Cult - NOT
From: golden3000997
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 3:37 pm
Subject: Cult - NOT
In their efforts to acquire a base of support
for their legal efforts against Waldorf Charter Schools, PLANS
has actively sought particular statements by Rudolf Steiner and
passages from published books and books of lectures that can
be interpreted to make Rudolf Steiner, the philosophical movement
known as Anthroposophy and by association, the Waldorf School
Movement to appear to be an elitist, racist organization that
promotes a narrow world view that seeks to involve people in
a cult movement. The words "racism" and "cult"
are powerful buzz words in this culture and are very effective
in promoting an emotional backlash toward any group associated
with them. PLANS has been well aware that the use of these words
would gain them a large number of supporters who may other wise
have no particular objection to the presence of Waldorf Education
in their public school classroom, indeed, who may not have had
any particular interest in it, one way or another. The WC/ PLANS
organization has gone out of its way to paint the Anthroposophical
Movement and everyone in it with the National Socialism emblem
and to associate it emotionally with a neo-nazi cult mentality.
This is a libelous association which does a severe injustice
to the movement at large and to the widely diverse philosophical,
social and political backgrounds of its members and associates.
It is my belief that PLANS has a legal basis for removal of Waldorf
Education from the public school system without this defamation
of character (although support for its objectives may have been
slower to come and smaller in scope). The association of WE/
Anthroposophy with either word must be stopped and irrefutable
evidence brought forward into the arenas of legal and social
opinion that both Anthroposophy and Waldorf Education are in
concept and practice universally human and make no qualitative
or quantitative differential between any persons in respect to
race, creed, color, sex or national origin. In fact, Waldorf
Schools for example are more universally inclusive in both concept
and practice than many private school systems and organizations
and have a curriculum in which is built a basic introduction
to every religious thought system of mankind - ancient and modern.
To my knowledge, no other school system has this claim to make.
As to the use of the word "cult"
in relation to either the Anthroposophical Movement or the Waldorf
Education Movement, this is also a libelous allegation and it
does not stand up against current definitions of "cult"
which can be found in movement such as the following:
www.factnet.org
American Family Foundation (AFF)
Community Resources on Influence & Control (CRIC)
Cult Awareness & Information Centre, Australia
Cult Awareness Network (CAN)
Cult Hotline & Clinic
Cult Information Center (CIC)
Dialog Center International (DCI)
Escape
Ex-Cult Archive
FAIR
Info Cult
reFOCUS Network
Religious Movement Resource Center
Resource Center for Freedom of Mind
The Ross Institute
V.V.P.G. vzw
Watchman Fellowship
Wellspring Retreat and Resource Center
Cult Information Service
The Ex Cult Member Organization
While any group of people whose stated purpose
is to study and possibly put into practice the ideas and teachings
of any individual, living or dead, can be viewed to a certain
point as a "cult", which would include by such definition,
all recognized churches and philosophical organizations, the
use of "cult" in the context of attack against the
Waldorf School and Anthropsophical movements has been an attempt
to associate them with the concept of "coersive persuasion".
Cults which perform the actions and reactions that make of the
technique of "coersive persuasion" use the following
tactics as outlined at www.factnet.org:
HOW TO DETERMINE IF A GROUP
IS A DESTRUCTIVE CULT
Q) Anybody can unfairly attack
a group they disagree with by calling it a cult or saying they
are using coercive mind control. How does FACTNet prevent this
type of problem and determine fairly whether or not a group is
a cult?
A) FACTNet uses specific criteria
to determine if a mind control system has been used, and does
not suggest organizations are destructive or dangerous cults
without careful research and determination that the evidence
fits definite criteria. These criteria are threefold.
The first set of criteria
comes from the group' use of a specific set of mind control tactics.
Please see "A technical overview of mind control tactics"
at http://www.factnet.org/rancho1.htm for details or see http://www.factnet.org/coercivemindcontrol.html for a shorter version. These two
documents are derived from the work of Dr. Margaret Singer professor
emeritus at the University of California at Berkeley the acknowledged
leading authority in the world on mind control and cults.
The second set of criteria
has to do with defining other common elements of mind control
systems, as defined by Robert Jay Lifton's eight point model
of thought reform. Please see "Robert Jay Lifton's Eight
Point Model of Thought Reform" also at http://www.factnet.org/rancho1.htm. If most points in this model are
being used in a cultic organization, it is most likely a dangerous
and destructive cult.
The third set of criteria
have to do with defining common elements of destructive and dangerous
cults. The following section will help clarify what some of those
specific elements and criteria are.
Common Properties of Potentially
Destructive and Dangerous Cults
The cult is authoritarian
in its power structure. The leader is regarded as the supreme
authority. He or she may delegate certain power to a few subordinates
for the purpose of seeing that members adhere to the leader's
wishes and roles. There is no appeal outside of his or her system
to greater systems of justice. For example, if a school teacher
feels unjustly treated by a principal, appeals can be made. In
a cult, the leader claims to have the only and final ruling on
all matters.
The cult's leaders tend to
be charismatic, determined, and domineering. They persuade followers
to drop their families, jobs, careers, and friends to follow
them. They (not the individual) then take over control of their
followers' possessions, money, lives.
The cult's leaders are self-appointed,
messianic persons who claim to have a special mission in life.
For example, the flying saucer cult leaders claim that people
from outer space have commissioned them to lead people to special
places to await a space ship.
The cult's leaders center
the veneration of members upon themselves. Priests, rabbis, ministers,
democratic leaders, and leaders of genuinely altruistic movements
keep the veneration of adherents focused on God, abstract principles,
and group purposes. Cult leaders, in contrast, keep the focus
of love, devotion, and allegiance on themselves.
The cult tends to be totalitarian
in its control of the behavior of its members. Cults are likely
to dictate in great detail what members wear, eat, when and where
they work, sleep, and bathe-as well as what to believe, think,
and say.
The cult tends to have a double
set of ethics. Members are urged to be open and honest within
the group, and confess all to the leaders. On the other hand,
they are encouraged to deceive and manipulate outsiders or nonmembers.
Established religions teach members to be honest and truthful
to all, and to abide by one set of ethics.
The cult has basically only
two purposes, recruiting new members and fund-raising. Established
religions and altruistic movements may also recruit and raise
funds. However, their sole purpose is not to grow larger; such
groups have the goals to better the lives of their members and
mankind in general. The cults may claim to make social contributions,
but in actuality these remain mere claims, or gestures. Their
focus is always dominated by recruiting new members and fund-raising.
The cult appears to be innovative
and exclusive. The leader claims to be breaking with tradition,
offering something novel, and instituting the only viable system
for change that will solve life's problems or the world's ills.
While claiming this, the cult then surreptitiously uses systems
of psychological coercion on its members to inhibit their ability
to examine the actual validity of the claims of the leader and
the cult.
A careful, honest and factual study of Rudolf
Steiner and the Anthroposophical movement will prove beyond a
shadow of a doubt that NONE of the above criteria apply. The
last criterium seems to be the one that the WC/PLANS groups most
want to associate with the WE movement. However, the following
is in fact the truth:
1. Rudolf Steiner carefully placed his teaching
in the context of objective world history and scientific fact
as it was known through 1925. Anthroposophists since 1925 have
constantly re-examined the original world to see if it remains
valid in light of developments in both fields since 1925.
2. There is no social, economic or political
structure in place anywhere in the world by which the Anthroposophical
Society headquartered in Dornach, Switzerland or the Anthroposophical
Society at large can influence anyone to join the movement, pay
money to the movement or limit their personal expression and/or
interpretation of Rudolf Steiner's material. There is no persuasive
element, either obvious or covert that can or tries to put pressure
on anyone inside or outside of the organization to "believe"
anything that Dr. Steiner said or to support through words, deeds
or money any ideas contained in his work or any individuals who
have gone on to work with his ideas. Members of the Anthroposophical
Movement are not under any directive, spoken or unspoken as to
what they wear, eat, read, watch, listen to, say or do. Members
are never encouraged in any way (direct or indirect) to avoid
or ignore other religious teachings, scientific findings or philosophical,
social or political ideologies.
Members are never requested, directly or indirectly,
to locate in a geographic area or to limit or restrict their
contacts with any family members or friends outside the "movement."
Members are never requested or required to reliquish any memberships
or associations with any other religious, political or social
organizations. Members are never limited or restricted in participating
in the work or society of the movement through judgments or evaluations
by other members, other than considerations of basic civic and
ethical proprieties. Members do not hold in "veneration"
any other member of the society, either living or dead, including
Rudolf Steiner, beyond an affectionate respect. Members do not
actively recruit people to join the Anthroposophical Society,
nor is there any such recruitement system in existence. Members
are never solicited for money except for yearly dues if active,
subscription fees for publications and occasional appeals for
economic assistance for specific projects, the response to which
is always voluntary and confidential.
3. Rudolf Steiner never promoted himself or
allowed himself to be promoted as a cult leader or figure. In
point of fact, when the Anthroposophical Society was created,
after a group of people wished to separate themselves from the
Theosophical Society, Rudolf Steiner was asked to be the "President"
of the Society. He refused the position, while agreeing to be
involved as a teacher and lecturer. It was only after the burning
of the first Goetheanum in Dornach on New Year's Eve, 1921, that
Rudolf Steiner accepted the position of the President of the
Anthroposophical Society in an effort to renew the courage and
vitality of the worldwide movement in the face of brutal attack
(my interpretation). Rudolf Steiner maintained avidly the supreme
importance of the individual's study of Anthroposophical concepts
on their own, and their own personal connection with and committment
to those ideas. He refused point blank on many occasions to tell
any person what he or she "ought to do" in any given
situation, personal or Society related. He stated definitively
on many occasions what the result (physical, emotional or spiritual)
was of particular human activities, but he expressly left it
to the individual to do or not do what he or she saw fit.
The other primary objection that I have to
the tactics and strategies of the WC/ PLANS groups is the use
of personal problems as being illustrative of problems to be
found worldwide inherently in the practice of Waldorf Education.
By this I mean, that while each individual parent or family has
a perfect right to express dissatisfaction with the methods and
practice of Waldorf Education in relation to themselves, they
repeatedly infer that Waldorf methods and techniques are inherently
destructive to all students and their families. They also characterize
all Waldorf Teachers and Waldorf Schools as being uniformly alike
and "mindless" in their application of those methods
and techniques. This is far from the truth and borders on a "smear"
campaign. In the stories that I have read so far on their websites,
I find no indication that the whole story is being told or that
the parents feel themselves to have had any responsibility for
the outcomes of the situations they are describing.
I personally have never known two Waldorf
teachers to be exactly alike on anything! I have never known
any Waldorf teachers who are instructed to "take Steiner's
word for it." or who would consent to do so. I have known
Waldorf teachers who were not Anthroposophists and many who considered
themselves Anthroposophists but who also participated in other
religious or philosophical groups at the same time. There were
conflicts from time to time when several teachers, usually with
a group of parents, tried to promote an outside sect (for example,
Sufiism) in a school in a way that interfered with standard Waldorf
curriculum and practice.
I can't even remember having had any "Anthroposophical"
parents in the initiative schools that I taught at. (I'm trying
to remember if there were.) I have had classes of children whose
parents ranged from "pagan" to "Christian"
with everything possible in between. I can't remember any Moslems,
but I have written an article called "Religion in the Waldorf
Schools" which outlines why I think most fundamentalist
Christian or Moslem parents would not choose a Waldorf School
for their children. The Waldorf curriculum is specifically designed
to expose all of the students to all major world religions at
the appropriate age and stage of development of the child. Any
parent with a strong fundamentalist or atheistic view would quite
rightly not choose a Waldorf School for his or her child. Every
parent should be made aware of the Waldorf curriculum and how
it is taught as soon as they approach the school for information.
Lastly, I object to the tactic used by both
the Waldorf Critics and PLANS groups of asking for answers to
their questions or objections then refusing to listen to the
answers or information provided or to acknowledge the honest
and open minded efforts of Waldorf supporters. This is a common
strategy (concious or otherwise) of groups and individuals who
adopt an offensive approach. Questions asked with this motivation
are designed only as springboards to further attacks and the
position in taken in which it is assumed that the side being
attacked will not provide any meaningful answers. The motivation
here is not one of inquiry and research but of adversarial debate.
Since PLANS has a legal agenda to promote, it makes sense to
use the political debate forum as a model. Unfortunately, political
debates are not designed to reach understanding and consenus
of opinion. They are designed to be emotionally charged and devisive
and usually, to mask real problems behind the buzz words and
catch phrases of popular "issues." A real mutual study
of Waldorf methods and educational perspectives in the light
of other philosophies and techniques of education in use today
in both public and private schools would be a really useful tool
for educators and parents in the Waldorf Movement and outside
of it. Like any other practice, in art or science, there is always
room for evaluation and adaptation.
Human beings are never static, children the
least of all. There is something new to be learned every day.
We do not live in the same world as Rudolf Steiner, Maria Montessori,
Piaget, Froebel, Dewey, Aristotle, Albertus Comenius,
Sylvia Ashton-Warner or any other wonderful
educator or educational philosopher that we can study and learn
from. Every idea has to be metamorphosed into today's lesson,
today's experience.
I have heard experienced Waldorf teachers
say that after they have completed an eight year journey with
one class, when they come to take a second First Grade, it is
like they never taught before. The world has already changed
and the children have changed too. So has the teacher. It is
a different concept from the kind of school where a teacher may
teach Third Grade for thirty years, after a while possibly falling
into a "routine" of teaching the same material the
same way, no matter what the children may bring into the classroom,
adapting only to material obtained from time to time through
required "teacher refresher" courses mandated by the
state. This repetition of material has as its very good intention
the goal of making a teacher an "expert" in his or
her field and niche of curriculum. It does not, however, failsafe
against mistakes that the teacher may make, in some cases repeatedly.
It does not guarantee the optimisation of student learning from
year to year. It does not guarantee that every child in a public
school will be understood and evaluated as an individual and
that each child's strengths and weaknesses will be factored into
the learning process by every teacher he meets in the course
of eight years. Waldorf schools cannot make that guarantee, either.
But the fact that the teacher must "live" with the
results of his or her mistakes over the course of eight years
and cannot pass them off to another teacher in the following
year, means that the teacher is inherently making a committment
to self evaluation and continued learning and growth. The smaller
size of any private school and the more intimate working together
of parents and teachers to promote and support the school offers
the opportunity for more frequent dialogue and communication.
It may also lead to more heartbreak when such communication breaks
down, but it is a very human risk and must be weighed against
the kind of state school system where the communication is less
frequent and more artificially constructed and censored.
Waldorf Education requires the following principles,
the three H's of education, from every one of its participants
- parent or teacher:
Honesty - to be ruthlessly honest with one's
self and tactfully honest with each other
Humility - to be ready to learn and adapt to what comes both
from the children and from the community
Honor - to honor both the ideals which live in one's own heart,
mind and soul and to honor what lives in the heart, mind and
soul of the other, whether child or adult
To the extent to which any group that seeks
to criticize or challenge the Waldorf School Movement and its
Members, that group should adopt, promote and defend these three
principles as well.
Christine Natale
February 8, 2004
...................................................................................................................................
From: holderlin66
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 4:10 pm
Subject: Re: Cult - NOT
golden3
Stunning! Superb...thank-you Christine!
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 4:46 am
Subject: Re: Cult - NOT
In a message dated 3/10/2004 3:32:33 AM Eastern
Standard Time, awaldenpond writes:
Subj: Re: Cult - NOT
Date: 3/10/2004 3:32:33 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: walden
To: waldorf-critics@topica.com
Hi Christine,
I openly admit that I was involved in what I consider a "cult."
It took a few years for the realization to reach the surface.
Friends outside of the cult constantly asked about the meetings
I attended regularly. I have no problem now seeing that entire
experience for what it was. To deny the experience is to deny
a few years of my life. The "cult" was anthroposophy
and the outreach was Waldorf. I know many people who have similar
feelings with regards to Waldorf/Anthroposophy - most of whom
have no interest in PLANS. I am speaking of first hand conversations
with people I know.
For what it's worth, I don't see the word "cult" as
a bad thing. If it makes the experience more palatable
for you I would offer "cult-like religious sect." Or
perhaps an NRM (new religious movement).
If anthroposophy helps you make sense of your life
- I respect that. I respectfully ask you, however, to respect
my "cult experience" and get on with helping me share
the very real impulse of anthroposophy and Waldorf education
with those who need and deserve to understand such concepts.
We seem to agree that such vital information is sadly lacking
in Waldorf public relations.
You have not responded to previous posts and I am patiently waiting.
Please, let's get on with it.
-Walden
Hello Walden,
No, I cannot "respect your 'cult experience'
because you have not established for me or anyone else through
recognized criteria that you were indeed involved in a "cult
experience." The only sentence in your post above which
you offer as an example of a phenomena that supports your assertion
that your involvement with Waldorf Education was involvement
with a "cult" is:
Friends outside of the
cult constantly asked about the meetings I attended regularly.
Shall we start a list of groups and organizations,
including every office I have ever worked in which involves their
members attending regular meetings?
Please be so kind as to answer these six questions
below, yes or no and if yes, please give me a concrete example
of such.
As to answering your former questions, I will
when I have time. I am answering many more on this site and on
Anthroposophy Tomorrow and I have previously answered several
of yours. One of your "questions in waiting" is for
me to look at the list of "questions and answers" commonly
given to incoming Waldorf parents and to see if some of the answers
should be revised for more disclosure.
I answered you a while ago that I would try
to find the time around mid-March and I asked you to also prepare
the same list yourself, so that we can compare our answers. Have
you been working on your list of answers?
I look forward to your answers to the six
questions below.
Christine
Six important questions to everyone formerly
or currently involved with a Waldorf School and/ or community.
Can you provide me with an example in which, at any point in
your connection with a Waldorf School or community you were ever
asked to:
1. Join the Anthroposophical Society (other
than if you had initiated the inquiry to do so yourself)
2. Make a financial donation or contribution
to the Anthroposophical Society (directly - not money for school
tuition or a solicitation for financial help for a particular
project.)
3. Make any kind of pledge of money, property,
allegiance or other item of value to the Anthroposophical Society
or to the "Waldorf Movement" as a whole (other than
paying tuition for school or solicitation for financial help
for a particular project such as a building fund or aid to a
school in need.)
4. Recruit family members, friends or strangers
for membership in the Anthroposophical Society worldwide or the
Anthropsophical Society of North America
or were you ever:
5. Told directly or indirectly that membership
of yourself or any other member of your family in the Anthroposophical
Society was a requirement of your child's enrollment in a Waldorf
School.
6. Told that membership in any other religious,
ethnic, political, philosophical or other social organization
would be a condition that would prevent your child from being
enrolled in a Waldorf School.
I would appreciate direct and honest answers
to each of these questions. Not things like "Well, people
looked at you funny if...." or "I was made to feel
uncomfortable about....". I would like actual examples of
any of these events taking place as I have outlined above.
I invite all other "Waldorf Critics"
to answer these six questions directly as well. I have read lots
of your stories (definitely not all of them, I know.) and I understand
that many of you have "felt" "oppressive attitudes"
(my paraphrase) and that sort of thing. What I am looking for
are direct and concrete examples of the above.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation
in this matter.
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 4:50 am
Subject: Fwd: Cult - NOT
From: Dan Dugan
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 12:19 am
Subject: Re: Cult - NOT
To: waldorf-critics@topica.com
DAN DUGAN
Cult-like characteristics
of Anthroposophy include:
CHRISTINE NATALE
Where do you get the definitions
that you have listed?
From my experience. Those
are my personal justifications for my opinion that Anthroposophy
is cult-like. It was a cult while Steiner was alive. Now it's
evolving, very slowly because it's very conservative, into a
religion, but it still clings to most of its cult characteristics.
The history of Mormonism makes a useful parallel.
-Dan Dugan
...................................................................................................................................
From: Myaso
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 5:38 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Fwd: Cult - NOT
Hello golden3000997,
DAN DUGAN
Cult-like characteristics
of Anthroposophy include:
CHRISTINE NATALE
Where do you get the definitions
that you have listed?
From my experience. Those
are my personal justifications for my opinion that Anthroposophy
is cult-like. It was a cult while Steiner was alive. Now it's
evolving, very slowly because it's very conservative, into a
religion, but it still clings to most of its cult characteristics.
The history of Mormonism makes a useful parallel.
ME:
So, you cannot prove it, if you cannot provide
objective measurement system for the world view being religion
or not, especially cult-like.
Okay.
So, I would say that your world view is cult-like
religion.
Studying your letters for approximately 5
years, I found a lot of words that ensured me you yourself are
involved in cult-like religion called PLANS.
First of all, let's use your recent arguments
against you:
--Cult-like characteristics of PLANS include:
* It clings to rejected knowledge.
-- PLANS clings on the rejected issues like "Antropops are
doing anything like Steiner said", however, Antropops are
based on the doctrine to check anything; also PLANS are sure
if you believe in God your own way - it is cult-like religion.
* It requires teachers to commit to the world-view
for advancement in status. (WC mailing list)
* Its core doctrines are not published. (it
does not even exist)
* It is exclusive. (only PLANS has true knowledge
if Waldorf and Anthroposophy)
* It guards revelation of "difficult"
knowledge. (that anything Anthroposophy is related is quite successful
- even business)
* It is a closed system.
(PLANS is a California 501(c)(3) charitable non-profit corporation,
look at their member's names
PLANS Membership (US dollars)
Member: $15 or more per year
Patron: $100 or more per year
Angel: $1000 or more for life)
* It uses jargon that redefines common terms.
(their members use terms in their own desired meaning, for example,
"cult-like religion", "sect")
* It maintains separation from the world by
generating fear and loathing. (Denigrating waldorf schools, "us
vs them" attitude, paranoia)
* It suppresses critical dialogue, resulting
in elaboration but no development of theory. (Consensus government,
"close the schools immediately", "sue me if you
think I am wrong").
Thank you for providing useful list of your
own way of judging world views. Despite it is completely wrong
and useless, THE fact you provided it here shows internal uncertainty
of PLANS in the core issues.
PS: I am NOT an Anthroposopher, either not
member of opposite organization. I am just the independent watcher
for some particular purposes. So, I would not say Steiner was
right, I am just saying you are definitely wrong.
--
Best regards,
Myaso
...................................................................................................................................
From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 8:13 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Cult - NOT
Beautiful, Christine. Thanks.
Frank
In their efforts to acquire a base of support
for their legal efforts against Waldorf Charter Schools, PLANS
has actively sought particular statements by Rudolf Steiner and
passages from published books and books of lectures that can
be interpreted to make Rudolf Steiner, the philosophical movement
known as Anthroposophy and by association, the Waldorf School
Movement to appear to be an elitist, racist organization that
promotes a narrow world view that seeks to involve people in
a cult movement.
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 4:28 pm
Subject: Re: Cult - NOT
Daniel ruminates,
Personal opinions, personal definitions. I
suppose the accepted definition of what constitutes a cult is
too restricting for Mr. Dugan.
Now isn't it one characteristic of a cult
that it redefines common terms to new meanings?
And anyway, what makes Mr. Dugan an expert
on cults? So much an expert, indeed, that he feels qualified
to redfine the term?
Daniel Hindes
----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Dugan
To: waldorf-critics@topica.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 3:19 AM
Subject: Re: Cult - NOT
DAN DUGAN
Cult-like characteristics
of Anthroposophy include:
CHRISTINE NATALE
Where do you get the definitions
that you have listed?
From my experience. Those
are my personal justifications for my opinion that Anthroposophy
is cult-like. It was a cult while Steiner was alive. Now it's
evolving, very slowly because it's very conservative, into a
religion, but it still clings to most of its cult characteristics.
The history of Mormonism makes a useful parallel.
-Dan Dugan
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 5:54 pm
Subject: Re: Cult - NOT
Hello Walden,
Having been a Waldorf Parent and (by your
assertions) heavily involved in the Waldorf school and how it
functioned, I should think that you have some idea of how those
questions should be answered. If not, don't hold your breath
waiting for me to do your "assignment." I was willing
to put myself out for it, but only with an equal effort on your
part.
I am still getting vagueness and "feelings"
from you on the "cult" question. There are concrete
definitions that are objective and able to be measured. If you
will answer the direct questions I asked, then I will be able
to evaluate those answers, or we can evaluate them together,
against the established criteria. If you are not willing to answer
those questions, then I can't take your assertions seriously.
I have already acknowledged and sincerely sympathized with the
fact that you and other have had some "bad experiences"
with Waldorf. But translating those personal experiences into
blanket indictments of the whole worldwide movement is to take
upon yourselves the position of judge and jury. But no matter
how a "judge" or "jury member" feels about
a case, he or she must weigh the facts and evidence against law
and precident and give as objective a judgement as possible.
If you consider my attitude toward your feelings
"disrespectful" - consider the fact that by labeling
Waldorf Education and the Anthroposophical Society as "cults"
(in terms of the definitions which I have been able to find so
far and am still researching), you are completely disrespecting
the intelligence, autonomy, aesthetic awareness and independent
reasoning ability of hundreds of thousands of people worldwide.
This is a big hat to wear, Walden. Are you sure you are really
up to it? Are you sure that your personal experience is the objective
one and none of "our" experiences and thoughts are
objective or have any independent perspective behind them?
I personally have had no contact whatsoever
with any Waldorf or Anthroposophical person or organization for
over 10 years before I joined a couple of internet groups in
the past year. Wouldn't you think that no matter HOW "brainwashed"
I could have been in the past, that a full decade would have
been enough time to "recover" and to recognize the
"terrible" effects it had on my life? And if not, why
am I not "running back" to the "safety and security"
of a Waldorf community of some sort, "confessing my sins
of omission", "asking forgiveness" and to be "taken
back into the fold"? Am I just plain "dumb" or
what? Am I an ignorant person, Walden? Are my bookshelves full
of NOTHING but Steiner books and do I run screaming from any
discussion with a person who doesn't think like I do? Are the
vastly differentiated life experiences that I have had over my
48 years and over all four corners of this country totally irrelevant
to my life and totally invalid as tools for me to evaluate the
meaning and purpose of Rudolf Steiner's influence in my life?
Have you heard the widely individualistic
voices on Anthroposophy Tomorrow, Walden? Have you heard us argue
among ourselves and even criticize each other's opinions and
viewpoint? Have you gotten any glimpse of the amazing individuality
between us all? In my opinion, no two voices among "us"
sound the same - no two life stories are alike and there are
extremely different streams of interest and discussion among
"us". Does this speak to you at all about "cookie
cutter" personalities or relationships with Rudolf Steiner's
work?
In my opinion, there is vastly more similarity
that I find in "your" group of critics among yourselves
in tone, expression and even in the phrases "shared"
between you all when arguing than I can perceive among the "Anthropops"
on the AT site.
I have always respected your personal experience,
Walden - yours and everyone else's who have expressed difficulties
with Waldorf Education, generally or specifically. I have said
so and spent time discussing those experiences seriously and
with the attitude that they are real and valid. I have never
indicated or suggested that anyone only "thought" they
had those experiences because they were too stupid to see the
truth or to understand what was "really going on."
But I have found an appalling amount of disrespect being shown
to me and to other who openly and honestly attempt to communicate
on this forum, sometimes directly, sometimes by implication.
The charge of "cult" is very serious
to me, Walden, as a true cult is the antithesis of human freedom.
It involves surrendering one's intelligence and independent power
of thought, discernment and critical judgement. It involves devotion
based on faith alone and unquestioning allegiance. And it involves
a surrendering of one's will to action and allowing that will
to be placed in the service of an individual or group without
any application of moral or ethical evaluation of that action.
As a person who has spent 48 years rejecting anything in her
life that could ask her or make her surrender her freedom in
any of these areas, I have a passionate antipathy towards the
level of self-righteousness exhibited among you who venture to
"have pity" on me for my stupidity and blindness.
Get the log out of your own eyes before you
start worrying about my splinters.
Christine Natale
March 10, 2004
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Thu Mar 11, 2004 4:20 am
Subject: Fwd: Re Cult - NOT
From: Peter Farrell
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 10:35 pm
Subject: Re Cult - NOT
To: waldorf-critics@topica.com
Christine wrote (extracted
from quite a long post to Walden):
But I have found an appalling
amount of disrespect being shown to me and to other who openly
and honestly attempt to communicate on this forum, sometimes
directly, sometimes by implication.
Peter F. responds:
G'day Christine,
I am amazed that you think
there is a lack of respect here compared to the stupidity that
goes on over on AT. Contributors are treated with much more respect
here than they are there, and yet you are complaining about a
lack of respect here and not there. This makes no sense to me
at all. Walden, among others, is universally respectful. I know
you disagree with Peter Staudenmaier, but he is also always much
more respectful of others' ideas and opinions than any of the
Anthroposphist defenders have been of his.
I agree that the inhabitants
of AT are a diverse bunch, but they do share in common this inability
to dispassionately examine what it is that Steiner said and wrote.
I can understand that the arguments about racism might be difficult.
Arguments of the value of Steiner's work as a scientist ought
not be.
I asked you earlier about
whether St Michael or Steiner was the source of the "Warmth
Course". In so far as the warmth course talks about science,
it is almost completely wrong. There may be something correct
in it but I am yet to find it. To be specific, in Lecture 2 (http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Lectures/GA/GA0321/19200302a01.html) Steiner misstates and distorts well
known science of the time. Johannes van der Waals won the 1910
Nobel Prize for his work on the equation of state for gases (see
http://www.nobel.se/physics/laureates/1910/waals-lecture.pdf) His work gave the higher order corrections
for gases that Steiner gives incorrectly as the change in volume.
van der Waals work effectively refutes everthing Steiner says.
No part of it is correct. As well the mathematical argument is
just plain wrong. Either Steiner was largely ignorant of the
scientific understanding of the time and went ahead anyway without
any care for accuracy or any thought of his own limited understanding,
or he has deliberately distorted it knowing it to be wrong. If
the former is true, Steiner is guilty of arrogance, if the latter,
he is guilty of dishonesty. All of the scientific work of Steiner
that I have looked at, and for which I have some expertise, has
this character. He is often inaccurate to the point of serious
distortion, usually attached to some message related to his particular
version of spirituality, and sometimes to a criticism of scientists
of the time for their stupidity.
This says nothing about the
truth or otherwise of any spiritual matters that arise in it.
But it should act as a call to examine all of Steiner's work
with some skepticism.
Respectfully, Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Thu Mar 11, 2004 4:26 am
Subject: Fwd: Cult - NOT
From: walden
Date: Thu Mar 11, 2004 12:45 am
Subject: Re: Cult - NOT
To: waldorf-critics@topica.com
Christine wrote:
I am still getting vagueness and "feelings"
from you on the "cult" question. There are concrete
definitions that are objective and able to be measured. If you
will answer the direct questions I asked, then I will be able
to evaluate those answers, or we can evaluate them together,
against the established criteria. If you are not willing to answer
those questions, then I can't take your assertions seriously.
I already informed you that I am not interested
in discussing whether you believe my experience. I offered two
dictionary definitions ("anthroposophy" and "cult")
to help you understand, yet I see no acknowledgement of this
in your post.
I have already acknowledged and sincerely
sympathized with the fact that you and other have had some "bad
experiences" with Waldorf. But translating those personal
experiences into blanket indictments of the whole worldwide movement
is to take upon yourselves the position of judge and jury.
No, there was no blanket indictment on my
part. You do not see Waldorf/Anthro as a cult - I do. You seem
to see "cult" as evil - I don't. I have one friend
who openly speaks of his time in Scientology as disturbing, yet
good for him at the time (he *had* a drug problem and is now
clean). His bottom line is that the "cult" helped him
clean up. He has other things to say about the cult but over
all - he thinks it might have saved his life. Another friend
lived in a cult-like community for years (complete with real
life guru) and while he finds it difficult to talk about some
of the goings on, he does not see his time there as wasted or
demonic. This friend was later involved in anthroposophy and
sees it as "cult-like." Again, I am not here to judge
you or anthroposophy, Christine.
If you consider my attitude toward your
feelings "disrespectful" - consider the fact that by
labeling Waldorf Education and the Anthroposophical Society as
"cults" (in terms of the definitions which I have been
able to find so far and am still researching), you are completely
disrespecting the intelligence, autonomy, aesthetic awareness
and independent reasoning ability of hundreds of thousands of
people worldwide. This is a big hat to wear, Walden. Are you
sure you are really up to it?
You did not read what I wrote, Christine.
Please try again. I never said or inferred everyone affiliated
with Waldorf education belongs to a cult. Many people are not
directly involved and simply see it as the best option at a particular
time. Please read what I do write. Or leave it and let's
work on what we agree needs to be done regarding Waldorf PR.
BTW, hundreds of thousands? You might want to check the membership
of the AS.
Wouldn't you think that no matter HOW "brainwashed"
I could have been in the past, that a full decade would have
been enough time to "recover" and to recognize the
"terrible" effects it had on my life?
I did not suggest you are "brainwashed
and did not use the words you "quote" above and continue
with in the rest of your post.
Am I just plain "dumb" or what?
Am I an ignorant person, Walden? Are my bookshelves full of NOTHING
but Steiner books and do I run screaming from any discussion
with a person who doesn't think like I do?
You're losing me here. You seem to have misconstrued
my post and seem upset and that is not a good thing if we are
to work together. FWIW, I did not say you were "dumb"
or ignorant. Actually, I complimented you on your writing.
I feel that we are being pulled away from
something tangible and meaningful. Let's work with the FAQ's,
shall we?
-Walden
...................................................................................................................................
From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Thu Mar 11, 2004 6:07 am
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Fwd: Re Cult - NOT
----- Original Message -----
Tks again a lot Christine.
In the fwd'd message we can see another favourite
riff of the "Cthulhu Heads Band", Namely "Steiner
as incorrect scientist".
How does it play ? It's enough to counter
Steiner's statement hiding oneself behind some "big fish"
authority in this case a "Nobel Prize":- and we all
know what was is the accuracy and seriousness of the "lottery"
(how E:Fermi called it) and most of all the everlasting objective
scientific value of the "discoveries "- shake it welll
and oh-la-la-la !! the drink is on the table.
So everyone is able to claim that Steiner
was:
"racist and co-founder of volkisch movement"
"incorrect scientist"
"twister of christian religion "
"false physician"
"false architect" (this is a little more difficult
to demonstrate but, shake it!, and some WC-head able to "demonstrate"
that the Goetheanum did fall due to RS's inaccuracy and was NOT
burnt will be surely found)
"incorrect philosopher"
Again.
He was also :
"ignorant of every agricultural practice " (in spite
of his close friendship with Hess, Darrè and Mara Von
Pisel whose cousin Heinz was the doorkeeper of an aunt who had
married in her first wedding Goebbel's neighbour Herr. Strudel)
"jew"
"anti-jew"
"bolshevik"
"Workers' Class enemy"
"atheist"
"bigot"
"magician"
" absolutely deprived of any magick"
and so on and on and on ..........
Andrea
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
March/April
2004
The Uncle
Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files
Anthroposophy & Anarchism
Anthroposophy & Scientology
Anthroposophical
Morsels
Anthroposophy,
Critics, and Controversy
