Disrespect
From: golden3000997
Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 5:16 am
Subject: Disrespect
Hello Frank! Welcome back!
Did you read the three posts of mine from
2/1/04?
I did respond to Staudemeir's opinions in
a way that tried (at least) to be very objective. I also included
an article that goes into the need for defining what is meant
by "science".
I have also, in these posts and a former one
stated that there is a distinction between "Anthroposophy"
per se and Waldorf Education in that Anthroposophy as delineated
by Rudolf Steiner is an investigation of both the sense perceptible
and supersensible worlds in a manner in keeping with scientific
method; and Waldorf Education is NOT a Science per se, but an
Art arising from the results of that scientific investigation.
I also strongly feel that statements such
as this one by Staudemaier lump ALL Anthroposophists, and by
inference, ALL Waldorf Teachers as being anti-scientific. This
in itself borders on the libelous. True, there may be some teachers
whose natural inclinations tend to keep them immersed in the
artistic expressions of Waldorf Education such as color work,
music, story, etc. But to state categorically that every such
person has no interest in and has a stated antipathy toward Science
in general is false and demeaning to such persons. To infer that
a teacher who has immersed himself or herself in Chemistry, Physics,
Geometry, Biology or any other "mainstream" science
is "tainted" in some way by contact with Rudolf Steiner's
ideas and therefore cannot and will not teach Science objectively
is also false and shows no respect whatsoever for the individual
backgrounds of the teachers, many of whom may have far more "mainstream"
education in Science than Mr. Staudemaier does.
Science, in this case "mainstream"
science, is constantly changing it's perspective and turning
over its previous assertions. To infer that any person who disagrees
with the contemporarily popular declarations of this mainstream
science must be anti-scientific or lack any knowledge or expertise
in a scientific field is false and disrepectful. There are many
tenets of yesterday's science which have been overturned and
new evidence (especially in the fields of physics, astrophysics
and biochemistry) that very much tend to support ideas that Rudolf
Steiner discussed nearly a century ago. The very concept (still
radical, but much more widely accepted now) that following quantum
physics leads to "something" that is "nothing"
is Science opening the door to the Supersensible. When atomic
theory is followed fearlessly to its own conclusion, a physicist
finds that you can break down molecules into atoms and atoms
into protons, neurons and energy. But just as there is "empty
space" between molecules that make up an apparently solid
object, so there are "spaces" between the protons,
neurons, etc. in which the physicist can observe various "activities"
that are still at this point non-sense-perceptible. "Something"
holds it all together - organizes the form of the atom and thereby
the molecule. "Something" energizes and activiates
it. "Something" creates definable laws for it's appearance,
qualities, effects, lifespan and interaction with other atomic
matter. "Something" has brought atomic matter into
existence and theoretically speaking, may have the ability to
take it out of existence. "Black holes" being an example.
A scientist of growing plants is just as much
a scientist as a nuclear physicist. By definition, there are
many and wide ranging fields of scientific study and investigation.
Every individual person cannot be expected to be an expert in
every field. But Waldorf Educators, generally take a very active
interest in new results produced by mainstream science. Maybe
often more so than educators that one can find in other educational
systems such as the public school. The State of Georgia has recently
passed legislation prohibiting the use of the word "evolution"
in the public school classroom. Teachers in the state school
system at large are not only discouraged from applying scientific
methodology to investigate natural phenomena for themselves,
they are also subject to the dictation of the State as to what
they are allowed to say or not say about science in the classroom.
I have never heard of a Waldorf Teacher or
an Anthroposophist who spoke or acted in a way as to indicate
that he or she had no use for science, discounted the findings
of science in a wholesale manner or who objected in any way to
the use of a true scientific method of inquiry.
I think that before a meaningful discussion
of the relationship of Spiritual Science to Science-at-Large
can take place, many definitions must be stated and agreed upon
beforehand. The word "Science" itself is broad and
applicable to many lines of inquiry, many disciplines and many
practices and practical applications from agriculture to medicine
to engineering to astrophysics. These disciplines and applications
each have many sub-divisions and proponents of theories that
range from broad to minutely specific. They also consist of theories
and theorists who mildly to vehemently agree and disagree.
At the same time, the word "Religion"
and it's subdivision "Cult" have broad and specific
applications. The use of the word "cult" by Waldorf
Critics is sloppy and undefined. In its broad definition, there
are many "sciences" which can be labeled as "cults"
as certainly many religions, mainstream and otherwise.
What I have witnessed happening with our "guest"
Diana Winters on this forum is the technique of bringing forth
a problem in the theory or practice of Waldorf Education and
(only by extension) Anthroposophy. Then she asks the forum members
to refute her assertions using sources outside the "cult"
of Anthroposophy, especially by broad definition, "mainstream
science" (my quotes). Several members of this forum have
thoughtfully and carefully answered her assertions through educated
and logical arguement, not wild emotionalism or mindless "Anthro-bible"
thumping (my term). When presented with such answers, she refuses
to respond directly to them point for point as written and she
treats both the response and the responder with a great deal
of disrespect. In other words, she asks questions but she doesn't
really want them answered and refuses to acknowledge the answers
given. I am not saying that she should out of hand AGREE with
the answers given. Only that she should acknowledge them and
the intelligence and research that has gone into them as being
as objective and insightful as her own opinions and in some cases,
even more so.
I believe that Diana left so suddenly and
hurriedly after a particular exchange that I know that she took
great offense to but did not say so to the open forum. Daniel
had responded in depth and with much time and evident effort
to her questions. Her response indicated that she had not even
considered his arguements or points seriously even though they
were direct answers to her questions. In the next day or two,
I forwarded a "joke" with some "country quotes",
one of which was about wrestling with pigs and getting muddy.
Diana e-mailed me off list and pointed out this reference. She
left the next day. My equating the "discussion" between
her and Daniel with wrestling with pigs came about through my
aggravation at her inability and/ or lack of willingness to acknowledge
the value of Daniel's efforts at a sincere and thoughtful reply
to her questions.
Since Diana feels free to leave this forum
and take with her whatever bits and pieces of our preceding conversations
with her and to post them to a group who has not been following
the entire thread or background of these discussions, I will
take a similar liberty and state on this forum that I find Diana's
style of "debate" specious and immature. She, in my
opinion, hides a great deal of ignorance and lack of ability
to think through a particular question by couching her statements
in a pseudo-intellectual writing style and the use of many "buzz
words" that I do not believe she really understands the
meaning of. She says that she "is not really interested
in science" yet demands that all applications of Waldorf
Education, Anthroposophical Medicine and Curative Eurythmy be
backed up with research from "science." She uses offensive
and denigrating words such as "quack" "quackery"
"cult" and "mind control." in relation to
the above without either defining those terms or substantiating
her claims. When brought into question or presented with an opposing
point of view that is sustainable by logical thought and everyday
perception, she backs off the issue completely.
Basically, Diana Winters, Sharon Lombard,
Dan Dugan, Peter Staudemeir and others involved in the Waldorf
Critics or PLANS movements operate from a double standard. They
challenge the premises, findings and applications of Anthropsophy
and its "daughter" movements of Waldorf Education,
Anthroposophical Medicine*, Eurythmy, etc. to provide justification
and backup for assertions and practices, yet they do not believe
themselves to be responsible for providing such back up for their
criticisms. Their arguments and assertions are full of holes
and when discussed point for point by proponents of Rudolf Steiner's
work, they side-step specific issues and try to distract the
conversation to unrelated and emotional elements of statements
torn out of context and unrelated to the subject under consideration.
(* I wish to mention here for the benefit
of anyone reading this post who may not be familiar with Anthroposophical
Medicine that Anthroposophical Doctors must first be fully trained,
qualified and licensed practicing physicians in the country and/
or state in which they live and work. The four year medical course
given in Europe is taken IN ADDITION TO the mainstream medical
training that they have already received. Anthroposophical doctors
are NOT trained in a course such as naturpathic "doctors"
who do are not required to be licensed MDs.)
To conclude, I personally take great offense
at the tactics which have been used and are currently being used
to attempt to discredit all work arising from Rudolf Steiner's
directions and teachings as well as the direct attacks on students
of Anthropsophy who have been portrayed as a uniform group of
brainless "followers" of a cult leader or "guru."
The amount of disrespect and denigration of the wide variety
of people actively engaged in understanding and applying the
work of Rudolf Steiner would not be tolerated by proponents of
other educational philosophies such as those of Maria Montessori,
other research establishments such as the American Cancer Society
or other religious institutions such as the churches of leaders
such as Billy Graham, John Hagee, Dr. James Kennedy, etc..
I would ask that the members of Waldorf Critics
and PLANS desist in these offense tactics and either concentrate
on their legal agenda or engage in a fair, respectful and open
debate on specific issues.
Christine Natale
February 5, 2004
...................................................................................................................................
From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 6:39 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Disrespect
Dear Christine,
No, I hadn't read those posts, having been
on sabbatical from most lists. I just jumped in on Tarjei's Staudemaier
quote - which should teach me a lesson. I agree with and
appreciate your clear and informed exposition of the issue, and
would suggest that if anyone is a member of the WC list, it should
be forwarded to them. Thanks.
Frank
Hello Frank! Welcome back!
Did you read the three posts of mine from
2/1/04?
I did respond to Staudemeir's opinions
in a way that tried (at least) to be very objective. I also included
an article that goes into the need for defining what is meant
by "science".
.......
...................................................................................................................................
From: Mike Helsher
Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 7:19 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Disrespect
Thanks yet again Christine for another wonderful
post. You wrote:
I also strongly feel that statements such
as this one by Staudemaier lump ALL Anthroposophists, and by
inference, ALL Waldorf Teachers as being anti-scientific. This
in itself borders on the libelous. True, there may be some teachers
whose natural inclinations tend to keep them immersed in the
artistic expressions of Waldorf Education such as color work,
music, story, etc. But to state categorically that every such
person has no interest in and has a stated antipathy toward Science
in general is false and demeaning to such persons. To infer that
a teacher who has immersed himself or herself in Chemistry, Physics,
Geometry, Biology or any other "mainstream" science
is "tainted" in some way by contact with Rudolf Steiner's
ideas and therefore cannot and will not teach Science objectively
is also false and shows no respect whatsoever for the individual
backgrounds of the teachers, many of whom may have far more "mainstream"
education in Science than Mr. Staudemaier does.
Thank you for wording that so well. I have
form the first time I read his writings felt as you have stated.
His antipathy toward anything to do with Steiner is quite obvious
to me (and yes, very tainted by my life experience), and yet
he says that he does not have a "negative judgment of the
religious character of Steiner's work." Well, he obviously
does not have a positive one either. And it seems to me that
he cast's aside the "religious nature of Steiner's work''
completely. Except of course the theory of reincarnation, which
is of a religious nature, which he conveniently utilizes to construct
his theory of Anthroposophy being "racist to the core."
I don't know much about science, but the "disrespect"
is evident to me none the less.
Science, in this case "mainstream"
science, is constantly changing it's perspective and turning
over its previous assertions. To infer that any person who disagrees
with the contemporarily popular declarations of this mainstream
science must be anti-scientific or lack any knowledge or expertise
in a scientific field is false and disrepectful. There are many
tenets of yesterday's science which have been overturned and
new evidence (especially in the fields of physics, astrophysics
and biochemistry) that very much tend to support ideas that Rudolf
Steiner discussed nearly a century ago. The very concept (still
radical, but much more widely accepted now) that following quantum
physics leads to "something" that is "nothing"
is Science opening the door to the Supersensible. When atomic
theory is followed fearlessly to its own conclusion, a physicist
finds that you can break down molecules into atoms and atoms
into protons, neurons and energy. But just as there is "empty
space" between molecules that make up an apparently solid
object, so there are "spaces" between the protons,
neurons, etc. in which the physicist can observe various "activities"
that are still at this point non-sense-perceptible. "Something"
holds it all together - organizes the form of the atom and thereby
the molecule. "Something" energizes and activiates
it. "Something" creates definable laws for it's appearance,
qualities, effects, lifespan and interaction with other atomic
matter. "Something" has brought atomic matter into
existence and theoretically speaking, may have the ability to
take it out of existence. "Black holes" being an example.
Great stuff Christine. Tarjei has a great
section on "science and mathmatics" on his site, with
a cute picture of Ariman, that has caught my interest at times.
This article especially:
http://www.uncletaz.com/library/scimath/brainchaos.html
Which concludes with:
"The importance of developing
a model of brain function which gives a consistent description
of mind, consciousness and free-will, is profound. The model
described links the structural instability of brain dynamics,
quantum uncertainty and the dual-time model. The quantum-physical
brain may thus be more than just an interface between sensory
input and decision-making. It may in fact be a doorway between
complementary aspects of the physical universe, the time-directed
nature of real-particle symmetry-breaking and the time-symmetric
aspect of the sub-quantum domain (King 1989). If so, the role
of consciousness and mind-brain duality may be central to cosmology."
<snip>
not wild emotionalism
Hey, I resemble that remark :)
Basically, Diana Winters, Sharon Lombard,
Dan Dugan, Peter Staudemeir and others involved in the Waldorf
Critics or PLANS movements operate from a double standard. They
challenge the premises, findings and applications of Anthropsophy
and its "daughter" movements of Waldorf Education,
Anthroposophical Medicine*, Eurythmy, etc. to provide justification
and backup for assertions and practices, yet they do not believe
themselves to be responsible for providing such back up for their
criticisms. Their arguments and assertions are full of holes
and when discussed point for point by proponents of Rudolf Steiner's
work, they side-step specific issues and try to distract the
conversation to unrelated and emotional elements of statements
torn out of context and unrelated to the subject under consideration.
Yes. And I often wonder as to the motive and
intent of the"double standard." I understand that some
people have been wronged and hurt by their Waldorf experiences,
and I can muster up some respect for that. But I have not yet
evolved to the point where I can have respect for those who cast
their bias personal ideas into a crowd of people who already
have a justifiable "negative Judgment" of anthroposophy
and Waldorf, and use that group as a kind of cesspool of excitement
to advance their atheistic (and nihilistic IMO) personal political
agenda.
I am working on my personal evolution though,
so there is hope.
I would ask that the members of Waldorf
Critics and PLANS desist in these offense tactics and either
concentrate on their legal agenda or engage in a fair, respectful
and open debate on specific issues.
"Ask and you shall receive?" ..hummm
I wonder.
Truth and Love
Mike
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
February/March
2004
The Uncle
Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files
Anthroposophy & Anarchism
Anthroposophy & Scientology
Anthroposophical
Morsels
Anthroposophy,
Critics, and Controversy
