in occultism, just like they are symbolic terms
in politics. The British are not evil because they drive on the
left hand side of the road. And Americans are not good because
they drive on the right. Nobody believes that or has ever believed
that. The Swedes switched from left hand traffic (like the British)
to right hand traffic (like most of the rest of us) overnight
in 1967. Nobody said it was cruel and should be forbidden. I
may not know much about pedagogy, but I know a little about traffic.
Isn't the rest of Waldorf derived from
occult insights?
I don't think the textbooks are written by
occultists if that's what you mean. Rudolf Steiner based everything
he did on occult insights because he was an occultist, and helping
to found the first Waldorf school was one of them. Beyond that,
what you people at the WC and the PLANS are reading into this
and how it corresponds with reality in Waldorf is beyond me.
It's not within my field of expertise.
Bradford seems to think so. I sat in Waldorf
faculty meetings for 2 ½ years, and correct me if I'm
wrong, but I believe I heard the teachers mention that Waldorf
pedagogy derived from Steiner's occult insights.
Of course. Anything wrong with that? The physical
world is, after all, the projection or external expression of
an occult, or spiritual, reality behind it. Without the spirit,
without the occult, we would not exist.
This does not mean that everything goes bump
in the night.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Sat Jan 17, 2004 8:29 pm
Subject: Re: Steiner on left handedness
Tarjei:
The private lists you're referring to weren't
mine. Wasn't it the owners/moderators who complained?
Never mind. I don't remember who complained.
I am probably guilty of lumping all anthroposophists together
here J
What would you like to be promoted to?
Internet guru with an occult twist.
You're that already, think outside the box,
Tarjei.
What is your source of reference here,
about left-handed people bearing the mark of the devil in former
centuries?
I'll do another post tomorrow. I'm no historian
and can't vouch for their accuracy, but it's certainly all over
the web. Meanwhile, here's Michaela Glockler herself:
"Qualities of right and
left: It is not a matter of indifference whether it is the right
or the left hand which is used for writing. ... Values of right
and left are expressed in the words "dexterity" from
the Latin dexter, a right hand, and "sinister" from
the Latin for left hand. Many more examples of this kind can
be found in other languages and cultures."
[Glockler, Michaela and Wolfgang Goebel. A
Guide to Child Health. Trans. Polly Lawson. Edinburgh: Anthroposophic
Press, Floris Books, 1990, p. 314]
The movement is a bastion of resistance
to change from outside influences, and rejects many scientific
advances.
What movement is that?
Anthroposophy. Waldorf.
If I have expressed a desire to reject
modern science, please quote me, Diana, or demonstrate instances
when I have uttered such things.
Let's not get into this – again, perhaps
I was unfairly responding to you as a representative of anthroposophy.
(Steiner, of course, spoke against modern science frequently,
and on this list, you are recently arguing that Steiner was a
saint and couldn't have been wrong or even had human imperfections.
But never mind.) I don't know where you, Tarjei Straume,
stand on all modern science.
I am tempted to get this list into a serious
tizzy sharing my views on cloning. Very tempting, but time's
a-wasting. :)
In my comments about "rejecting modern
science," I was referring to the fact that Waldorf has been
slow to catch up with the modern understanding that left-handedness
is a normal variation and does not require any form of pedagogical
or medical correction.
Let's see . . . I'm with you on weapons production,
Tarjei.
Because in occultism, left and right are
technical expressions,
And technical expressions have no derivation?
They come out of the ether? Actually, they probably come out
of that old pictorial consciousness, excuse me, Pictorial Consciousness,
that anthroposophists love to evoke, those glorious dreamy days
of the "old atavistic consciousness" . . . where left
handers were seen as defective. IMO the basis of it is simple.
(Now these are just my musings, don't ask me to back it up.)
Left handers are different, because there are far fewer of them,
and people always think something is wrong with someone who is
different and feel threatened. It's the same reason they tossed
babies born with deformities (and sometimes twins) off clifftops.
I read one interesting theory of the fear
of the left-handed: we originally began shaking hands with the
right hand in order to show that we have no weapon concealed,
or if we did, we'd need to draw it with the left hand, and for
most of us (the right-handed), that would be clumsy. But if a
person offered the left hand to shake, they could still get at
their sword with the right hand; hence if someone offered you
their left hand to shake, it was seen as threatening.
I've never read Stephen King.
You don't have to. Christian bookstores
are full of warnings against the spiritual world,
Tarjei, I don't go in Christian bookstores
very often either. But I was raised Christian Scientist, and
they are always freaking out that occultists are hexing them
or something. They call it "animal magnetism," and
they also believe, similar to anthroposophy, that thoughts are
real deeds and someone can harm you at a distance by thinking
bad thoughts about you.
Of course. Good and evil exist, gods and
demons exist, black and white magic exist.
Love that pictorial consciousness. Good and
evil, black and white, left and right.
The physical world is, after all, the projection
or external expression of an occult, or spiritual, reality
I'm just curious, do you use the words "occult"
and "spiritual" as synonyms? I see the sense in which
you mean this, but I think there are more commonly understood
meanings as well. I do not just mean that to some people "occult"
means things that go bump in the night, but also, some spiritual
people are not so interested in all the things that are supposedly
"hidden," uncovering secrets and conspiracies, as occultists
seem to enjoy.
To things that go bump in the night, Tarjei,
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sun Jan 18, 2004 7:19 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on left handedness
At 05:29 18.01.2004, Diana wrote:
What would you like to be promoted to?
Internet guru with an occult twist.
You're that already, think outside the
box, Tarjei.
That would be off-topic. But try that one
on Joel. He also likes to tell people how to think.
The movement is a bastion of resistance
to change from outside influences, and rejects many scientific
advances.
What movement is that?
Anthroposophy. Waldorf.
Can you cite a few scientific advances that
the anhtoposophical movement as a whole, and the Waldorf movement
as a whole, has rejected that shouldn't have been rejected and
why?
(Steiner, of course, spoke against modern
science frequently, and on this list, you are recently arguing
that Steiner was a saint and couldn't have been wrong or even
had human imperfections. But never mind.) I don't know where
you, Tarjei Straume, stand on all modern science.
Can you quote Steiner where he spoke against
'modern science', or are you getting it mixed up with his critique
of materialistic thinking in modern science?
And while you're at it, can you quote me saying
that Steiner was never wrong and did not have human imperfections,
or are you getting this mixed up with my argument that Steiner
was not a cruel sadomasochist, which is not a human flaw, but
a subhuman perversion?
In my comments about "rejecting modern
science," I was referring to the fact that Waldorf has been
slow to catch up with the modern understanding that left-handedness
is a normal variation and does not require any form of pedagogical
or medical correction.
Let's see . . . I'm with you on weapons
production, Tarjei.
So you reject modern science then?
Because in occultism, left and right are
technical expressions,
And technical expressions have no derivation?
Technical expressions belong in scientific
contexts. We're talking about spiritual science here.
They come out of the ether? Actually, they
probably come out of that old pictorial consciousness, excuse
me, Pictorial Consciousness, that anthroposophists love to evoke,
those glorious dreamy days of the "old atavistic consciousness"
. . .
If you read Steiner meticulously, you will
discover that he took a firm stand against the reawakening
of atavistic clairvoyance, which properly belongs to bygone eras.
If "anthroposophists" like love to evoke that sort
of thing, they are not students of Steiner's approach to the
supernatural.
where left handers were seen as defective.
IMO the basis of it is simple. (Now these are just my musings,
don't ask me to back it up.)
I'm not like you and Joel, so I don't tell
anyone what to think, how to pray, what to write, or what to
"back up." This left- and right-handedness is, as I
have said, outside my field of competence; I'll leave the debate
to the experts. The jury may still be out, I don't know.
Left handers are different, because there
are far fewer of them, and people always think something is wrong
with someone who is different and feel threatened. It's the same
reason they tossed babies born with deformities (and sometimes
twins) off clifftops.
So perhaps Waldorf teachers would have liked
to toss left-anded children off clifftops when switching them
wasn't successful if they'd get away with it?
I read one interesting theory of the fear
of the left-handed: we originally began shaking hands with the
right hand in order to show that we have no weapon concealed,
or if we did, we'd need to draw it with the left hand, and for
most of us (the right-handed), that would be clumsy. But if a
person offered the left hand to shake, they could still get at
their sword with the right hand; hence if someone offered you
their left hand to shake, it was seen as threatening.
By the same token, I hope all right-handed
people who shake my hand use their left hands for their handkerchiefs
so I won't get all their germs. People should not shake hands
with the same hand they sneeze and cough into. Fear of left hands
may be linked to fear of germs.
I'm just curious, do you use the words
"occult" and "spiritual" as synonyms?
Yes, basically.
I see the sense in which you mean this,
but I think there are more commonly understood meanings as well.
I do not just mean that to some people "occult" means
things that go bump in the night, but also, some spiritual people
are not so interested in all the things that are supposedly "hidden,"
uncovering secrets and conspiracies, as occultists seem to enjoy.
So the spiritual people you describe here
are interested in spiritual phenomena that are not hidden,
i.e. imperceptible to the five physical senses? Their God or
guardian angel or whatever is a being they can see with their
eyes and hear with their ears and perhaps record on a video or
a tape recorder?
Secrets and conspiracies are things that interest
everybody, not only anthroposophists.
To things that go bump in the night, Tarjei,
Diana
OK, Sleep with your light on and catch the
spooks on camera to make sure they're not occult.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sun Jan 18, 2004 9:57 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on left handedness
At 05:29 18.01.2004, Diana wrote:
(Steiner, of course, spoke against modern
science frequently,
And Steiner says:
"There would be one way,
to be sure, of avoiding mention of the personal element: that
of presenting, explicitly, every detail that proves that the
statements in this book really agree, with every forward step
of modern science."
- An Outline of Occult Science, Preface to the First Edition
"- Our present time cannot
speak about the facts of nature in the same way as Jacob Boehme
spoke about them. But today also there is a point of view which
brings the way of thinking of Jacob Boehme close to a conception
of the world that takes account of modern science. One need not
lose the spirit when one finds in nature only what is natural.
It is true that today there are many who think that one must
slip into a shallow, dry materialism if one accepts the “facts”
discovered by natural science without further ado. I myself stand
completely upon the ground of this natural science."
- Mysticism at the Dawn
of the Modern Age, Epilogue
"The author of this book
is sure that any person, taking his stand on the basis of the
science of the present day, will find that it contains nothing
that he will be unable to accept. He knows that all the requirements
of modern science can be compiled with, and for this very reason
the method adopted here of presenting the facts of the supersensible
world supplies its own justification."
- Theosophy, From the Prefaces to the First,Second, and Third
Editions
"Let us really follow
in the footsteps of these explorers who appear as monumental
figures in the development of modern science!"
- Christianity As Mystical Fact, Points of View
"In modern Science man
is understood as a true reality only in respect of his physical
nature. He must be recognized further as etheric, astral and
spiritual or ‘Ego’ man and then Science will become
the basis of religious life."
- Cosmology, Religion and Philosophy, Chepter 1: The Three Steps
of
Anthroposophy
"Someone can easily believe,
for example, that some statement or other contradicts certain
facts established by modern science. In reality, there is no
such thing as a scientific fact that contradicts spiritual science;
but there can easily seem to be contradictions unless scientific
conclusions are consulted abundantly and without prejudice. The
student will find that the more open-mindedly he compares spiritual
science with positive scientific achievements, the more clearly
is complete accord to be seen."
- Knowledge of the Higher Worlds, Preface to the Third Edition
Tarjei Straume
http://www.uncletaz.com/anthrocritics.html
"The worst readers are
those who proceed like plundering soldiers: they pick up a few
things they use, soil and confuse the rest, and blaspheme the
whole." - Friedrich Nietzsche, Mixed
Opinions and Maxims
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Sun Jan 18, 2004 9:03 pm
Subject: Re: Steiner on left handedness
Tarjei:
Can you cite a few scientific advances
that the anhtoposophical movement as a whole, and the Waldorf
movement as a whole, has rejected that shouldn't have been rejected
and why?
<snip>
Can you quote Steiner where he spoke against
'modern science',
No. I'm not here for a far-ranging discussion
on everything wrong (or right) with Waldorf, or to dice up everything
Steiner said pro and con on modern science. Such discussions
have occurred on the critics list many, many times and can easily
be found there. I'm trying to finish this business with you re:
left-handers in Waldorf schools. (I see quotes up ahead. Sorry,
I just don't have time for a quote war.)
I can quickly suggest people check out this
recent post on critics.
And while you're at it, can you quote me
saying that Steiner was never wrong
Nope. That's between you guys. I was just
explaining why I may have assumed (perhaps incorrectly, if so
I apologize), from your recent postings here, which I have only
skimmed and not followed these intricate arguments in-depth,
that what Steiner says on science, as on most topics, you are
likely in sympathy with. (A convoluted sentence, hopefully you
get my drift – as another poster here said, I sometimes
read Tarjei posts and think ruefully that your English is better
than mine.)
If you read Steiner meticulously, you will
discover that he took a firm stand against the reawakening
of atavistic clairvoyance,
Oh, I know he did.
One frequent area of confusion, I think, is
that when anthroposophists talk about "anthroposophy,"
they each have their own interpretation, or often a very personal
relationship, to the ideas, to their own understanding of the
movement, etc., including fierce disagreements with other anthroposophists.
They pick and choose among appealing Steiner quotes - and become
very offended when someone points out that other Steiner quotes
contradict their personal favorites.
When critics speak of "anthroposophy,"
we take an outsider's perspective, and speak of what we hear,
see, and understand we hear anthroposophists saying – in
public forums, in faculty meetings at Waldorf schools, etc. This
difference leads anthroposophists to often bristle at us and
say, "That's not anthroposophy." Who are we to judge
what's anthroposophy, not being anthroposophists? We take a more
sociological, descriptive approach: "Anthroposophists often
say or do so-and-so," and that, to us, is . . . anthroposophy.
The movement. The public pronouncements, the observable
reality. (Not that we observe it without bias, but that's just
the position we are in.) I think most critics would readily admit
we can't make sense of your internal squabbles.
Anyway – that was a preface to saying,
sure, Steiner spoke against atavistic clairvoyance, belonging
to a bygone era, not suited to modern consciousness etc. But
if you're a fly on the wall listening to anthroposophist chatter,
clearly there is great nostalgia and palpable longing
for said bygone eras. Lip service to "not appropriate today"
- but we can sure have a good time talking about those fantastic
days of yore when humans perceived spirituality directly, "lived
into" the pictures they perceived, watched etheric scrolls
uncoiling, wandered in a dreamy spiritual haze, etc.
As I've said elsewhere, I understand this
nostalgia. The personal appeal to me is probably half the reason
I keep reading this stuff. Once upon a time, events that we can
only read about in myths and fairy tales were "living reality."
Nowadays, we must struggle with our "modern consciousness"
to understand in a new wa . . . bummer!
It also looks to me like this state of consciousness
is what Waldorf teachers aim to induce in their students. Part
of that "recapitulation of pictorial consciousness"
thing? And, if the teacher herself is on a journey of initiation
with her students, presumably there is some value, to her as
well, in this experiential recapitulation of the pictorial consciousness.
as I have said, outside my field of competence;
I'll leave the debate to the experts. The jury may still be out,
I don't know.
The Waldorf world has not noticed that the
jury is not still out on left handers. Elsewhere in education,
it's a closed issue. Left handers are left alone.
So perhaps Waldorf teachers would have
liked to toss left-anded children off clifftops when switching
them wasn't successful if they'd get away with it?
Oh, I thought you were trying very hard not
to tell me what I think? Where did I suggest Waldorf teachers
wanted to toss anyone off a cliff? Quote me please?
I hope all right-handed people who shake
my hand use their left hands for their handkerchiefs so I won't
get all their germs. People should not shake hands with the same
hand they sneeze and cough into. Fear of left hands may be linked
to fear of germs.
Yes, I came across that theory too. Preparing
food and eating with right hand, hygiene with left, thus don't
offer me your left hand.
So the spiritual people you describe here
are interested in spiritual phenomena that are not hidden,
i.e. imperceptible to the five physical senses? Their God or
guardian angel or whatever is a being they can see with their
eyes and hear with their ears and perhaps record on a video or
a tape recorder?
Certain people claim so, certainly. I know,
I know, they're not really spiritual, they can't possibly be
anthroposophists, etc. . . .
If you recall, to many Christians, the central
event occurred when Christ appeared on earth in the flesh,
died, and rose in the flesh. Nothing hidden or imperceptible
to the five physical senses, no need to perceive realities that
other people can't see; had they had video they could've recorded
it, yes – or so the story goes.
Secrets and conspiracies are things that
interest everybody, not only anthroposophists.
No, that's not so, Tarjei. It's a certain
mindset, and it gets very depressing. A great many people have
no use at all for such thinking. I admit, I am probably here
because I find it fascinating, in a morbid way.
I think occultists would do well to try to
move past the obsession with secrets and conspiracies. I think
it's a holdover of days of persecution, it's like an inferiority
complex or something. You do not have to hide your doctrines
anymore - I feel certain Steiner would agree. In the Waldorf
world, it was a strategy that perhaps was once necessary, but
now is counterproductive. You can get plenty of customers now
without having to deal with a lot of angry people complaining
that they were duped and deceived. You don't need those
people; openly proclaiming the doctrines will draw in many like-minded.
Dornach should issue a ruling on this!
I'll post some of the left-handed lore I've
found on the web soon, trying to make it presentable without
spending hours. I don't vouch for its historical accuracy. It
seems a clear picture that negative associations with left-handedness
are found throughout the world in myth, lore and superstition.
Actually, I'm half-afraid to post it and watch Bradford go on
a tear, and actually reinforce rather than help to end justifications
for persecution of the left-handed.
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Jan 19, 2004 3:40 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on left handedness
At 06:03 19.01.2004, Diana wrote:
Tarjei:
Can you cite a few scientific advances
that the anhtoposophical movement as a whole, and the Waldorf
movement as a whole, has rejected that shouldn't have been rejected
and why?
<snip>
Can you quote Steiner where he spoke against
'modern science',
No. I'm not here for a far-ranging discussion
on everything wrong (or right) with Waldorf, or to dice up everything
Steiner said pro and con on modern science. Such discussions
have occurred on the critics list many, many times and can easily
be found there.
I know that during the almost eight and a
half years of the WC list with doubled-up public archives, allegations
of Steiner being opposed to science and rejecting it have been
piling up there. I just wrote two posts here packed with Steiner-quotes
that testify to the opposite. That's the kind of quotes that
you rarely or never see on the WC list, with the exception of
those few that can be twisted to suggest something entirely different.
Steiner considered anthroposophically oriented spiritual science
to be an extension of modern natural science - a discipline
that is firmly grounded in modern natural science.
I'm trying to finish this business with
you re: left-handers in Waldorf schools.
Go ahead, finish the business. But don't get
left- and right-handed occultism mixed up in it.
(I see quotes up ahead. Sorry, I just don't
have time for a quote war.)
I guess that's Peter Staudenmaier's department.
I can quickly suggest people check out
this recent post on critics:
The latest version of Dan Dugan's Waldorf horror story?
And while you're at it, can you quote me
saying that Steiner was never wrong
Nope. That's between you guys.
Between 'us guys'? You're the one who wrote:
"you are recently arguing
that Steiner was a saint and couldn't have been wrong or even
had human imperfections."
That makes it something between you and me,
Diana, especially when I have never argued what you say.
I was just explaining why I may have assumed
(perhaps incorrectly, if so I apologize), from your recent postings
here, which I have only skimmed and not followed these intricate
arguments in-depth, that what Steiner says on science, as on
most topics, you are likely in sympathy with.
No need to apologize to me. What you're describing
here is however common practice in the morally bankrupt PLANS-WC
cult with regard to Steiner and other anthroposophical texts.
(A convoluted sentence, hopefully you get
my drift - as another poster here said, I sometimes read Tarjei
posts and think ruefully that your English is better than mine.)
That's impossible. I'm Norwegian born and
raised and speak English only on rare occasions, and then mostly
with people who speak only broken English.
One frequent area of confusion, I think,
is that when anthroposophists talk about "anthroposophy,"
they each have their own interpretation, or often a very personal
relationship, to the ideas, to their own understanding of the
movement, etc., including fierce disagreements with other anthroposophists.
They pick and choose among appealing Steiner quotes - and become
very offended when someone points out that other Steiner quotes
contradict their personal favorites.
Sound like the PLANS-WC people. They pick
and choose among seemingly repugnant or scandalous Steiner quotes
and become very offended when someone points out that other Steiner
quotes contradict their personal favorites.
When critics speak of "anthroposophy,"
we take an outsider's perspective, and speak of what we hear,
see, and understand we hear anthroposophists saying - in public
forums, in faculty meetings at Waldorf schools, etc. This difference
leads anthroposophists to often bristle at us and say, "That's
not anthroposophy."
It probably isn't anthroposophy. If what has
been spoken from some Waldorf pulpit is watered-down anthroposophy,
there would be no anthroposophy left at all when the PLANS people
have distorted it even further.
Who are we to judge what's anthroposophy,
not being anthroposophists?
Good question.
We take a more sociological, descriptive
approach: "Anthroposophists often say or do so-and-so,"
and that, to us, is . . . anthroposophy.
I see.
The movement.
The movement is the entirety of people worldwide
taking an active interest in anthroposophy and adopting its Weltanschauung.
It includes anthroposophically oriented institutions such as
Waldorf schools, but is not limited to it. There are Waldorf
critics here in Norway who are writing Waldorf and AS horror
stories just like PLANS, but they are constantly talking about
Steiner's ideals and intentions and so on, because they are anthroposophists
of sorts and therefore part of the Anthroposophical Movement.
(These people have been participating on a Scandinavian anthro-list
that I may tell you all about in another post. I have recommended
the PLANS-WC cult to them, but I don't think they're interested
in English language lists.)
The public pronouncements, the observable
reality. (Not that we observe it without bias, but that's just
the position we are in.) I think most critics would readily admit
we can't make sense of your internal squabbles.
That's not surprising. According to the PLANS-WC
cult, all anthroposophists are brainwashed, blind followers of
a rigid doctrine, incapable of self-dependent critical thinking.
How can it be possible for such creatures to squabble about anything?
Anyway - that was a preface to saying,
sure, Steiner spoke against atavistic clairvoyance, belonging
to a bygone era, not suited to modern consciousness etc. But
if you're a fly on the wall listening to anthroposophist chatter,
clearly there is great nostalgia and palpable longing
for said bygone eras.
The world has become so extremely complicated
and challenging and in many respects, unpleasant, with all the
woes of the whole world concerning every one of us that longing
for bygone eras is only natural. Like the longing for the Old
West when men were men and the good guys and the bad guys were
easy to distinguish. Anthroposophists are no exception. They
are human too.
Lip service to "not appropriate today"
- but we can sure have a good time talking about those fantastic
days of yore when humans perceived spirituality directly, "lived
into" the pictures they perceived, watched etheric scrolls
uncoiling, wandered in a dreamy spiritual haze, etc.
And with no self-consciousness, no sense of
'I'. Everyone was part of a group soul, like a pack of wolves.
I've heard that some people long to become werewolves too. That's
why the movie "Wolf" with Jack Nicholson and Michele
Pfeiffer was so popular.
As I've said elsewhere, I understand this
nostalgia. The personal appeal to me is probably half the reason
I keep reading this stuff. Once upon a time, events that we can
only read about in myths and fairy tales were "living reality."
Nowadays, we must struggle with our "modern consciousness"
to understand in a new way . . . bummer!
Exactly.
It also looks to me like this state of
consciousness is what Waldorf teachers aim to induce in their
students.
What? Are the Waldorf teachers trying to make
students into werewolves?
Part of that "recapitulation of pictorial
consciousness" thing?
I don't know what that is, because I'm basically
ignorant of Waldorf pedagogy, but it sounds like pre-history
to me. Evolution past.
And, if the teacher herself is on a journey
of initiation with her students, presumably there is some value,
to her as well, in this experiential recapitulation of the pictorial
consciousness.
Are there any Waldorf teachers on this list
who can enlighten me about this "experiential recapitulation
of the pictorial consciousness" in the classroom?
as I have said, outside my field of competence;
I'll leave the debate to the experts. The jury may still be out,
I don't know.
The Waldorf world has not noticed that
the jury is not still out on left handers. Elsewhere in
education, it's a closed issue. Left handers are left alone.
Like I said, I wouldn't know. Everything pedagogical
has become an enormous political issue here in Norway what the
public schools are concerned. The politicians sit debating on
the TV for hours and hours how they're going to change everything
around. I may be wrong, but I'm left with the impression that
nothing is a closed issue in pedagogy/education, and that the
jury is still out on just about everything.
So perhaps Waldorf teachers would have
liked to toss left-anded children off clifftops when switching
them wasn't successful ifthey'd get away with it?
Oh, I thought you were trying very hard
not to tell me what I think? Where did I suggest Waldorf teachers
wanted to toss anyone off a cliff? Quote me please?
Pardon me, but it looks like you're trying
to cheat here, Diana, by using the same words I used when they
were justified, where they do not apply. You see, you did indeed
tell me what you think when you wrote, "think outside the
box, Tarjei". It was a command, grammatically anyway. That's
why I could say that you were doing like Joel: telling people
what to think. It may have been unfair of me, but it was justified.
Secondly, I did not say that you suggested
Waldorf teachers wanted to toss anyone off a cliff, so your call
for me quoting you on that is unjustified. I wrote:
"So perhaps Waldorf teachers would have
liked to toss left-handed children off clifftops when switching
them wasn't successful if they'd get away with it?"
It was a question based upon my logical conclusion
of your statement about cruel and superstitious practices of
the past, where you lumped the assumed origin of hand-switching,
which has been practiced in Waldorf schools, together with tossing
babies born with deformities off cliffs. You wrote:
"Left handers are different,
because there are far fewer of them, and people always think
something is wrong with someone who is different and feel threatened.
It's the same reason they tossed babies born with deformities
(and sometimes twins) off clifftops."
I believe this quote justifies my conclusion.
Secrets and conspiracies are things that
interest everybody, not only anthroposophists.
No, that's not so, Tarjei. It's a certain
mindset, and it gets very depressing. A great many people have
no use at all for such thinking.
Oliver Stone is not an anthroposophist, but
he did make the movie "JFK," didn't he? It's about
conspiracy. Watergate was a conspiracy. Make a simple search
on this word through any search engine and you'll see how hot
it is.
The PLANS-WC cult has its own set of conspiracy
theories, and it always involves anthroposophists, with Rudolf
Steiner as the sinister Grand Master. There's been all kinds
of talk about the "SWA [Steiner-Waldorf-Anthroposophy] mafia".
Sharon has been spinning tales, to the best of my recollection,
about secret chambers in the Goethanum basement and weird occult
Crowley-inspired dark rituals performed by Steiner in subterranean
corridors. There's been talk about the goal of Waldorf education
being making the students reincarnate as "anthroposophical
beings" and Steiner-clones who will become a master race
and rule the earth and make life miserable for non-anthroposophists.
I understand that you find it depressing.
I admit, I am probably here because I find
it fascinating, in a morbid way.
If I believed PLANS-WC conspiracy theories,
it would be morbid to me too. I'm not saying that you believe
in those conspiracies, but the PLANS-WC cult does paint a very
morbid and sinister and ugly portrait of the Anthroposophical
Movement.
I think occultists would do well to try
to move past the obsession with secrets and conspiracies.
An occultist is a clairvoyant spiritual researcher.
They don't need to spin tales about conspiracies any more than
the FBI does. (The FBI does spin tales, but only to fool the
public and get a higher budget; not tales they believe in.)
I think it's a holdover of days of persecution,
it's like an inferiority complex or something.
That's what I would say about the PLANS-WC
cult and how they portray anthroposophists
You do not have to hide your doctrines
anymore - I feel certain Steiner would agree.
What have I been hiding from you, Diana? Have
I been lying to you or refused to answer any of your questions
or something?
In the Waldorf world, it was a strategy
that perhaps was once necessary, but now is counterproductive.
You can get plenty of customers now without having to
deal with a lot of angry people complaining that they were duped
and deceived.
I'm working on that right now, Diana. As I
mentioned earlier, I sell telephone services for ACN. The giant
competitor in Norway, however, Telenor, which holds 85 per cent
of the market and owns all the lines (remember AT&T?), keeps
doing illegalities and lying to people. It's a big problem. They
steal customers from us even without their knowledge!
I know this has nothing to do with Waldorf
administration, but neither do I. How many times do I have to
say this?
You don't need those people; openly
proclaiming the doctrines will draw in many like-minded. Dornach
should issue a ruling on this!
I can only guess, but I don't think 'Dornach'
rules anything outside the Goetheanum property, except copyright
and things like that.
I'll post some of the left-handed lore
I've found on the web soon, trying to make it presentable without
spending hours. I don't vouch for its historical accuracy. It
seems a clear picture that negative associations with left-handedness
are found throughout the world in myth, lore and superstition.
Actually, I'm half-afraid to post it and watch Bradford go on
a tear, and actually reinforce rather than help to end justifications
for persecution of the left-handed.
I don't think Bradford is dangerous. Besides,
a little tear and flame and fighting can be good for the soul.
That's something i learned from the PLANS-WC cult.
Cheers,
Tarjei Straume
http://www.uncletaz.com/anthrocritics.html
"The worst readers are
those who proceed like plundering soldiers: they pick up a few
things they use, soil and confuse the rest, and blaspheme the
whole." - Friedrich Nietzsche, Mixed
Opinions and Maxims
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Tue Jan 20, 2004 11:59 am
Subject: Re: Steiner on left handedness
Tarjei:
I know that during the almost eight and a half years of the
WC list with doubled-up public archives, allegations of Steiner
being opposed to science and rejecting it have been piling up
there. I just wrote two posts here packed with Steiner-quotes
that testify to the opposite.
A quote war isn't useful because there are
quotes to "prove" either position. If a person says
two contradictory things, one doesn't negate the other, it's
the contradiction that would need explanation. And the way I
read many of your favorite Steiner-on-science quotes, he is not
speaking as a supporter of modern science, but trying to give
"spiritual science" legitimacy and respectability.
It doesn't matter if someone says they support modern
science when they continue proclaiming many things that directly
contradict it, espouse a method that is plainly not scientific,
or, when asked to show how or where science backs up spiritual
claims, suddenly insist the scientific method is all wrong.
The latest version of Dan Dugan's Waldorf horror story?
Thanks for fixing my link. But you have made
the usual obstinate mistake: that isn't Dan Dugan's story. Check
the name. It's Nicole Foss's story. Did you miss this? Do you
think all these people are making these stories up? Or being
coached by Dan Dugan behind the scenes?
I'm Norwegian born and raised and speak
English only on rare occasions, and then mostly with people who
speak only broken English.
Present company included? :)
There are Waldorf critics here in Norway
who are writing Waldorf and AS horror stories just like PLANS,
but they are constantly talking about Steiner's ideals and intentions
and so on, because they are anthroposophists of sorts and therefore
part of the Anthroposophical Movement.
Yes, there are even anthroposophists
who have noticed that Waldorf is covering up some horror stories.
Imagine. <sarcasm> Look at it from the point of view of
the rest of us: Waldorf schools are run by anthroposophists.
Past that point, you can understand why people who feel they
have been burned are impatient with theological subtleties and
internal disputes, and not too interested in what is "really"
anthroposophy. Honestly! Here you are talking to someone (me)
who is actually fairly interested in what is "really"
anthroposophy. Your average Waldorf parent is not. Bizarre situation
eh?
(These people have been participating on
a Scandinavian anthro-list that I may tell you all about in another
post. I have recommended the PLANS-WC cult to them, but I don't
think they're interested in English language lists.)
Well, I was going to ask you to connect us,
but since I started replying to this the other night, I've now
read ahead to this story, and perhaps you needn't bother trying
to hook us up!! What a riot.
I do hope someone is willing to share the
secret of anthroposophical nipples. I'm sure this is the same
breast enhancement secret Dottie is guarding so coyly!!!
The world has become so extremely complicated
and challenging and in many respects, unpleasant, with all the
woes of the whole world concerning every one of us that longing
for bygone eras is only natural.
I agree.
And with no self-consciousness, no sense
of 'I'. Everyone was part of a group soul, like a pack of wolves.
I've heard that some people long to become werewolves too. That's
why the movie "Wolf" with Jack Nicholson and Michele
Pfeiffer was so popular.
I agree. I mean – not that in the days
of hazy clairvoyance, people had no "I" – I really
wouldn't know - but I agree that a longing to belong ("group
soul" expresses it nicely) is behind this nostalgia. Actually,
didn't Steiner say the human head was always trying to turn into
a wolf? Anyone got that lecture lying around? J
Part of that "recapitulation of pictorial
consciousness" thing?
I don't know what that is, because I'm
basically ignorant of Waldorf pedagogy, but it sounds like pre-history
to me. Evolution past.
Yes, only they're suppposed to "live
into" it, or live through it – or remember living through
it, since (reincarnation) all the kids were once there anyway.
And, maybe you didn't realize this, but it's not the "prehistory"
that is taught in other schools.
Are there any Waldorf teachers on this
list who can enlighten me about this "experiential recapitulation
of the pictorial consciousness" in the classroom?
Er, read Bradford's posts, Tarjei.
Left hands-
I'm left with the impression that nothing is a closed issue in
pedagogy/education, and that the jury is still out on just about
everything.
Listen to all these news programs very closely
then, and come back and tell us if you ever hear anyone debating
switching left handers. I'm glad you admit you are not informed
on this topic.
cliff-tossing:
Pardon me, but it looks like you're trying
to cheat here, Diana, by sing the same words I used when they
were justified, where they do ot apply.
Okay. Sorry.
You see, you did indeed tell me what you
think when you wrote, "think outside the box, Tarjei".
It was a command, grammatically anyway.
See, this is why I applaud your facility with
English syntax etc., Tarjei :) "Think outside the box"
could also be a suggestion.
my logical conclusion of your statement
about cruel and superstitious practices of the past, where you
lumped the assumed origin of hand-switching, which has been practiced
in Waldorf schools, together with tossing babies born with deformities
off cliffs. You wrote:
"Left handers are
different, because there are far fewer of them, and people always
think something is wrong with someone who is different and feel
threatened. It's the same reason they tossed babies born with
deformities (and sometimes twins) off clifftops."
I believe this quote justifies my conclusion.
No, it doesn't. I am speaking about the evolution
and persistence of superstitions, sometimes for centuries. In
the later periods they rarely take the blatant and drastic forms
they originally took – and the people holding onto the superstititons
often have no idea of the dark origin of their belief. There
is no implication they would do the same thing. The implication
is that the practice has a history, and that Waldorf teachers
need to learn what it is, in order to better evaluate and place
in context advice they still receive about left-handers. Most
Waldorf teachers who have looked into the matter, I believe,
realize it is misguided and discontinue their "loving"
harassment of the left-handed children in their class. Most Waldorf
teachers are not sadists. When sadistic elements of childrearing
and pedagogy – which persist in Waldorf – are identified,
that's usually when society moves on, and finds better, more
humane ways to treat children. I'm sure Waldorf could do the
same.
Steiner himself, I believe, spoke for progress.
Waldorf is shot through with the brutal German/Prussian childrearing
culture, the teacher as an authority the child should "reverence,"
assumptions about the passive nature of the child (despite Bradford's
feverish dissertations on the tabula rasa). I think Steiner meant
to lighten things up a bit with his talk of love and light.
Steiner said children under age 7 were like
"sacks of flour," uncurious, rarely asking questions.
He was describing, IMO, children raised to be seen and not heard
(perhaps his own upbringing? don't know), and many of his prescriptions
are not useful with today's children, who are raised very differently.
He spoke, at least on some occasions, in favor of kindness to
children. It's just that kindness, in his day, would have have
meant something very different than it does today.
Bradford, I think "sacks of flour"
is even worse than "blank slate," personally. It meant
somewhat the same thing though – the context of Steiner's
remark was that you can make any kind of impression you want
on a small child, the same way a sack of flour will retain any
shape you impress in it, without responding.
I looked for quite some time for an official
Steiner pronouncement about corporal punishment, and I finally
found it. (If anyone's interested I'll find the quote.) Steiner
was opposed to corporal punishment and did tell Waldorf
teachers not to do it. Unfortunately, a lot of practices in Waldorf,
I believe, though I cannot document it, simply derive from common
practices of his day, which were often what we would consider
fairly brutal to children. Children were and are
subjected to corporal punishment in some Waldorf schools today
– 80 years after Steiner told them not to do it. These practices
persist because . . . things persist. Unexamined things
persist.
There – not eloquently stated (re-write
it in the Queen's English if you like, I'm a semi-literate American.)
Perhaps a sensory experience will give everyone
a "picture consciousness" of this problem. Try eating
your next meal, or the next time you have to write anything long
hand, using your non- dominant hand. Come back and tell this
list what it felt like. Perhaps it will give you a "picture"
of why this is a very unkind thing to do to a child.
The PLANS-WC cult has its own set of conspiracy
theories, and it always involves anthroposophists, with Rudolf
Steiner as the sinister Grand Master. There's been all kinds
of talk about the "SWA [Steiner-Waldorf-Anthroposophy] mafia".
I agree with you to some extent. The term
SWA has always made me cringe.
Sharon has been spinning tales, to the
best of my recollection, about secret chambers in the Goethanum
basement and weird occult Crowley-inspired dark rituals performed
by Steiner in subterranean corridors. There's been talk about
the goal of Waldorf education being making the students reincarnate
as "anthroposophical beings" and Steiner-clones who
will become a master race and rule the earth and make life miserable
for non-anthroposophists.
Well, I'm not going to get into a quote war
on Sharon either! Sharon knows her stuff. Contact her if you
want to find her research behind any of her claims, otherwise
you are just as guilty of distortion as you accuse us. The last
part above refers to a Steiner quote about a future age in which
everyone who hasn't seen the light of spiritual science will
have to join groups to be told what to "think, feel, will
and do." A little chilling if you are not an anthroposophist!
Contact her, I bet she has it at her fingertips.
But I do think it has been overquoted. Steiner
must have been running a fever, that one is really over the top.
But he did say it. His pronouncements about future ages on other
planets are highly quotable and, I admit, Waldorf critics are
always tempted to take them and run with them, since they do,
you must admit, make you all look like a bunch of fruitcakes.
In a future age, the physical body will become plant-like, and
we will not reproduce sexually, but via the larynx. On Venus,
we will live like bees in a colony.
Probably critics should lay off those, probably
many Waldorf teachers have never heard of that stuff.
I said:
You do not have to hide your doctrines
anymore - I feel certain Steiner would agree.
What have I been hiding from you, Diana?
Have I been lying to you or refused to answer any of your questions
or something?
I refer to Waldorf PR and recruitment, not
to you, Tarjei, I know you aren't involved in Waldorf. This is
a public list and I spoke in an aside to Waldorfers who might
be listening, as some certainly are.
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Tue Jan 20, 2004 1:23 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on left handedness
At 20:59 20.01.2004, Diana wrote:
Tarjei:
I know that during the almost eight and
a half years of the WC list with doubled-up public archives,
allegations of Steiner being opposed to science and rejecting
it have been piling up there. I just wrote two posts here packed
with Steiner-quotes that testify to the opposite.
A quote war isn't useful because there
are quotes to "prove" either position. If a person
says two contradictory things, one doesn't negate the other,
it's the contradiction that would need explanation. And the way
I read many of your favorite Steiner-on-science quotes, he is
not speaking as a supporter of modern science, but trying to
give "spiritual science" legitimacy and respectability.
He is "trying to"? Frankly, I don't
think "critics" have any understanding whatsoever of
what Steiner was trying to say.
It doesn't matter if someone says
they support modern science when they continue proclaiming many
things that directly contradict it, espouse a method that is
plainly not scientific, or, when asked to show how or where science
backs up spiritual claims, suddenly insist the scientific method
is all wrong.
Steiner did no such thing, but was faithful
to the scientific discoveries, achievements and method of his
own day. What you're describing is distortions.
The latest version of Dan Dugan's Waldorf horror story?
Thanks for fixing my link. But you have
made the usual obstinate mistake: that isn't Dan Dugan's story.
Check the name. It's Nicole Foss's story. Did you miss this?
Do you think all these people are making these stories up? Or
being coached by Dan Dugan behind the scenes?
I've never had a problem with Waldorf horror
stories per se. The problem I have is the stubborn and agressive
unwillingness to accept that there are many Waldorf schools in
the world where horror stories do not occur., and if a Waldorf
school is without horror stories, they're supposedly hiding a
bunch of them in the basement or something.
I'm Norwegian born and raised and speak
English only on rare occasions, and then mostly with people who
speak only broken English.
Present company included? :)
Curiously, I still get mistaken for an American
even by Americans when I speak English, but it may have something
to do with my theatrical background. Or all them Humphrey Bogart
movies like Scarface used to say.
Yes, there are even anthroposophists
who have noticed that Waldorf is covering up some horror stories.
Imagine. <sarcasm>
Like I said, I've never had a problem with
Waldorf horror stories per se. That's not what baited me to the
WC list when I was dumb enough to subscribe there. I joined that
list because of charges against Anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner
and the utter persverion and blasphemy that spiritual science
was subjected to in the hands of those thugs.
Look at it from the point of view of the
rest of us: Waldorf schools are run by anthroposophists. Past
that point, you can understand why people who feel they have
been burned are impatient with theological subtleties and internal
disputes, and not too interested in what is "really"
anthroposophy. Honestly! Here you are talking to someone (me)
who is actually fairly interested in what is "really"
anthroposophy. Your average Waldorf parent is not. Bizarre situation
eh?
To be honest, Diana, I find it very difficult
to take your word for it when you say that you are "actually
truly interested in what is really anthroposophy." I don't
think you are a dishonest person at all, but on this particular
claim, I don't believe you.
Perhaps a sensory experience will give
everyone a "picture consciousness" of this problem.
Try eating your next meal, or the next time you have to write
anything long hand, using your non- dominant hand. Come back
and tell this list what it felt like. Perhaps it will give you
a "picture" of why this is a very unkind thing to do
to a child.
For the record: I once broke my right hand
thumb in high school and wrote with my left hand until it healed,
even at an exam. A little awkward, but my teachers were positively
pleased and I suffered no harm, and I could easily have continued
with the adjustment if necessary. I was 17, and I understand
switching has been done at a much younger age. My mother's aunt
actually lost her entire right arm in her youth and had to adjust.
I read a mail from a man who had been swtitched
as a child and claimed no discomfort and no suffering because
of it.
So I still have no personal position on this
issue.
Well, I'm not going to get into a quote
war on Sharon either! Sharon knows her stuff.
Sharon has not understood a single sentence
of what she has read by Rudolf Steiner or about anthroposophy,
Diana. Not one word. She writes a lot of crap. And the more she
reads about anthroposophy, the more crap she writes about it.
Perhaps I shouldn't be, but I'm amazed that you fall for Sharon's
garbage and swallow it whole.
Contact her if you want to find her research
behind any of her claims, otherwise you are just as guilty of
distortion as you accuse us. The last part above refers to a
Steiner quote about a future age in which everyone who hasn't
seen the light of spiritual science will have to join groups
to be told what to "think, feel, will and do." A little
chilling if you are not an anthroposophist!
Nonsense. Steiner described future spiritual
evolution, corresponding to the Apocalypse of St. John, when
humanity will be divided in two groups: Those who accept the
Christ Impulse and those who reject it. Those who reject the
Christ will not be able to achieve selflessness and will therefore
be dragged down by their own selfish desires. Spiritual science,
or anthroposophy, can help people to find the Christ. What Sharon
is describing is a gross perversion and distortion of this. "Chilling
if you are not an anthroposophist"? That's stupid!
Contact her, I bet she has it at her fingertips.
If you think Sharon has something to contribute
to the understanding of Steiner's works, invite her to Anthroposophy
Tomorrow.
But I do think it has been overquoted.
Steiner must have been running a fever, that one is really over
the top.
And Paul must have been very ill on his way
to Damascus. Joan of Arc was insane, but she didn't get her medication,
poor girl. Francis from Assissi probably had a brain tumor or
something.
But he did say it. His pronouncements about
future ages on other planets are highly quotable and, I admit,
Waldorf critics are always tempted to take them and run with
them, since they do, you must admit, make you all look like a
bunch of fruitcakes. In a future age, the physical body will
become plant-like, and we will not reproduce sexually, but via
the larynx. On Venus, we will live like bees in a colony.
Of course that doesn't make sense to people
who have not made the necessary effort to understand these things,
and if the desire to ridicule is fuelled by hostility and aversion,
the distortions are increased in matching proportions.
"For the preaching of
the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which
are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy
the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding
of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where
is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the
wisdom of this world?" - 1 Corinthians
1:18-20
I refer to Waldorf PR and recruitment,
not to you, Tarjei, I know you aren't involved in Waldorf. This
is a public list and I spoke in an aside to Waldorfers who might
be listening, as some certainly are.
How would I know if anything in your posts
is addressed to me if so much of it is to Bradford or invisible
Waldorfers?
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Wed Jan 21, 2004 10:24 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on left handedness
Diana
Well, I'm not going to get into a quote
war on Sharon either! Sharon knows her stuff.
Tarjei
Sharon has not understood a single sentence of what she has
read by Rudolf Steiner or about anthroposophy, Diana. Not one
word.
Dear Tarjei and Diana,
I have found Sharon to be amazing! AND she
does not get the 'spirit' of what Steiner was saying. She has
so much outer knowledge, and is able to connect the dots in a
way that I find absolutely astounding, and unfortunately she
misses the boat because she is unwilling to consider the spiritual
worlds as a reality. She gathers her information and it stays
just that information; good information and sometimes great information
but that is all it rises to. She actually is on parr with Barbara
G. Walker in my mind. And I am not real sure from the books I
have read whether or not she is a spirit believer or an aetheist.
But it doesn't matter because she has all the FACTS right and
I can use them.
It seems to me, Diana, you contemplate it
or at least are willing to think on it. I do not know if you
always have or its just been over a period of time that you have
been interacting with the Steiner students. Just as you have
been an impact on the Steiner students with your accounts of
ugly Waldorf experiences.
And I have found Sharon to find only that
which she is looking for, which really does not serve the truth
if that is indeed what she is looking to get. But she sure is
filling herself with Steiners work even if she doesn't truly
inwardly get it in her outer mind. Who knows truly unto what
end this will lead her in the future or if it will connect at
some point within. It'd be a shame to study just to prove something
wrong yet sometimes what we think we are doing is having a completely
different affect on our spirit. Even if you do not believe in
one:)
Love,
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Wed Jan 21, 2004 11:35 am
Subject: Re: Steiner on left handedness
Hi Dottie!
I think people have all kinds of different
ways of understanding the world and finding their place in it
and finding meaning. When anthroposophists bemoan the fact that
some people are "unwilling to consider the spiritual worlds
as a reality," they are implying that what they have experienced
and understood as "reality" is everybody's reality.
I feel that it is really not necessary to go around slotting
this person or that person as "spiritual" or not depending
on whether they subscribe to your belief system. There happen
to be a lot of belief systems out there. How people arrive at
certain ones, and why other people reject them, or want to argue
about them :) is fascinating, and my suspicion is that it has
little to do with how inherently "spiritual" they are.
I don't mean this to sound terribly testy
toward you, Dottie, I really admire your recent explorations
and would like to sincerely urge you on!
I have found Sharon to be amazing! AND
she does not get the 'spirit' of what Steiner was saying. She
has so much outer knowledge, and is able to connect the dots
in a way that I find absolutely astounding, and unfortunately
she misses the boat because she is unwilling to consider the
spiritual worlds as a reality.
It seems to me, Diana, you contemplate
it or at least are willing to think on it.
Of course I do. Doesn't everybody? Why do
anthroposophists think they are the only people in town who wonder
and work on these questions? I don't try to "know higher
worlds" a la Steiner's plan these days, no - I find it a
tad narrowly defined. :)
I do not know if you always have or its
just been over a period of time that you have been interacting
with the Steiner students.
I'm not sure what you mean - I'm writing another
post to Tarjei detailing some of this in response to his statement
that I must not be honest when I say I am genuinely interested
in anthroposophy. I was raised very religiously so of course
I had thought about spiritual matters long before I ever heard
of Rudolf Steiner or Waldorf. I don't interact with Steiner students
these days, unless you mean former ones, such as some of my son's
friends (or on-line with adults who are former Steiner students).
And I have found Sharon to find only that
which she is looking for,
I don't want to speak for Sharon, but I think
it is true that Sharon set out to find something - something
that nobody had bothered to even mention the existence of to
her before she uprooted her life to join a Steiner community,
not even knowing it was a religious movement. After it
had all gone wrong, you too might set out to find the reasons.
You catch people in a different frame of mind if you explain
to them what you are offering before they buy houses,
write tuition checks, etc. You can get lots more spiritual receptivity
that way. Honesty is a very good spiritual value IMO.
It'd be a shame to study just to prove
something wrong yet sometimes what we think we are doing is having
a completely different affect on our spirit. Even if you do not
believe in one:)
I agree with you if you are saying that none
of us know where our researches or searches will lead us, into
or away from particular belief systems (or sympathies and antipathies,
to borrow some of Joel's favorite phrases). Especially if many
lifetimes are factored in. I really could see where, if multiple
lifetimes were part of the picture, critics and anthroposophists
might alternate incarnations. :)
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: Daniel Hindes
Date: Wed Jan 21, 2004 5:35 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on left handedness
Diana wrote:
A quote war isn't useful because there are quotes to "prove"
either position. If a person says two contradictory things, one
doesn't negate the other, it's the contradiction that would need
explanation. And the way I read many of your favorite Steiner-on-science
quotes, he is not speaking as a supporter of modern science,
but trying to give "spiritual science" legitimacy and
respectability. It doesn't matter if someone says they
support modern science when they continue proclaiming many things
that directly contradict it, espouse a method that is plainly
not scientific, or, when asked to show how or where science backs
up spiritual claims, suddenly insist the scientific method is
all wrong.
A quote ware might not be useful, but I would
like to see the quotes that show Steiner to be against science.
I quite simply doubt they exist, and you certainly haven't shown
us any. And I mean quotes with sources that I can check to verify
context and accuracy. If you are going to publicly claim that
Steiner was against science, you have the responsibiliy to back
that claim up if someone calls you on this. Otherwise you are
just blowing hot air. Now if your friends Dugan and Staudenmaier
have already done so much work establishing the fact, it should
be fairly simple to cut and paste the quotes that they have used
to establish this and present them here. Now I am aware that,
for example, Staudenmaier has stated in a few places that Steiner
was against science, but I have not found any quotes to support
his assertion. His examples to establish this all seem to involve
wacko anthroposophists doing strange things (and without any
cited sources for those claims either).
This isn't the WC list. If you are going to
make claims, you will be asked to back them up. And sidestepping
the questions of "proof" shows more a biased opinion
than any actual knowledge on the matter.
Daniel
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Wed Jan 21, 2004 4:31 pm
Subject: Inquire Within
At 20:59 20.01.2004, Diana wrote:
Sharon knows her stuff. Contact her if
you want to find her research behind any of her claims, otherwise
you are just as guilty of distortion as you accuse us.
At 19:24 21.01.2004, Dottie wrote:
I have found Sharon to be amazing! AND
she does not get the 'spirit' of what Steiner was saying. She
has so much outer knowledge, and is able to connect the dots
in a way that I find absolutely astounding, and unfortunately
she misses the boat because she is unwilling to consider the
spiritual worlds as a reality. She gathers her information and
it stays just that information; good information and sometimes
great information but that is all it rises to. She actually is
on parr with Barbara G. Walker in my mind. And I am not real
sure from the books I have read whether or not she is a spirit
believer or an aetheist. But it doesn't matter because she has
all the FACTS right and I can use them.
To Sharon's credit, perhaps, she reminds me
of Christina Stoddard who wrote a couple of books in the 1930's
under the pseudonym "Inquire Within."
What you should keep in mind here is the paradox
that today, Rudolf Steiner is portrayed as a right-wing, pan-Germanist,
fascist anti-Semite, but in the 1920's, he was portrayed as a
Zionist Jew and a secret political agent for Moscow. This portrayal
continued throughout the 1930's when fascism and anti-Semitism
flourished not only in Germany, but also in France and Britain
and in the rest of Europe.
For this reason, you must not be misled by
my comarison of these two Steiner-critics (Christina Stoddard
and Sharon) to the point of thinking that Sharon's arguments
would support a national socialist agenda. Sharon is serving
the PLANS-WC cult and the left-wing agenda of Peter Staudenmaier
in the same manner that Christina Stoddard was serving the cause
of fascism in the 1930's. But the arguments related to Steiner's
occultism have some striking similarities, and they are eaually
off base and severly distorted and twisted.
Christina Stoddard wrote two books in the
1930's under the strange pseudonym "Inquire Within":
"Light-Bearers of Darkness" (1932) and "The Trail
of the Serpent" (1936). I do have the latter on my shelf,
and I have previously quoted from one of its chapters in my very
first response to the PLANS-WC argumentation, when I had barely
heard of that organization (or cult):
http://www.uncletaz.com/allegations.html
In this article, which is based upon a dialogue
between myself and Tom Mellett at the Steiner98 list, I quote
the beginning of 'Chapter IX, Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy,'
from "Trail of the Serpent," where "Inquire Within"
quotes an article from the British fascist newspaper "Patriot."
(Scroll down to "The Anti-Semitic, Fascist-Communist Zionist
".)
I think this entire chapter is worth quoting
under the circumstances, so you can all see the striking parallell
between Sharon and Christina Stoddard, or "Inquire Within."
With this in mind, I can understand very well that you find Sharon
amazing, because "Inquire Within" had also done her
thorough homework on Freemasonry, Cabalism, Gnosticism, Syrian
cects, Rosicrucians, Weishoupt's Illuminati, Carbonari, Karl
Marx,, Anthroposophy and Theosophy, Alesiter Crowley and the
Golden Dawn, Yoga, and secret societies in Tibet, America, and
China.
The parrallel between Sharon and "Inquire
Within" certainly has its limits, because the latter appears
to have written the two books in question under the auspices
of certain sections of Freemasonry who may have represented Rudolf
Steiner's most powerful enemies.
Before I venture to quote the ninth chapter
in "Trail of the Serpent" in a later post, I'd like
to share with you some results I have found through a quick search
on the internet:
http://mirrorh.com/timelinead19.html
1932 - Council of Nine - "We
were amazed to discover that links between the modern phenomenon
of the Council of Nine and various occult organizations and esotericists
such as Synarchy, Aleister Crowley and Alice Bailey had already
been brought together with a 'Council of Nine' as far back as
the 1930s. Under the bizarre pseudonym of 'inquire within'',
research by Christina Stoddard, former head of a schismatic Golden
Dawn order called the Stella Matutina, appeared in two books,
Light-Bearers of Darkness (1935) and The Trail of the Serpent
(1936). They sounded a warning about the creation of new religious
belief systems by apparently independent - but in fact connected
- groups. Stoddard herself, like Schwaller de Lubicz and Alice
bailey, held extreme right-wing views, but even she was disturbed
by what she saw as the increasing iron grip of Synarchy on the
esoteric world.
"Stoddard discussed Saint-Yves's
Synarchist objectives, specifically the control of the three
pillars of society, political, religious and economic institutions.
She pointed out that this seemed to be happening in the religious
sphere. Unlike the days when Christianity was the only sanctioned
religion in the West, there were many different belief systems,
making this area harder to control. To reverse this trend, the
religions must first be unified, not by trying to supplant them,
but by absorbing their main elements and effectively creating
a new global religion. The best way of achieving this goal would
be for some authoratative and charismatic leader to take control
by explaining that God or the gods have, over the course of history,
revealed certain truths to different people, which manifested
as apparently disparate religions. But they all emanated from
the same God. All that was needed was an understanding of the
fundamental principles and the higher levels of spirituality
to which mankind may now aspire. Tellingly, Stoddard gave as
the prime example of this Synarchist synthesis the doctrines
of Alice A. Bailey.
"The Trail of the Serpent
describes a secret rivalry between Reuben Swinburne Clymer and
H. Spencer Lewis, who both claimed to be the legitimate head
of American Rosicrucianism. Clymer (a 32nd degree mason), claimed
that he had been given his authority by no less a person than
the social reformer Paschal Beverly Randolph (1825-75) - a friend
of Abraham Lincoln - whom the European Rosicrucians had authorised
to take the Order to America in 1852, many years before H. Spencer
Lewis founded AMORC. The resulting dispute led to Clymer taking
the matter to court, which found in his favor and accepted his
registration of the title 'Rosicrucian' in 1935.
"Clymer claimed that
the doctrines of his society, the Fraternitas Rosae Crucis, were
endorsed by a secret order that directed it from France - called
the Council of Nine. He published a letter from them in 1932,
which proclaimed:
This is the new Dispensation,
and the work of the Spiritual and Mystical Fraternities must
be re-established throughout the world, so that all peoples may
be taught the Law and thereby enabled to apply it towards universal
improvement as the only means of saving mankind... We, the Council
of Nine, have selected your organization, as one of the oldest
in America, to help do this work.
[The Stargate Conspiracy,
Lynn Picknett & Clive Prince, pp. 287-288]"
http://theocrasy.topcities.com/33westcott.htm
Miss Stoddard was one of the
"Ruling Chiefs" of the Mother Temple of the Stella
Matutina and R.R et A.C.14 Stoddard informs us that the Stella
Matutina was a by-product of the research initiated by the Quatuor
Coronati Lodge. As the "Members of Forty" in the Mother
Research Lodge received enough occult information to organize
debased sub-Masonic lodges, they assisted Masons of degenerate
character who would carry out the work. Stella Matutina was founded
by two Englishmen near the beginning of the 20th century, each
respectively members of the formerly opposed lodges, the Grand
Orient and English Grand Lodge. The Grand Orient Mason was Aleister
Crowley (1875-1947), who had been initiated into the 33rd degree
in Mexico. (A photocopy of Crowley's Grand Orient credentials
is in Appendix 2, Fig. 28.) The other co-founder was 33rd degree
English Grand Lodge Mason, Dr. William Wynn Westcott (1848-1925),
a London coroner.(15) These sub-lodges became known as co-Masonry,
since women were permitted to join. Soon, via the sub-lodges,
witchcraft and drug abuse spread everywhere, even into the highest
circles of society. Satanic jewelry became commonplace. Rituals
incorporating mind-altering drugs, orgies and blood sacrifice
were discreetly carried out in the heart of the London slums
and on remote ancestral estates.
http://www.hermeticgoldendawn.org/Documents/Bios/GDhistory.htm
In addition to the Paris temple,
the supporters of MacGregor Mathers established family temples
in London (1900, 1913, 1919), and Edinburgh (1912). There was
also a hybrid group known as the Cromlech Temple (1913) which
was a joint effort created by the Edinburgh A.O. temple and some
Anglican clergymen. Some individuals who were initiated into
the A.O. would later establish new magical groups. Dion Fortune,
a student of psychology, left the Order in 1922 to form the "Fraternity
of the Inner Light." Paul Foster Case would later go on
to create his own organization, the "Builders of the Adytum.
Meanwhile, Dr. Felkin established the Smaragdum Thalasses Temple
of the Stella Matutina in New Zealand in 1912. The New Zealand
Order became known by the Maori name of Whare Ra or “the
House of the Sun.” Back in England, Felkin established three
more temples of the S.M. in 1916. These included the Hermes Lodge
in Bristol, the Merlin Lodge, and the Secret College in London.
The primary focus of Felkin’s group was on astral traveling.
Felkin’s abilities as the leader of a magical Order were
somewhat lacking compared to Mathers. He went searching all over
Europe for the Secret Chiefs of the Order in physical form. The
teachings of the Order suffered as a result from public exposure
by Miss Stoddart.
http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/anti-masonry/miller_e/miller_e.html
Occult Theocrasy relies heavily
on the published works of self-described 33° freemason, Domenico
Margiotta; the hoaxers Dr. Karl Hacks and Leo Taxil and their
creations, Diana Vaughan and Dr. Bataille;3. the imaginary Miss.
Vaughan's promoter, Adriano Lemmi; anti-mason, Samuel Paul Rosen
(1840-1907), theosophist, Alice Bailey (1880-1949); Taxil's supporter,
Clarin de la Rive; antisemite, Nesta H. Webster and the still
anonymous "Inquire Within".
"Inquire Within" and her authorship
is also of great interest to neo-Nazis:
http://www.stormfront.org/rpo/CHURCH.htm
http://www.stormfront.org/rpo/POLITIC1.htm
Sweet dreams,
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Thu Jan 22, 2004 5:06 am
Subject: Re: Steiner on left handedness
Tarjei, I gotta drop the arguments about science,
just lack of time.
To be honest, Diana, I find it very difficult
to take your word for it when you say that you are "actually
truly interested in what is really anthroposophy." I don't
think you are a dishonest person at all, but on this particular
claim, I don't believe you.
No doubt we mean different things when we
say we are "really interested in anthroposophy," but
I am honest in my claim and not trying to say anything cynical
or coded by that. I assure you my interest in anthroposophy is
genuine. I had never heard of anthroposophy before the local
anthroposophists opened a Waldorf school three blocks from my
house. We literally wandered in off the street with our 3-year-old
one rainy weekend afternoon, seeing the "Open House"
sign on the street. (It was something to do to keep an active
preschooler entertained, and it seemed fortuitous because we
were starting to look for a preschool.) We were entranced by
the atmosphere, the wholesome activities, I believe I already
referenced the tissue paper butterflies!! the soft lights and
pastel colors, the felted gnomes and knit bunnies, the teacher
in her apron reciting a fairy tale, and we were warmly encouraged
to come back. They did not serve the kids oreos and purple koolaid,
they spoke against TV, which we rarely allowed our son to watch,
and they did not show videos. We said, "Where do we sign?"
When they asked me to help in the classroom, I thought it would
be wonderful. (And in fact it often was.) (So you see, they practically
hired me off the street, what a mistake that was.) J
Within a few weeks, I fully understood that
the place was run on, by, and for anthroposophy. I also realized
that other parents, who did not spend hours a day at the school
as I did, did not understand this. I was not deterred or alarmed
by this – I thought anthroposophy sounded fascinating. I
was thrilled in fact, I was very interested in anything alternative
(and was not nearly as cynical about anything New Age as I am
now). I had joined a new movement and there was much to learn
and much work to be done. I was not opposed to anything New Age,
I can read Tarot cards and I had gone to Goddess worshipping
circles and similar stuff (didn't everybody?), I had been reading
about homeopathy, and I would have told you of course I wanted
"holistic" education for my son. Most Waldorf parents
are seeking something nontraditional in education – something
gentler, less rigid. (Ha!!!) I joined the anthro study groups
and went to faculty meetings (which also include much Steiner
study). Before that year was out, I had decided to become a Waldorf
teacher. Of course, there was the problem of . . . Steiner. I
worked really hard, I studied and asked questions, I tried really
hard to believe. I did exercises and meditations. I read all
this stuff, Tarjei, many volumes of Steiner (much of it on my
own), over the course of the 3 years we were involved with the
school. I planned to become a Waldorf teacher, I went to conferences
and worked with 3 different teachers. For a long period, I thought
surely these people must be misinterpreting Steiner, and when
I had my own class, I would do things right. Even well past the
point we were disillusioned with the school and knew we couldn't
keep our child in there, I was still a sincere student of anthroposophy.
It was only these people who were screwing up what should
be a beautiful thing, I told myself. (In other words, maybe they
weren't "really" anthroposophists?)
It took MONTHS – no – YEARS for
me to begin to accept that the beautiful dream was just that,
and that the problems really were systematic and could not be
understood without reference to the underlying belief system,
and the culture that comes out of it. The stories from too many
schools were too similar.
So, of course when I read it now I have a
quite different perspective than when I started, but I truly
cannot be accused of not having studied anthroposophy seriously
and sympathetically, and attempted to "do the work"
(as critics are always told we cannot possibly have done; we
supposedly only repeat what we hear from Dan Dugan). I read anthroposophy
and participated in study groups (3 of them) for about 4 years
before I ever heard of Dan Dugan. (I wanted to be a Waldorf teacher
and I was told explicitly that would require an in-depth and
very difficult study of Rudolf Steiner, because everything in
the classroom is based on Steiner's indications.) I am usually
trying not to laugh on the critics list, when anthroposophists
condescend to me that I obviously know very little about anthroposophy
or Waldorf schools. I am wrong, they say, to imagine that anthroposophy
explains what happens in Waldorf classrooms. Tell that to the
teachers I worked with.
Obviously, my motivations for continuing to
study it have changed a lot now, but they are entirely sincere.
I do not aim to trash a movement, hurt individuals, destroy other
people's spirituality (which I doubt is that fragile anyway).
I am not an "Opposing Power" (referring to this list's
charter) nor working for dark gods – I am a very ordinary
mother (with an interest in education; I've tutored reading for
a long time). I do want to understand – what happened to
me, my son, many of my son's friends, the other children I saw
trying to make sense of their experience, many other people with
whom I have since discussed Waldorf in different parts of the
world.
Yes, my interpretations changed fairly drastically
over time, as I became clearer on the source of the problems
(and, after our son transferred, we saw the way schools work
that are not run by adherents to an unusual and totalizing
belief system). My fascination with anthroposophy has not changed
at all. Perhaps it is sick, obsessive (friends think so; they
would be much more comfortable if I joined another cult
rather than continuing to fret about this one; everybody's into
something like this, Feng Shui, Buddhism, you name it). C'est
la vie in this the New Age. I think because I was raised very
religiously I will always be drawn to similar systems and communities
and interested in religious belief systems. In my observation
the many "New Age" religions are not much of an improvement
over the hellfire and brimstone I was raised with.
For the record: I once broke my right hand
thumb in high school and wrote with my left hand until it healed,
even at an exam. A little awkward, but my teachers were positively
pleased and I suffered no harm, and I could easily have continued
with the adjustment if necessary. I was 17, and I understand
switching has been done at a much younger age. My mother's aunt
actually lost her entire right arm in her youth and had to adjust.
I read a mail from a man who had been swtitched
as a child and claimed no discomfort and no suffering because
of it.
It varies by individuals, obviously. A small
percentage of people are completely ambidextrous, fully comfortable
with either hand, and others have varying amounts of difficulty
using the non-dominant hand. Some people can easily write with
one hand and do everything else with the other. For others, it
is more difficult, for some it is virtually impossible and very
painful. I fall in that category and so do many people. It really
is genetic, though I realize the mere thought of genes determining
anything gives people here the shivers; sorry, some things are
genetic. So some people can be "switched" without trauma,
probably, but many cannot. It is unnecessary and unnatural anyway.
I don't know if it's easier when you're older or younger –
perhaps that varies among individuals as well.
It is also quite different to do it temporarily
for an obvious reason like breaking your thumb – rather
than, as a small child, to have this painful and confusing thing
forced on you for no apparent reason.
Steiner described future spiritual evolution,
corresponding to the Apocalypse of St. John, when humanity will
be divided in two groups: Those who accept the Christ Impulse
and those who reject it.
Ayyyyiiiiiiiiiieeeee. Once again, that's how
you get me to run for the hills, Tarjei, dividing humanity into
those who accept Christ and those who don't, no thank you, been
there and done that. What a stupid threat it is, why do religious
people think it is progress to divide humanity into camps this
way, it is very primitive thinking if you ask me. Hey, ask me
again next lifetime.
Of course that doesn't make sense to people
who have not made the necessary effort to understand these things,
I repeat that I have made strenuous efforts
to understand many of these things. I admit I find it hard to
maintain open-mindedness toward Steiner's more ludicrous predictions.
and if the desire to ridicule is fuelled
by hostility and aversion, the distortions are increased in matching
proportions.
Sometimes, I agree, the desire to ridicule
is fueled by hostility and aversion. Sometimes a desire to ridicule
is a natural response to something . . . ridiculous.
"For the preaching
of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us
which are saved it is the power of God.
Yes so I've heard – thanks anyway.
How would I know if anything in your posts
is addressed to me if so much of it is to Bradford or invisible
Waldorfers?
Tarjei, just ignore it if it isn't relevant
to you. There is no way these discussions could proceed at all
without moving on and ignoring many interesting points –
unless you have 14 hours a day for this as Bradford seems to.
Diana
[Continues
in another thread]
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Thu Jan 22, 2004 1:25 pm
Subject: Re: Steiner on left handedness
Daniel wrote:
A quote ware might not be useful, but I
would like to see the quotes that show Steiner to be against
science. I quite simply doubt they exist, and you certainly haven't
shown us any. And I mean quotes with sources that I can check
to verify context and accuracy. If you are going to publicly
claim that Steiner was against science, you have the responsibiliy
to back that claim up if someone calls you on this. Otherwise
you are just blowing hot air. Now if your friends Dugan and Staudenmaier
have already done so much work establishing the fact, it should
be fairly simple to cut and paste the quotes that they have used
to establish this and present them here. Now I am aware that,
for example, Staudenmaier has stated in a few places that Steiner
was against science, but I have not found any quotes to support
his assertion. His examples to establish this all seem to involve
wacko anthroposophists doing strange things (and without any
cited sources for those claims either)
Daniel, I merely redirect you to my previous
statement:
(I wrote) "It doesn't matter if someone
says they support modern science when they continue proclaiming
many things that directly contradict it," and perhaps that
will get you started.
Do you think the
methods in "How to Know Higher Worlds" are "science"?
Are the descriptions of ancient "Atlantis" science?
Are the predictions of future "incarnations" of our
planet as "Venus" and "Saturn" science? Are
karma and reincarnation science? Do you really need me to find
these quotes for you?
Get real. Dugan and Staudenmaier did not have
to do "so much work" to establish the incompatibility
of "spiritual science" with what the rest of us consider
science. All they had to do was crack open a random volume of
Steiner off the shelf.
I originally stated that the movement as a
whole is skeptical of or insulated from scientific advances,
thus being slow to catch on that switching left handed children
isn't done anymore elsewhere. If you'd like the original Steiner
quote on left-handedness, I can find that for you – or you
can easily find it yourself at the bobandnancy site, where this
idiocy is still being promoted. Yes Daniel, I "claim publicly"
that saying that left-handedness is due to karmic weakness is
not science.
Tarjei then tried to start a discussion of
whether Steiner was "against science," and I said I
didn't have time. I don't have an obligation to have this discussion
just because your feathers are ruffled by obvious statements
about Rudolf Steiner's relationship to modern science.
Diana
[Continued
in another thread]
...................................................................................................................................
From: Daniel Hindes
Date: Thu Jan 22, 2004 5:18 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on left handedness
Diana wrote:
(I wrote) "It doesn't matter if someone says they
support modern science when they continue proclaiming many things
that directly contradict it," and perhaps that will get
you started.
Do you think the methods in "How to
Know Higher Worlds" are "science"? Are the descriptions
of ancient "Atlantis" science? Are the predictions
of future "incarnations" of our planet as "Venus"
and "Saturn" science? Are karma and reincarnation science?
Do you really need me to find these quotes for you?
Daniel replies:
If this is what you believe, then the correct statement is, "much
of what Steiner wrote appears to me to go against modern science."
Steiner repeatedly said that he felt his work was in accodance
with the methods of science. It is, of course, entirely acceptable
to doubt this and claim it untrue. If that is your position,
then I would encourage you to state it as such. Simply stating
that "Steiner was against science" is a misrepresentation
of Steiner's own position. Say instead, "Although Steiner
repeatedly reiterated his support for modern science, I feel
that the bulk of his work is incompatible with such a stance."
While it may take more words, it accurately represents your views.
Stating "Steiner was against science" does not accurately
represent Steiner's views. This may appear a minor point, but
I feel that honesty is important.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diana wrote:
Get real. Dugan and Staudenmaier did not have to do "so
much work" to establish the incompatibility of "spiritual
science" with what the rest of us consider science. All
they had to do was crack open a random volume of Steiner off
the shelf.
---------------------------------------------------
Daniel replies:
Very well. I am inclined to agree that Dugan and Staudenmaier
have not done much work in their attempts to misrepresent Anthroposophy.
The quotes they have they mostly got from other longtime opponents
of Anthroposophy in Europe. I find it somewhat dishonest for
them to pretend that they found them entirely on their own. Staudenmeier's
first article had a bare minimum of Steiner quotes, all taken
from secondary sources. His subsequent work benefitted from the
work of Peter Zegers in Holland, where I am guessing he got his
sudden familiarity with the arcana of Steiners 300-odd volumes
of work, a familiarity that would ordinarily take years of research.
However, he merely has a list of useful quotes, he does not actually
know the contents of the books they are taken from, and has never,
to my knowledge, addressed the question of whether they accurately
represent the central themes and general thesis of the works
they are taken from. He pretends to great knowledge, and appears
quite erudite. But has he really read 50 odd Steiner books cover
to cover in an attempt to understand their contents?
Diana wrote:
I originally stated that the movement as a whole is skeptical
of or insulated from scientific advances, thus being slow to
catch on that switching left handed children isn't done anymore
elsewhere. If you'd like the original Steiner quote on left-handedness,
I can find that for you – or you can easily find it yourself
at the bobandnancy site, where this idiocy is still being promoted.
Yes Daniel, I "claim publicly" that saying that left-handedness
is due to karmic weakness is not science.
Daniel replies:
And you might have noticed that I did not challenge you in this
observation. It is not my intention to simply be contentious
for the sake of being contentions. I only brought up issues where
I believe there are misstatements. Now to your example, you imply
that because Steiner appears to be against science in one recommendation,
we can infer that Steiner was against science. While this makes
for good rhetoric, I do not believe that it makes for good logic.
Generalizing from one example is not scientific. Even several
dozen examples would not suffice. It would be necessary to examine
the work of Steiner as a whole. Nor is it logical to judge Steiner
by the behaviour of his followers (though I should note that
you have not done this here). If you want to judge Karl Marx's
thinking, you do not look at Central American leftists or even
Russian communists. You examine the work of Karl Marx.
Diana wrote:
Tarjei then tried to start a discussion of whether Steiner
was "against science," and I said I didn't have time.
I don't have an obligation to have this discussion just because
your feathers are ruffled by obvious statements about Rudolf
Steiner's relationship to modern science.
Daniel replies:
Were it that simple. You made a blanket statement, as a statement
of fact, and I objected. It does not matter what caused you to
make this statement. And I would suggest that a casual disregard
for truth and a lack of responsibility for your own statements
is not a sign of knowledge or an open mind. Implying that it
is my problem becacause my feathers were ruffled is, again, a
cheap way out. This isn't the WC list. If you make claims that
I feel are incorrect, I will ask you to substantiate them. Here
you cannot rely on a gallery chanting "but we all know it
is so". I am asking you here to prove it, or back down from
your statement.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Fri Jan 23, 2004 7:16 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on left handedness
Diana wrote:
I think people have all kinds of different ways of understanding
the world and finding their place in it and finding meaning.
When anthroposophists bemoan the fact that some people are "unwilling
to consider the spiritual worlds as a reality," they are
implying that what they have experienced and understood as "reality"
is everybody's reality.
Hey Diana,
Glad you are sticking around:)
Just for clarity I am a christian and can't
speak for anthroposophist and how they feel. All most all of
the people I am in contact with, Buddhists, Islamist, Hinduist,
Christians, Anthroposophist, Zenists:) tend to hold a very similar
spiritual reality. And in this spiritual reality they have come
to know a basic: we are more than the body and live on after
death. And they have also come to know, even those on a beginning
journey, there are ways to 'know' this reality.
Now Anthroposphists may have a particular
view of how this spiritual world plays out because it feels self
evident to them along with their particular studies, which include
all the great religions of the world for the most part.
When I speak of Sharon not considering a spiritual
reality it is not as a judgement rather as a statement of my
experience of her. She is really great at getting all the facts
and does indeed miss the meat of what she is gathering. And,
so what? Where a problem comes in, is when her 'facts' get twisted
in her interpretation of the thing she rejects exists: spiritual
world/unseen world/or whatever you want to call it.
Diana
I feel that it is really not necessary to go around slotting
this person or that person as "spiritual" or not depending
on whether they subscribe to your belief system. There happen
to be a lot of belief systems out there.
Dottie
I don't think I have seen anyone do that here
at least to my knowledge nor on the former Ark. Who cares if
they subscribe to my paritucular belief system whatever that
is. My personal belief system consists of a fact I have found
to be true: there is a spiritual reality that is unseen by the
naked eye but yet can be felt if one so wishes to check it out.
And Apops as a whole look to all the great
religions for learning. They are not set to one particular group
of beliefs that anihilate the others; they are inclusive.
Diana
I don't mean this to sound terribly testy toward you, Dottie,
I really admire your recent explorations and would like to sincerely
urge you on!
Dottie
Diana, I kind of grew up on the wc list. Testy
is a small word compared to what I experienced over there. I
trust you.
Dottie:
It seems to me, Diana, you contemplate
it or at least are willing to think on it.
Diana:
Of course I do. Doesn't everybody?
Dottie
I don't think so. And I think 'so what if
they don't'. But we can also at why a man like Peter Staudenmaier,
unbeliever in the spiritual worlds, thinks he knows of what a
man like Dr. Steiner, believer in spiritual worlds, thinks. I
mean to the point he claim Steiner was an aethist at one point
in his life. I mean truly Diana how ridiculous. And to prove
his point he looks to the book A Philosophy of Freedom and claims
only the apops who defend Dr. Steiner on the critics don't know
of this fact: they are ignorant of their own history and he,
Peter, knows better.
Diana
Why do anthroposophists think they are the only people in
town who wonder and work on these questions?
Dottie
I don't think they do. And I have'nt heard
anyone ever say something like this. Just because apops hold
true to what they find or study does not mean they judge others
to not be working on spirit questions. If anything, it seems
to me, they know that all spirits for the most part work on these
questions, even if it is not known outwardly to a person living
their lives unawares of this spiritual reality. Dr. Steiner had
a great respect for many of the great philosophers who did not
hold the spirit worlds as a reality. He dug where their minds
took them as they truly fought to come to an understanding. And
Peter uses these thoughts as his proof of Steiners aetheist moments
as well.
Diana
I don't try to "know higher worlds" a la Steiner's
plan these days, no - I find it a tad narrowly defined. :)
Dottie
Yeah, well that book is a hard book for many
people once it gets past a certain point. I even find it hard
for many of his students to embrace the simple Cristic understanding
that call us to a higher degree of reverance for all.
Have you read the book? I was truly inspired
by the various ideas of reverance to all that is around us. It
seems to me that the critics took that to mean we had to obey
others and so forth. I feel they miss the heart part of how when
one lives a reverant life towards all living beings grace abounds
in so many ways and we are truly enriched in our lives as we
grow older. It doesn't take being an anthroposophists to understand
this concept.
And what is so great about Steiner is this
I just found in A Philosophy of Freedom:
No outside authority, however benign or exalted,
can motivate a free deed. Steiner emphatically rejects obedience.
It is not an appropriate motivating force to free individuals.
If my moral decisions merely conform to social norms and ethical
codes, "I am just a higher form of robot." Instead
of trying to obey, I should strive "to see why any given
principle should work as a motive." Even the most high minded
obediance is not free unless I have first decided for myself
why this code should govern me at this moment.
I find you to be a great thinker and I thought
of you when I bought this book called Intuitive Thinking As a
Spiritual Path. I may not be aa great thinker in the minds of
all but I can recognize them:) I was thinking this would be a
good book for many people apops or not. It's amazing to lift
oneself out of everyone elses thoughts and to think ones own
and to know the route one has taken to know ones own thought.
I imagine many other great philophers must speak to the same
thing although I have not read them.
Diana
I don't want to speak for Sharon, but I think it is true that
Sharon set out to find something - something that nobody had
bothered to even mention the existence of to her before she uprooted
her life to join a Steiner community, not even knowing
it was a religious movement.
Dottie
And that is something that many people on
this list and also those who dared to speak up on the critics
can empathize with. I know I definitely can and I have heard
others say the same thing.
Where the problem comes in is that Sharon
wants to show the occult understandings of Steiner when she has
none. She can show the words and that is all. And for someone
like me that is great. But she does a great disservice to Steiner
because how she interprets his work was not his intent. Peter
Staudemaier does the same thing but he is well aware of his own
agenda. He has not been hurt the way Sharon feels inside for
her and her family. He is a man who has lost all self respect
when he can knowingly put words together that do not represent
the words of the man he deems to understand. His two word quotes
and rest inuendo bespeaks ill of him and I truly do not understand
why he would do that. The only thought I have is that he is such
a conservative hard fought aethist that aims to prove his point
by taking Steiner on. Only he can't because he has no leg to
stand on other than his quippy 'if it does not fit you must aquit'
way of bespeaking history.
Sharon on the other hand is an extremely bright
caring woman who has a lot to offer and she was deeply hurt by
her particular warldorf school in many different ways not the
least being that she was a FreeThinker (atheistic leanings) and
was not cleared that this scholl has religious/spiritual underpinnings.
But I think she does herself a huge and I
mean huge disservice in that she tries to interpret from her
particular set of beliefs that of a man who holds the opposite
to be true. I have a great respect for her and it does sadden
me that she seems not to be able to realize how her belief sets
get in the way of correctly interpreting what Dr. Steiner was
sharing. She does not have to agree with him, and can completely
go the opposite way, but to say she knows what he was intending
to say really does her and others who may not know of her hardened
hurt heart, regarding this particular experience) a diservice.
Diana
After it had all gone wrong, you too might set out to find
the reasons.
Dottie
Again, I am right there with you as are others
who so spoke in favor of Lisa and others. And you will find many
who can understand this.
Where the issue is, is that in order to show
their point one has to demonize Steiner. One has to take Steiners
words out of context to show that Steiner thinks giving children
medicine and allowing them to die is part of their karma.
Diana
Especially if many lifetimes are factored in. I really could
see where, if multiple lifetimes were part of the picture, critics
and anthroposophists might alternate incarnations. :)
Dottie
And this is why I refuse, or at least hope
to refuse, judging others by who they are today. I take in the
concept that these are all my teachers and how I react or treat
them is my way of living this particular concept.
And it may seem funny to you and then to others
but I agree about the possibility of alternating in the manner
you speak above. And this thought keeps me humble. And it is
true that Dr. Steiner speaks of this very concept which is where
I picked it up from. And that is reverance towards others, for
the mystery is not revealed and is in fact hidden. Go figure:)
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Sat Jan 24, 2004 7:07 am
Subject: steiner on science, or why are left handers mistreated?
Well, Peter Staudenmaier and Peter Farrell
have saved my butt on this one, and I am very grateful, since
I worship in the great Cult of Peter (all hail Peter!) :)
Seriously thank you to both Peters.
I do not mean to offend you, Daniel, but it
honestly is not a topic that interests me greatly. The parts
that interest me, I can find in a jiffy. (Pages are dog-eared.)
:)
I think Peter S. is correct that it is you,
rather than me, who took a rather concrete statement such as
"Steiner spoke against" something and demanded I defend
it as if I had, or should have, written a dissertation on Steiner's
overall position on a rather large topic. I alluded to Steiner's
attitudes toward science in a discussion of why some of his followers
today continue to believe (against scientific evidence) that
left-handedness is a defect requiring remediation. I am not,
therefore, required to write a treatise on Steiner's views on
science, or the compatibility of his views with science.
I do maintain that if you speak "for"
science on Monday, or declare your own work to be based on the
scientific method, but on Tuesday you proclaim that in the future
humans will live on Venus, you are likely to be remembered as
a person whose views were not compatible with modern science,
and not many people (outside a very small group of loyal followers)
will even be interested in straightening out why you held such
contradictory positions. Still to my own argument it is irrelevant.
Inarguably the movement has been slow to notice, or care, that
"science" today does not support "remediation"
of left-handedness. I should have perhaps left people to wonder
for themselves whether this attitude might have anything to do
with the founder's stated positions regarding modern science.
I would suggest there may still be a tendency
among anthroposophists and Waldorf teachers to reassure themselves
that, although they recognize that some of their methods aren't
supported by "science," that's just because science
hasn't caught up with them spiritually. This attitude itself,
of course, is anti-scientific, and if Steiner really thought
the scientific method should be used (I do "get" that
he viewed himself as applying the scientific method to spiritual
researches), then these people would really be working against
Steiner's own indications. I suggest, though, that the contradictions
are just too much to work with, in practical terms, for people
"on the ground" (i.e., Waldorf teachers), and the result
is that people usually do what they were taught or encouraged
to do by mentors, other faculty at the school etc., for reasons
that are really neither "scientific" nor "spiritual."
Most Waldorf teachers probably do not have
time to sit around reading the latest neuropsychology research.
Like most of us, they keep doing what is "done" in
their small world.
you imply that because Steiner appears
to be against science in one recommendation, we can infer that
Steiner was against science.
This is your mistake, Daniel, I don't imply
that. I said he frequently spoke against science. It led you
to feel the need to see Steiner's overall views on science clarified,
but it was not necessary to my purposes, and this has nothing
to do with my "honesty."
Even in his day, there was no "science"
showing anything defective about left-handedness, so for Steiner
to blithely advise teachers that of course left handers should
be switched, was in itself an affront against science. Scientists
don't make practical recommendations based on thin air, the Akashic
Record, or karma.
It would be a lot more interesting to me if
you had any actual information, Daniel, or even suggestions,
on why Steiner may have spoken "against science" on
the treatment of the left-handed. Is there any evidence, anywhere,
of any sort, to your knowledge, that Steiner knew anything
about handedness, causes of, effects of, indications or contra-indications
for remediation, methods of remediation, psychological effects
on children thereof, etc.? (For instance, for a long time it
was thought that switching left-handers might cause stuttering.
This theory also has now been discredited.) Did Steiner have
anything to contribute on this topic? Did Steiner have
any qualifications to contribute to a discussion of handedness?
Where did he get his degree in neuropsychology or even teacher
training? (Did he ever say anything else on handedness,
laterality, brain hemispheric dominance, etc., that is now taken
seriously by scientists? not to my knowledge) How many left-handed
children did Steiner observe? How many right-handed children
did Steiner observe, and how did he reach his conclusion that
they differed spiritually from left-handed children? Did he ever,
even once, work with a child personally to switch their hands?
What reason is there to believe that he did not just shoot his
mouth off when some Waldorf teacher asked him his opinion about
left-handed children?
Even several dozen examples would not suffice.
It would be necessary to examine the work of Steiner as a whole.
If I wished to write a treatise on Rudolf
Steiner and the Modern Scientific Outlook, yes, but I have almost
no interest in this topic. (Which is why I was pleased to see
people who do step in.)
Nor is it logical to judge Steiner by the
behaviour of his followers
I have no interest in "judging Steiner,"
hence your difficulty in even forcing me to debate his views
of science. I was discussing the treatment of the left-handed
in Waldorf schools; it is you who sees Steiner, by implication,
"judged," and reacts emotionally.
Left-handed children are still sometimes switched
in Waldorf schools. The practice is anachronistic, often harmful,
and should be abandoned. The reasons it is done are occult-derived.
I thank Peter Staudenmaier and Peter Farrell
for their useful and relevant contributions to the topic.
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Sat Jan 24, 2004 9:30 am
Subject: Re: steiner on science, or why are left handers mistreated?
Diana
I have no interest in "judging Steiner," hence your
difficulty in even forcing me to debate his views of science.
Dottie
Wow, look how fast the cult of Peter works:
live in action. Suddenly we have Daniel 'forcing' Diana into
a debate. Whew. Pretty sickening to me. Sorry Diana, but this
is too much. You should see what this looks like from the outside
the cult of Peter.
Diana
I was discussing the treatment of the left-handed in Waldorf
schools; it is you who sees Steiner, by implication, "judged,"
and reacts emotionally.
Dottie
Reacts emotionally? Oh jeez I am having icky
flashbacks of stupid critic speak. Can't you speak your own mind
without needing help from the two Peters to clarify for you 'what
was really going on'?
Diana
Left-handed children are still sometimes switched in Waldorf
schools. The practice is anachronistic, often harmful, and should
be abandoned. The reasons it is done are occult-derived.
Dottie
Bullshit. They are Steiner derived. He was
a human being just like you and all the rest. He lived a life
and he studied and he got what was going on and he sought to
share it. He was human Diana, get it? God, how quick your response
turned once informed by the two Peters. Ick! Seriously.
Diana
I thank Peter Staudenmaier and Peter Farrell for their useful
and relevant contributions to the topic.
Dottie
You must be kidding me right? Can you not
trust your own mind and your own thoughts without having them
tell you "what was really being said"?
Too bad,
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: Daniel Hindes
Date: Sat Jan 24, 2004 8:48 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] steiner on science, or
why are left handers mistreated?
Diana,
I don't read the WC list. If you are going to refer to Peter
Staudenmaier and Peter Farrell's statements on a conversation
over here, could you please forward the texts you are relying
on so we can read them here? I know Tarjei sent us his response
to things Staudenmaier said to this list, but if you are going
to reference the entirety of their statements, I think it would
be helpful for you to include them here.
Daniel