Biodynamic Gardening & Pythagoras
This is a long but entertaining
thead about biodynamic gardening, which I facetiously link to
the Pythagorean theorem. Did Rudolf Steiner misunderstand Descartes
and Einstein as well? And where does Isaac Asimov fit in?
Who was Pol Pot? And BTW,
did Goethe refute Newton?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "ksutphen"
Subject: Biodynamic Gardening
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 07:40:42 -0800
List Members,
Earlier this week I was asked some questions
regarding the appropriateness of Waldorf *method* inclusion in
public schools. It goes without saying that I stated that it
was inappropriate on all levels, even as the *method* applies
to the inclusion of art, rhythmic exercises, etc. All of these
techniques are taught by accredited universities in their teacher
education departments. Why give money to an unaccredited sect/*college*
to teach what can be taught legitimately without the underlying
religious tenets?
Then I was asked, "but what about gardening."
Surely I had no quarrel with incorporating the Waldorf style
of gardening into public school curriculum. Naturally I have
no problem with children gardening and I consider it a valuable
learning experience. However, biodynamic gardening is, once again,
steeped in Anthroposophical beliefs - or so I assume. Perhaps
I am wrong???
Could someone on this list clarify for me
exactly what biodynamic gardening is. Are there spiritual beliefs
that underly the specific practices that would define biodynamic
gardening? What must one do to garden biodynamically?
Thanks for your input.
Kathy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Biodynamic Gardening
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 18:19:47 +0200
Kathy wrote:
List Members, Earlier this week I was asked
some questions regarding the appropriateness of Waldorf *method*
inclusion in public schools. It goes without saying that I stated
that it was inappropriate on all levels, even as the *method*
applies to the inclusion of art, rhythmic exercises, etc. All
of these techniques are taught by accredited universities in
their teacher education departments. Why give money to an unaccredited
sect/*college* to teach what can be taught legitimately without
the underlying religious tenets?
The Norwegian anarchist magazine Gateavisa,
where I am chairman of the board, is receiving annual support
from the Cultural Department, and this year the state has been
exceptionally generous. So I guess that when public money can
be used to support anarchist propaganda against the state in
Norway, it can also be used to support progressive and healthy
cults like Anthroposophy in America.
Then I was asked, "but what about gardening." Surely
I had no quarrel with incorporating the Waldorf style of gardening
into public school curriculum. Naturally I have no problem with
children gardening and I consider it a valuable learning experience.
However, biodynamic gardening is, once again, steeped in Anthroposophical
beliefs - or so I assume. Perhaps I am wrong???
Biodynamic farming is off my turf, but it
proceeds from the understanding of astral forces in the earth,
the sun and moon, and other planets. Certainly enough to make
it ingigestible to WE critics. Gullible people tend to join cults
and sects after eating biodynamic apples and oranges. It's best
to make sure that your fruits and vegetables were grown by atheist
farmers and sprayed with plenty of skeptical pesticides.
Could someone on this list clarify for me exactly what biodynamic
gardening is. Are there spiritual beliefs that underly the specific
practices that would define biodynamic gardening? What must one
do to garden biodynamically?
There are spiritual beliefs underlying everything
anthroposophists undertake. If you hire an anthroposophist as
a dishwasher, the plates and spoons will be infested with energies
and vibrations proceeding from the gods, subconsciously influencing
the thinking of the diners.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Herman de Tollenaere
Subject: Re: biodynamic gardening
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 00:11:22 +0200
Could someone on this list clarify for
me exactly what biodynamic gardening is. Are there spiritual
beliefs that underly the specific practices that would define
biodynamic gardening? What must one do to garden biodynamically?
Kathy
There is some information by Fredrik Bendz
at
http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/pseudo/anthropos.html
There is more information, both by Anthroposophists
and critics; however, the Internet URLs I know at the moment
are in Dutch
best wishes,
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Herman de Tollenaere
---------------------------------------------------------------------
My Internet site on Asian history and "new" religions:
[Obsolete URL]
See also SIMPOS, information on occult tendencies'
impact on society:
http://www.stelling.nl/simpos/simpoeng.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: tatze
Subject: Re: Biodynamic Gardening
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 22:26:32 -0500 (EST)
More info to be found at http://www.biodynamics.com/
Bio-Dynamic Farming and Gardening Association,
Inc. - a source for data, contact information, and books about
the biodynamics approach to ecological farming
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "ksutphen"
Subject: Re: Biodynamic Gardening
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 07:03:32 -0800
Kathy wrote:
Then I was asked, "but what about
gardening." Surely I had no quarrel with incorporating the
Waldorf style of gardening into public school curriculum. Naturally
I have no problem with children gardening and I consider it a
valuable learning experience. However, biodynamic gardening is,
once again, steeped in Anthroposophical beliefs - or so I assume.
Perhaps I am wrong???
Biodynamic farming is off my turf, but
it proceeds from the understanding of astral forces in the earth,
the sun and moon, and other planets. Certainly enough to make
it ingigestible to WE critics. Gullible people tend to join cults
and sects after eating biodynamic apples and oranges. It's best
to make sure that your fruits and vegetables were grown by atheist
farmers and sprayed with plenty of skeptical pesticides.
I appreciate the first sentence in your response,
but I wonder why you continue on in a sarcastic manner. How is
that appropriate to my question here?
Could someone on this list clarify for
me exactly what biodynamic gardening is. Are there spiritual
beliefs that underly the specific practices that would define
biodynamic gardening? What must one do to garden biodynamically?
There are spiritual beliefs underlying
everything anthroposophists undertake. If you hire an anthroposophist
as a dishwasher, the plates and spoons will be infested with
energies and vibrations proceeding from the gods, subconsciously
influencing the thinking of the diners.
What's your problem Tarjei? Didn't I just
read a post of yours in which you state, more or less, that you
are engaging in this list because you want to protect your son's
Waldorf education? How does this type of response contribute
to that effort? I read it as rude and mean-spirited. Unfortunately,
it is the same *flavor* of response I have historically received
from Waldorf teacher trainers/Anthroposophists whenever I posed
questions regarding the Anthroposophical religious beliefs underling
pedagogical practices I was being taught.
The nature of your response elucidates the
attitude Bob Jones is describing on the part of Waldorf supporters
as they take over his community: The *non-believers* are idiots
and we will treat them with the contempt they deserve.
Kathy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Biodynamic Gardening
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 19:11:10 +0200
Kathy wrote:
I appreciate the first sentence in your
response, but I wonder why you continue on in a sarcastic manner.
How is that appropriate to my question here?
I got the impression that to you, anthroposophical
beliefs are a disadvantage that outweigh the advantages of biodynamic
farming, somehow souring the crops. When you first indicate that
this method of farming may be good, but then add, "However,
biodynamic gardening is, once again, steeped in Anthroposophical
beliefs - ", I'm reminded of the Pythagorean theorem,
which should not be taught in public schools because it is steeped
in the spiritual beliefs of Pythagoras, which had much in common
with Steiner.
What's your problem Tarjei? Didn't I just
read a post of yours in which you state, more or less, that you
are engaging in this list because you want to protect your son's
Waldorf education? How does this type of response contribute
to that effort? I read it as rude and mean-spirited.
If I have been rude, I apologize. If I am
mean-spirited, I've caught the virus from WE critics who call
me a nutcase and a gullible nitwit and things like that, and
who say that my view of evolution comes from Nazi war criminal
Alfred Rosenberg. So I'm protecting my son's Waldorf attendance
by firing back without sinking down to the same level.
Unfortunately, it is the same *flavor*
of response I have historically received from Waldorf teacher
trainers/Anthroposophists whenever I posed questions regarding
the Anthroposophical religious beliefs underling pedagogical
practices I was being taught.
The nature of your response elucidates the attitude Bob Jones
is describing on the part of Waldorf supporters as they take
over his community: The *non-believers* are idiots and we will
treat them with the contempt they deserve.
I have not called anyone an idiot or any other
name. I have not launched a single personal attack to date on
this list. And the only thing I have contempt for is the Nazi-allegations.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Kathy"
Subject: Re: Biodynamic Gardening
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 10:40:57 -0800
Tarjei posted,
I got the impression that to you, anthroposophical
beliefs are a disadvantage that outweigh the advantages of biodynamic
farming, somehow souring the crops.
I have no idea if biodynamic techniqus are
a disadvantage and I certainly don't think they could have any
influence on "souring the crops." How did you extract
that from my post? What I was trying to say is that I believe
the teaching of biodynamic gardening in U.S. public schools is
inappropriate because it includes the practice of engaging in
activities that are solely based on Anthroposophical religious
beliefs.
When you first indicate that this method
of farming may be good, but then add, "However, biodynamic
gardening is, once again, steeped in Anthroposophical beliefs
- ", I'm reminded of the Pythagorean theorem, which should
not be taught in public schools because it is steeped in the
spiritual beliefs of Pythagoras, which had much in common with
Steiner.
I'll be relieved when you quit pounding the
Pythagorian Theorem drum. It's a weak link between Waldorf pedagogy
in public schools and teaching the old A2 + B2 = C2.
If I have been rude, I apologize. If I
am mean-spirited, I've caught the virus from WE critics who call
me a nutcase and a gullible nitwit and things like that, and
who say that my view of evolution comes from Nazi war criminal
Alfred Rosenberg. So I'm protecting my son's Waldorf attendance
by firing back without sinking down to the same level.
I must have missed the posts that made these
accusations. I certainly haven't made any of these accusations.
However, I do notice a tendency to insert more information/meaning
into a post than is actually there. (Refer to the 1st paragraph
in this post.) This is an interesting facet of your personality
and tells me something about how you may perceive people that
do not agree with you - at least as far as the disagreement has
to do with Waldorf pedagogy.
Unfortunately, it is the same *flavor*
of response I have historically received from Waldorf teacher
trainers/Anthroposophists whenever I posed questions regarding
the Anthroposophical religious beliefs underling pedagogical
practices I was being taught.
The nature of your response elucidates the attitude Bob Jones
is describing on the part of Waldorf supporters as they take
over his community: The *non-believers* are idiots and we will
treat them with the contempt they deserve.
I have not called anyone an idiot or any
other name. I have not launched a single personal attack to date
on this list. And the only thing I have contempt for is the Nazi-allegations.
Well . . . good. However, you did insert some
interesting meaning into my questions about biodynamic gardening
that simply were not there. I would appreciate it if you would
simply communicate with me in a straight-forward manner - sans
sarcasm and accusation.
kathy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Biodynamic Gardening
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 21:43:30 +0200
Kathy wrote:
I have no idea if biodynamic techniqus
are a disadvantage and I certainly don't think they could have
any influence on "souring the crops." How did you extract
that from my post? What I was trying to say is that I believe
the teaching of biodynamic gardening in U.S. public schools is
inappropriate because it includes the practice of engaging in
activities that are solely based on Anthroposophical religious
beliefs.
Exactly. My metaphor about the crops may have
confused you.
When you first indicate that this method
of farming may be good, but then add, "However, biodynamic
gardening is, once again, steeped in Anthroposophical beliefs
- ", I'm reminded of the Pythagorean theorem, which should
not be taught in public schools because it is steeped in the
spiritual beliefs of Pythagoras, which had much in common with
Steiner.
I'll be relieved when you quit pounding
the Pythagorian Theorem drum. It's a weak link between Waldorf
pedagogy in public schools and teaching the old A2 + B2 = C2.
In this case, the link is quite illustrative,
and I will explain why. Farmers approached Rudolf Steiner and
asked for help, which he provided. Since that time, the problems
with conventional agriculture have increased trendously all over
the world. The use of pesticides and their side effects on the
ecological infrastructure and human health is one thing, the
depletion of the soil during the course of two or three decades
is another. These are some of the reasons for an increasing interest
in biodynamic agrigulture.
About six or seven years ago, I read a report
in the Wall Street Journal about Rudolf Steiner and biodynamic
argiculture. The article mentioned Steiner's alleged clairvoyance
and all that, but the point of the story was the interview with
the farmers who knew little or nothing about Steiner and anthroposophy,
but who practiced this agricultural method because it worked,
because it was effective. Some of it seemed strange, like planting
the seeds when the moon was in a certan phase and so on. The
point was that it worked.
Your objection, Kathy (and I apologize if
I have misunderstood it), is that even if biodynamic farming
is the best in existence, and even if it could save the ozon
layer and the rain forests and the ecology, you would still protest
against students learning about it in public schools because
it is rooted in the spiritual-religious anthroposophical conception
about natural laws, such as etheric and astral forces connected
with the planets and phases of the moon.
By the same token, the law of the triangle
works, it's very good geometry. Still, Pythagoras believed in
the gods and the spiritual universe, and all his works are rooted
in these views. For that reason, Kathy, the drums of the ancient
Greeks as well as the drum of Shakespeare are reminders of the
problem that is inherent in an objection of this kind. I believe
that everyone involved with American public schools and the separation
of church and state would feel relieved if this problem would
disappear.
I must have missed the posts that made
these accusations. I certainly haven't made any of these accusations.
However, I do notice a tendency to insert more information/meaning
into a post than is actually there. (Refer to the 1st paragraph
in this post.) This is an interesting facet of your personality
and tells me something about how you may perceive people that
do not agree with you - at least as far as the disagreement has
to do with Waldorf pedagogy.
I don't think I have written anything that
reflects my perception of you as a person, Kathy. And what Waldorf
pedagogy is concerned, it is outside my area of competence; I
comment mainly on attacks against anthroposophy and its founder,
where my knowledge is more solid.
Well . . . good. However, you did insert
some interesting meaning into my questions about biodynamic gardening
that simply were not there. I would appreciate it if you would
simply communicate with me in a straight-forward manner - sans
sarcasm and accusation.
I have summed up my impression of your attitude
to biodynamic agriculture in relation to public school curriculum:
That is should not be taught because it is rooted in anthroposophically
oriented spiritual science - even if it works. "Souring
the crops" was meant as a metaphor, not literally.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Kopp
Subject: Re: Biodynamic Gardening
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 13:54:09 +1200
Tarjei Straume writes:
[snip the Pythagorean theorem analogy]
I have summed up my impression of your
[Kathy Sutphen's] attitude to biodynamic agriculture in relation
to public school curriculum: That is should not be taught because
it is rooted in anthroposophically oriented spiritual science
- even if it works. [snip]
Point one:
Please show scientifically replicated evidence
that BD "works", and an accepted scientific theory
as to why it does so.
I don't think you can, except for pseudo-scientists
like Lily Kolisko.
BD has about as much validity as any other
scam, such as homeopathy. One of its practices, with diluted
fertilizer, has the same flavour as water with a memory.
Point two:
I don't think Kathy's objection to teaching
BD in public schools is based on the fact that it is _rooted_
(wonderful pun, Tarjei) in Anthroposophical mumbo jumbo. You
and all the other suggestible believers are entitled to do what
you want to and teach what you want to, in private.
I think the objections -- and I agree with
them -- are that:
* it has no scientific credence;
* there is no proof that it works any better
than ordinary agriculture before the chemical era, [*] which
is to say most of mankind's agricultural history, when people
noticed *coincidences* between certain natural events and planting
times;
* its teaching is part of an Anthroposophical
spiritual agenda practiced on unsuspecting children, and, finally;
* because its practice requires children to
engage in ritualistic spiritualism similar to reading horoscopes
and bones; which is a religious practice forbidden by the U.S.
Constitution.
[*] It is perfectly possible for scientific
people to agree that modern agriculture has had problems with
chemical overuse, bad chemicals, and intensive, factory-farming
techniques, without having to invoke a luddite spectre. All of
that is not the responsibility of a scientific establishment,
many of whose members warned about the problems, but of business,
government and public choice (often misled by vested interests,
not scientists). It is also possible for this mess to be cleaned
up, and for science and its users to become more wise in their
practices, without having to go back to labour-intensive, "natural"
farming.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Kopp
Subject: Pythagoras (Was Re: Biodynamic Gardening)
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 16:49:30 +1200
Tarjei Straume quotes an exchange between
himself and Kathy Sutphen:
When you first indicate that this method
of farming may be good, but then add, "However, biodynamic
gardening is, once again, steeped in Anthroposophical beliefs
- ", I'm reminded of the Pythagorean theorem, which should
not be taught in public schools because it is steeped in the
spiritual beliefs of Pythagoras, which had much in common with
Steiner.
I'll be relieved when you quit pounding
the Pythagorian Theorem drum. It's a weak link between Waldorf
pedagogy in public schools and teaching the old A2 + B2 = C2.
OK, Pythagoras was a mystic. So was Kepler.
So was Newton. And many more. But their mysticism did not _inform_
their great scientific achievements, it was their genius to transcend,
in some way, that spiritualism and find something real.
They tried to fit their great discoveries
into their mysticism, because their worlds were still ruled by
mankind's need, pre-Enlightenment, to believe in supernatural
causes because thinking and knowledge were not yet developed
enough to explain the world in rational ways.
I would imagine that few teachers -- outside
Steiner/ Waldforf/ Anthroposophical cult schools -- even know
that these greats also practiced esotericism. It doesn't matter.
Their discoveries and the practice of their science are not reliant
on belief in their gods.
On the other hand, all the supposed great
discoveries of Rudolf Steiner RELY on continued cult mysticism
and a supernatural pantheon of gods, spirits and forces for any
validity. Outside of that pseudo-scientific religious veneration,
they have no meaning.
The fact that Steiner was also a mystic does
not elevate his "science" to the greatness of his similar
predecessors; it simply marks his mysticism as being as wrong
and imaginary as that of those deluded greats.
Steiner was a throwback, not a visionary of
futurism.
Nothing that Steiner said -- like the heart
is not a pump, or is much more than a pump -- has been scientifically
proven and accepted, despite what credulous and uninformed people
like "Lisa" say. The heart may indeed be more than
a pump, but it is still that.
To suggest, as pseudo-scientists like Ralph
Marinelli do, ala Steiner, that the blood is itself the motive
force, or that the heart is a "brain", are ridiculous
on their face, and a misrepresentation of science to fit mysticism
-- much as Pythagoras and the others misrepresented their science
to fit with the prevalent belief systems.
Steiner's "discoveries" are not
taught in all the world's schools, like Pythagoras's and the
others', because they are mumbo jumbo.
And Steiner's "discoveries" WON'T
be taught in schools worldwide, outside of SWA and infiltrated
public schools, because it is vanishingly likely that they ever
WILL be proved.
Footnote: And I can't see the usefulness of
teaching science with the history of its mystical beginnings,
or teaching Greek earth-air-fire-water as reality before getting
to the real hard stuff. SWA always says that this history is
important and gives the student a better perspective on human
development. I say the only purpose for it being there in the
way it's taught -- unscientifically -- is to inculcate the spiritual
basis for all further learning.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Daniel Sabsay
Subject: Re: Biodynamic Gardening
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 00:17:10 -0800
Tarjei Straume wrote
Farmers approached Rudolf Steiner and asked
for help, which he provided.
Lets assume this is a true statement. Of course,
we could quibble about
the word "help". I certainly believe he provided advice.
Since that time, the problems with conventional
agriculture have increased trendously all over the world. The
use of pesticides and their side effects on the ecological infrastructure
and human health is one thing, the depletion of the soil during
the course of two or three decades is another
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dan Dugan
Subject: Re: Biodynamic Gardening
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 01:37:54 -0800
Kathy, you said,
Could someone on this list clarify for
me exactly what biodynamic gardening is. Are there spiritual
beliefs that underly the specific practices that would define
biodynamic gardening? What must one do to garden biodynamically?
To follow the indications of Rudolf Steiner,
of course. He lectured about agriculture. Don't have any of the
lectures, have a Kolisko book on Agriculture, and Adams/Whicher
"The Plant between Sun and Earth."
Impressions: Organic agriculture plus magic.
Planting by planetary aspects. Compost seeded with special preparations.
Homeopathic preparations applied to soil. Half-a-dozen standardized
numbered preparations per Steiner's indications. Quartz used
because of its relationship with light. There's a ritual burying
of a cow's horn filled with manure, to be dug up later and diluted.
-Dan Dugan
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Flannery
Subject: Re: Biodynamic Gardening
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 06:10:39 -0500
Point two:
I don't think Kathy's objection to teaching BD in public schools
is based on the fact that it is _rooted_ (wonderful pun, Tarjei)
in Anthroposophical mumbo jumbo. You and all the other suggestible
believers are entitled to do what you want to and teach what
you want to, in private.
I think the objections -- and I agree with them -- are that:
<snip first two objections>
* its teaching is part of an Anthroposophical
spiritual agenda practiced on unsuspecting children
Could you please outline how this might occur
as part of a gardening curriculum in any school, waldorf or public?
* because its practice requires children
to engage in ritualistic spiritualism similar to reading horoscopes
and bones; which is a religious practice forbidden by the U.S.
Constitution.
Again, how might children might be expected
to practice "ritualistic spiritualism" in such a school
program?
Are you differentiating between a gardening
program in a school and the practice of biodynamics by farmers
and home gardeners?
Robert Flannery
New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Flannery
Subject: Re: Biodynamic Gardening
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 06:25:37 -0500
Kathy opines:
What I was trying to say is that I believe
the teaching of biodynamic gardening in U.S. public schools is
inappropriate because it includes the practice of engaging in
activities that are solely based on Anthroposophical religious
beliefs.
What's the evidence for this conclusion? How
are you differentiating, if at all, the practice of biodynamics
from the gardening curriculum in a waldorf school?
Earlier, you made a general request for information
on the practice of biodynamics. Has the information that you've
gathered led you to conclude that biodynamics is taught in a
waldorf gardening program?
In short, what do you know about teaching
gardening in a waldorf school?
Robert Flannery
New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Biodynamic Gardening
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 15:37:23 +0200
Michael Kopp wrote:
Point one:
Please show scientifically replicated evidence that BD "works",
and an accepted scientific theory as to why it does so.
I don't think you can, except for pseudo-scientists like Lily
Kolisko.
I stated from the beginning that agriculture,
including BD, is off my turf. I was referring to an article in
the Wall Street Journal and the testimonies of farmers who had
switched from the conventional to the biodynamic method.
BD has about as much validity as any other
scam, such as homeopathy. One of its practices, with diluted
fertilizer, has the same flavour as water with a memory.
Point two:
I don't think Kathy's objection to teaching BD in public schools
is based on the fact that it is _rooted_ (wonderful pun, Tarjei)
in Anthroposophical mumbo jumbo. You and all the other suggestible
believers are entitled to do what you want to and teach what
you want to, in private.
I think the objections -- and I agree with them -- are that:
* it has no scientific credence;
* there is no proof that it works any better than ordinary agriculture
before the chemical era, [*] which is to say most of mankind's
agricultural history, when people noticed *coincidences* between
certain natural events and planting times;
* its teaching is part of an Anthroposophical spiritual agenda
practiced on unsuspecting children, and, finally;
* because its practice requires children to engage in ritualistic
spiritualism similar to reading horoscopes and bones; which is
a religious practice forbidden by the U.S. Constitution.
If I had tried to read that much into Kathy's
inquiry, I would have been chewed out.
If the sowing of carrots requires "unsuspecting
children" to perform spiritualistic rites, you know a lot
more about biodynamic agriculture than I do.
[*] It is perfectly possible for scientific
people to agree that modern agriculture has had problems with
chemical overuse, bad chemicals, and intensive, factory-farming
techniques, without having to invoke a luddite spectre. All of
that is not the responsibility of a scientific establishment,
many of whose members warned about the problems, but of business,
government and public choice (often misled by vested interests,
not scientists). It is also possible for this mess to be cleaned
up, and for science and its users to become more wise in their
practices, without having to go back to labour-intensive, "natural"
farming.
My point was that those who have been practicing
this method have achieved good results and are quite pleased
with it. One of the advantages is that the natural minerals in
fruits and vegetables are not reduced, depleted, or diluted because
the soil is kept healthier. This is why such produce often tastes
better too.
A combination of alternative agricultural
methods should be incorporated in big production. I understand
that we have enough resources to feed the world population adequately,
and it is a question of pooling and coordinating these resources
to a maximum level. Farmlands must be cared for. It rings my
alarm bells whan I see that China is reducing rice production
by building industry on farm land. As a major food exporter,
America has a tremendous responsibility here, and all those enormous
economic obstacles for American farmers have been alarming. I
am not suggesting that biodynamic agriculture as suggested by
Rudolf Steiner can solve all these problems, but I am convinced
that Steiner's contribution to this field can be of tremendous
help in the future.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Pythagoras (Was Re: Biodynamic Gardening)
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 16:36:45 +0200
Michael Kopp wrote:
OK, Pythagoras was a mystic. So was Kepler.
So was Newton. And many more. But their mysticism did not _inform_
their great scientific achievements, it was their genius to transcend,
in some way, that spiritualism and find something real.
The word "mystic" has a more precise
meaning than you seem to attribute to it here. Mysticism is a
mode of cognition where meditation and inner experiences lead
the way, independent of rational logic. In this sense, it is
highly disputable to label the scientists as mystics. The pioneers
of science and mathematics strove to approach reality by means
of logic, to arrive at knowledge rather than faith. Men like
Pythagoras, on the other hand, lived in a culture and a frame
of reference where science, art, and religion where united in
a harmonious whole; they were not yet divided. This is why we
also find in Plato and in Aristotle an endeavor to approach all
reality, the material and the spiritual alike, by means of rational
logic. This is not mysticism.
They tried to fit their great discoveries
into their mysticism, because their worlds were still ruled by
mankind's need, pre-Enlightenment, to believe in supernatural
causes because thinking and knowledge were not yet developed
enough to explain the world in rational ways.
I would imagine that few teachers -- outside Steiner/ Waldforf/
Anthroposophical cult schools -- even know that these greats
also practiced esotericism. It doesn't matter. Their discoveries
and the practice of their science are not reliant on belief in
their gods.
There is a difference between saying that
the evolution of thinking and cognition is dependent upon *belief
in* gods on the one hand, and that *the gods themselves* have
been indispensable to this evolution from the beginning on the
other. Naturally, the possibility of excluding and dismissing
the spiritual influence altogether from the realm of self-dependent
logic is absolutely necessary for the emergence of human freedom
and independence. But when this freedom and independence in the
life of thought is achieved, it is also possible to recognize
the spiritual reality in question without compromising it.
On the other hand, all the supposed great
discoveries of Rudolf Steiner RELY on continued cult mysticism
and a supernatural pantheon of gods, spirits and forces for any
validity. Outside of that pseudo-scientific religious veneration,
they have no meaning.
I disagree. The aim and goal of anthroposophy
is to work for a re-unification of science, art, religion, and
philosophy, because they all need each other for gainful evolution
in the future. And there are many indications that this development
is in the process of taking place in many fields also outside
anthroposophy. Last night I was watching a "Hard Talk"
interview on BBC with the Austian-born chemist who invented the
contraceptive pill. (Sorry, I forgot his name.) He is an art
collector and a playwright. And he is just one example of scientists
becoming philosophers and artists, working towards what anthroposophists
call "the redemption of science," to lift it out of
its current ditch of dead, mechanized materialism. And we will
probably see a lot more of this gradual blending, or re-uniting,
of science, art, religion, and philosophy.
The fact that Steiner was also a mystic
does not elevate his "science" to the greatness of
his similar predecessors; it simply marks his mysticism as being
as wrong and imaginary as that of those deluded greats.
Steiner was a throwback, not a visionary of futurism.
That still remains to be seen.
Nothing that Steiner said -- like the heart
is not a pump, or is much more than a pump -- has been scientifically
proven and accepted, despite what credulous and uninformed people
like "Lisa" say. The heart may indeed be more than
a pump, but it is still that.
Tom Mellett has just contributed some interesting
insights on this topic to the Anthropos-Views list.
To suggest, as pseudo-scientists like Ralph
Marinelli do, ala Steiner, that the blood is itself the motive
force, or that the heart is a "brain", are ridiculous
on their face, and a misrepresentation of science to fit mysticism
-- much as Pythagoras and the others misrepresented their science
to fit with the prevalent belief systems.
The religion of a mechanized, lifeless universe
does not have a monopoly on science. It is my impression that
the challenge against this perceived monopoly by "pseudo-science"
is a major reason for hostile outbursts from evangelical atheist
science freaks who are afraid that their universe is about to
fall apart, very much like the Roman Church reacted against heretics.
They can no longer burn or hang heretics, so they use ridicule
and scorn to the hilt. But that won't stop evolution either.
Steiner's "discoveries" are not taught in all the world's
schools, like Pythagoras's and the others', because they are
mumbo jumbo.
"Mumbo jumbo" was one of Isaac Asimov's
pet expressions, and he was a guru of yours. That is why "mumbo
jumbo" has become your mantra, which you chant to chase
away the evil spirit of anthroposophy.
And Steiner's "discoveries" WON'T
be taught in schools worldwide, outside of SWA and infiltrated
public schools, because it is vanishingly likely that they ever
WILL be proved.
Just say the mantra, and it will all go away,
vanish.
Footnote: And I can't see the usefulness of teaching science
with the history of its mystical beginnings, or teaching Greek
earth-air-fire-water as reality before getting to the real hard
stuff. SWA always says that this history is important and gives
the student a better perspective on human development. I say
the only purpose for it being there in the way it's taught --
unscientifically -- is to inculcate the spiritual basis for all
further learning.
This is a comment best left to the Waldorf
teachers on the list.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: Pythagoras (Was Re: Biodynamic Gardening)
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 10:04:15 -0500
-----Original Message-----
From: Tarjei Straume
There is a difference between saying that the evolution of thinking
and cognition is dependent upon *belief in* gods on the one hand,
and that *the gods themselves* have been indispensable to this
evolution from the beginning on the other. Naturally, the possibility
of excluding and dismissing the spiritual influence altogether
from the realm of self-dependent logic is absolutely necessary
for the emergence of human freedom and independence. But when
this freedom and independence in the life of thought is achieved,
it is also possible to recognize the spiritual reality in question
without compromising it.
I think therefore I am. Attributed to Descartes,
I think.
If I don't think, does that mean I am not?
I think not.
Bob
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: RE: Pythagoras (Was Re: Biodynamic Gardening)
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 17:37:52 +0200
I wrote:
There is a difference between saying that
the evolution of thinking and cognition is dependent upon *belief
in* gods on the one hand, and that *the gods themselves* have
been indispensable to this evolution from the beginning on the
other. Naturally, the possibility of excluding and dismissing
the spiritual influence altogether from the realm of self-dependent
logic is absolutely necessary for the emergence of human freedom
and independence. But when this freedom and independence in the
life of thought is achieved, it is also possible to recognize
the spiritual reality in question without compromising it.
Bob Tolz wrote:
I think therefore I am. Attributed to Descartes,
I think.
Correct: Cogito ergo sum. You are cordially
invited to visit the fledging Descartes page in the Uncle Taz
Library at http://www.uncletaz.com/library/philclass/descartes.html
(Not much here yet - just wait until I move
to another server in July,
where I get 350 MB.)
(Michael, you are invited to the Science &
Mathematics section at http://www.uncletaz.com/library/scimath/
appropriately adorned with an image of Ahriman.)
If I don't think, does that mean I am not?
I think not.
Rudolf Steiner was very critical of Descartes'
"I think, therefore I am." He felt that it was cramped
and desparate. The reason for this criticism was that Steiner's
view of thinking was that it was a faint, abstract reflection
of life - not life itself, but a shadow of it. So it's like saying,
"There is my shadow, the proof of my existence."
So the question I have been pondering is:
Is it more correct to say, "I am, therefore I think?"
Not really, because many beings, like plants, exist without thinking.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Hirsch
Subject: RE: Pythagoras (Was Re: Biodynamic Gardening)
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 13:09:37 -0500 (EST)
Tarjei Straume writes:
Bob Tolz wrote:
I think therefore I am. Attributed to Descartes,
I think.
Correct: Cogito ergo sum. You are cordially
invited to visit the fledging Descartes page in the Uncle Taz
Library at
If I don't think, does that mean I am not?
I think not.
Like the old joke. How did Descartes die?
Someone asked him if he wanted a drink.
"I think not" he replied. And vanished.
So the question I have been pondering is: Is it more correct
to say, "I am, therefore I think?" Not really, because
many beings, like plants, exist without thinking.
Hofstadter says that adding is the most basic
mode of though, whence the prase "Cogito, ergo sum"
(I think, therefore I add).
--Michael
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ezra Beeman
Subject: Re: Pythagoras (Was Re: Biodynamic Gardening)
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 11:11:45 -0500
Hoftstadter is a god. ; )
Michael Hirsch wrote:
Hofstadter says that adding is the most
basic mode of though, whence the prase "Cogito, ergo sum"
(I think, therefore I add).
--Michael
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ron Miller
Subject: Re: Pythagoras (Was Re: Biodynamic Gardening)
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 11:37:49 -0500
Tolz, Robert wrote:
I think therefore I am. Attributed to Descartes,
I think.
If I don't think, does that mean I am not? I think not.
Bob
This reminds me of another story:
Descartes was in a coffee shop, and the waitress
asked him whether he wanted cream in his coffee. He replied,
"I think not," and disappeared. :-)
Friends, I am going to disappear from this list. I appreciate
your sincere and passionate commitment to rooting out the truth
as you understand it (whether you are pro- or anti- anthroposophy),
but I am not finding that the ongoing argument is a high priority
for me. I am quite satisfied that my son's Waldorf school is
a progressive, open minded place with many good and decent people
involved (even as I raise specific questions about its pedagogy),
and whether the larger Anthroposophy movement is as totally awful
or as saintly pure as people claim, is not important to me. The
main focus of my work now is on education and democracy, the
free school movement of the 1960s, and the model of "community
learning centers" that many homeschoolers are developing.
This argument over Steiner is fascinating but not at all relevant
to these concerns and is draining a lot of time. Finally, I am
sorry that my interest in "holism" comes across in
a self-righteous way or as some sort of hippie/yuppie philosophy.
That's not at all what I intend. I'm just trying to make sense
of the crisis that the modern world seems to find itself in,
and the reading I've done on "holistic" and "postmodern"
ways of thinking makes more sense to me than more of the same
modernist, technocratic, free-enterprise stuff that I grew up
with. I understand that for most of you in this group it doesn't
make any sense at all. C'est la vie. May all beings be happy.
Ron Miller
p.s. Dan, please unsubscribe me. And thanks
for inviting me in. Good luck to you.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Pythagoras (Was Re: Biodynamic Gardening)
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 18:03:21 +0100
Tarjei Straume wrote:
Footnote: And I can't see the usefulness
of teaching science with the history of its mystical beginnings,
or teaching Greek earth-air-fire-water as reality before getting
to the real hard stuff. SWA always says that this history is
important and gives the student a better perspective on human
development. I say the only purpose for it being there in the
way it's taught -- unscientifically -- is to inculcate the spiritual
basis for all further learning.
This is a comment best left to the Waldorf
teachers on the list.
OK, I'll bite. Twice.
# I was contacted yesterday by a researcher
for a film company intending to make astronomy films for television.
One reason he wanted my input was that his researches had led
him to realise that in reaching an understanding of the ideas
of modern astronomy (the oldest science and 3rd oldest profession),
it was advantageous to have an appreciation of its history.
# Newton stated that, if he had seen further
than others, it was because he had stood on the shoulders of
giants. If you can't identify the giants, how the heck can you
stand on their shoulders?
Noctis Gaudia Carpe,
Stephen
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy
Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Pythagoras (Was Re: Biodynamic Gardening)
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 19:12:30 +0200
Ron Miller wrote:
Descartes was in a coffee shop, and the
waitress asked him whether he wanted cream in his coffee. He
replied, "I think not," and disappeared.
I love it!
This argument over Steiner is fascinating
but not at all relevant to these concerns and is draining a lot
of time.
I appreciate and understand that sentiment,
but the fact is that the PLANS website and many of the posts
from critics to this list make all kinds of discussions about
Steiner inevitable. If the only issues had been doubts about
the quality of Waldorf education and criticism thereof on the
one hand, and American public schools and the constitution on
the other, this list would have been a concern for teachers and
lawyers and American Waldorf parents. It would have been of less
concern for us Europeans. But attacks are being launched against
anthroposophy and its founder - attacks that are often malignant
and slanderous, and that reflect not only upon the moral character
of Rudolf Steiner, but also upon the personal integrity and general
credibility of all anthroposophists in the world, myself included.
That is why I am on this list first as an anthroposophist, secondly
as a Waldorf parent.
p.s. Dan, please unsubscribe me. And thanks
for inviting me in. Good luck to you.
Because this is a response to your last post,
I'm sending a cc to your email address.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Pythagoras (Was Re: Biodynamic Gardening)
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 18:53:56 +0100
Tarjei Straume wrote:
Rudolf Steiner was very critical of Descartes'
"I think, therefore I am." He felt that it was cramped
and desparate. The reason for this criticism was that Steiner's
view of thinking was that it was a faint, abstract reflection
of life - not life itself, but a shadow of it. So it's like saying,
"There is my shadow, the proof of my existence."
I have always felt that Steiner misunderstood
Descartes here. Put in context, Descartes was one of those who
was trying to find logically fundamental statements, i.e. those
that could be used to end infinite regresses.
What Descartes arrived at could better be
stated in English as: "That I think is sufficient evidence
for my existence." Not, as is often misstated "Thought
is necessary evidence for existence" nor "Thought is
the only evidence for existence" nor "I am because
I think". Taking something like Descartes' fundamental statement
out of its philosophical and cultural context is to distort it.
Noctis Gaudia Carpe,
Stephen
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy
Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ksutphen
Subject: Re: Biodynamic Gardening
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 10:03:04 -0800
Robert Flannery posted:
[Kopp]
<snip first two objections>
* its teaching is part of an Anthroposophical
spiritual agenda practiced on unsuspecting children
Could you please outline how this might
occur as part of a gardening curriculum in any school, waldorf
or public?
Since it wasn't practiced while I was there
I can only predict that teaching biodynamic gardening in a public
school would likely have included Anthroposophical religious-based
practices. I base my suspicions on my experience with Public
School Waldorf Teacher Training in which we were repeatedly put
through exercises that were entirely based on Anthroposophical
religious beliefs. Replies to my request regarding exactly *what*
biodynamic gardening is hasn't alleviated this suspicion in the
least. It sounds as if it involves using *fertilizers* that are
akin to homeopathic dilutions and planting according to phases
of the moon and other astrological markers, not to mention a
somewhat bizarre connection to Christ's blood and its permeation
of our earth. (I don't have the details on this, so I am not
yet sure of this connection.) I don't believe these would be
valid curriculum practices in a public school.
Are you differentiating between a gardening
program in a school and the practice of biodynamics by farmers
and home gardeners?
I'll differentiate in this way. I hold a General
Science teaching credential in California. This means that I
can teach a general science course to students in grades K -
9. In addition to the upper division university science courses
needed to satisfy credential requirements I have taken additional,
accredited courses specifically teaching me effective ways to
deliver a science curriculum designed around the implementation
of a student garden.
Following the completion of these courses
I received approval to order a greenhouse (approx. $2000) - to
be assembled by me and my students, in addition to tools, etc.,
to begin a garden-based science curriculum. However, the greenhouse
was never constructed and the class was not offered because I
did not take the biodynamic gardening course offered at Rudolf
Steiner College. I was not *permitted* to teach the course because
of my unwillingness to take the RSC training. When I quit my
job the greenhouse still had not been *unpacked*.
So, what could have been the difference between
the course I would have taught and a course designed on Waldorf
pedagogical methods as taught in the summer biodynamic gardening
course at Rudolf Steiner College? Perhaps you can enlighten me
on this Robert. My family and I grow a huge, organic garden every
year. My daughters have partially financed trips abroad from
the proceeds they make selling our certified organic produce
at a local Grower's Market. We spend a large part of our summer
gardening, harvesting, weeding, canning, selling . . . But .
. . because I was not willing to use biodynamic techniques I
was not permitted to deliver a gardening curriculum. This *after*
we were declared a model Waldorf school in the public sector.
This is my question. What is the difference
between biodynamic gardening and the organic gardening practices
that my family and I utilize each year to produce an absolutely
incredible harvest that has also served to educate my 2 children
in a variety of ways?
Kathy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ksutphen
Subject: Re: Pythagoras (Was Re: Biodynamic Gardening)
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 10:35:14 -0800
Tarjei posted:
I disagree. The aim and goal of anthroposophy is to work for
a re-unification of science, art, religion, and philosophy, because
they all need each other for gainful evolution in the future.
And there are many indications that this development is in the
process of taking place in many fields also outside anthroposophy.
Last night I was watching a "Hard Talk" interview on
BBC with the Austian-born chemist who invented the contraceptive
pill. (Sorry, I forgot his name.) He is an art collector and
a playwright. And he is just one example of scientists becoming
philosophers and artists, working towards what anthroposophists
call "the redemption of science," to lift it out of
its current ditch of dead, mechanized materialism.
Perhaps you left something out here, but how
do you come to the conclusion that this particular scientist,
who collects art and writes plays, is an example of something
akin to the Anthroposophist. There are many scientists that engage
in art in a variety of forms, as there are atheists, agnostics,
secular humanists, etc. Your reasoning here is unclear.
It is my impression that the challenge against this perceived
monopoly by "pseudo-science" is a major reason for
hostile outbursts from evangelical atheist science freaks who
are afraid that their universe is about to fall apart,
Huh? What is this about? Who are the "evangelical
atheist science freaks"?
"Mumbo jumbo" was one of Isaac
Asimov's pet expressions, and he was a guru of yours. That is
why "mumbo jumbo" has become your mantra, which you
chant to chase away the evil spirit of anthroposophy.
Wait a minute. Wasn't Asimov a scientist that
also engaged in the *art* of writing fiction? Wouldn't this place
him alongside the creator of the birth control pill that collects
art and is a playwright? Isn't Asimov an example of a scientist
becoming a philosopher and an artist? Why is Asimov scorned,
but the chemist elevated in your regard? I'm confused.
Kathy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ksutphen
Subject: Re: Pythagoras (Was Re: Biodynamic Gardening)
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 10:51:23 -0800
List members,
I have recently been reading posts to the
Biodynamic gardening list. The following is part of a post.
So the basic rule is
bury your preps where the life forces are really rich. I just
now checked it out and the location I'm burying preps is at a
junction of four energy lines (exceptional). This makes for lots
of energy there. The results show this. So set all other rules
aside, and look for a place where the life forces are really
rich.
This has a tad of the (in Kopp's/Asimov's
infamous words) mumbo jumbo flavor to it. I am wondering what
the preps are and how one determines where the life forces are
really rich. There was also something in here, now cut, about
dowsing. I think it was dowsing for the life forces.
Is the above a standard practice in biodynamic
gardening? And . . . what does it mean?
Kathy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Pythagoras (Was Re: Biodynamic Gardening)
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 21:46:48 +0200
I wrote:
I disagree. The aim and goal of anthroposophy
is to work for a re-unification of science, art, religion, and
philosophy, because they all need each other for gainful evolution
in the future. And there are many indications that this development
is in the process of taking place in many fields also outside
anthroposophy. Last night I was watching a "Hard Talk"
interview on BBC with the Austian-born chemist who invented the
contraceptive pill. (Sorry, I forgot his name.) He is an art
collector and a playwright. And he is just one example of scientists
becoming philosophers and artists, working towards what anthroposophists
call "the redemption of science," to lift it out of
its current ditch of dead, mechanized materialism.
Kathy wrote:
Perhaps you left something out here, but
how do you come to the conclusion that this particular scientist,
who collects art and writes plays, is an example of something
akin to the Anthroposophist.
I have not said that the scientist in question
is "an example of something akin to the anthroposophist."
Read the above again; My point is that he is part and parcel
of certain symptoms regarding gradual changes in the world culture
in the direction of re-unifying science, art, religion, and philosophy.
This is taking place outside and independently of anthroposophy.
(Anthroposophy has already re-united these fields, being ahead
of the times.)
There are many scientists that engage in
art in a variety of forms, as there are atheists, agnostics,
secular humanists, etc. Your reasoning here is unclear.
I was referring more specifically to those
who blend their scientific ideas, the fruits of their scientific
work, and the wisdom they have learned from it, with artistic
expression like theater or painting.
It is my impression that the challenge
against this perceived monopoly by "pseudo-science"
is a major reason for hostile outbursts from evangelical atheist
science freaks who are afraid that their universe is about to
fall apart,
Huh? What is this about? Who are the "evangelical
atheist science freaks"?
They consist mainly of atheists who claim
that natural science *proves* their philosophy to be right and
everybody else's to be wrong; and they set out to save us from
superstition and darkness and be saved by their light of reason.
"Mumbo jumbo" was one of Isaac
Asimov's pet expressions, and he was a guru of yours. That is
why "mumbo jumbo" has become your mantra, which you
chant to chase away the evil spirit of anthroposophy.
Wait a minute. Wasn't Asimov a scientist
that also engaged in the *art* of writing fiction? Wouldn't this
place him alongside the creator of the birth control pill that
collects art and is a playwright? Isn't Asimov an example of
a scientist becoming a philosopher and an artist? Why is Asimov
scorned, but the chemist elevated in your regard? I'm confused.
If you wish to place Asimov into this context,
it does have a certain merit. But because Asimov might easily
fit the description of an evangelical atheist, his case is not
symptomatic of the emerging re-unification I was getting at.
I have not scorned Asimov; I have pointed
out his scornful arrogance for every non-atheist conception of
nature and of life. You seem to take the criticism of an idea
or an attitude to mean a condemnation or a judgement of the entire
person who expresses it. I don't shoot the messenger when I don't
like the message, I isolate and confront the message itself.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Steve Premo"
Subject: Re: Pythagoras (Was Re: Biodynamic Gardening)
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 13:47:03 -0700
On 31 Mar 99, at 21:46, Tarjei Straume wrote:
I have not scorned Asimov; I have pointed
out his scornful arrogance for every non-atheist conception of
nature and of life.
I've read quite a bit of Asimov. Most of it
has been fiction, and some has been science writing, but I've
also read Asimov's Guide to the Bible, which is a fascinating
work.
I have not read anything by Asimov containing
scornful arrogance, or promoting atheism. I have read things
describing his creed as a secular humanist, but nothing which
was in any way disrespectful toward religion, or suggesting that
everyone should believe as he does.
Can you point to some writings which demonstrate
Asimov's "scornful arrogance for every non-atheist conception
of nature and of life?"
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Pythagoras (Was Re: Biodynamic Gardening)
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 00:00:43 +0200
I wrote:
Rudolf Steiner was very critical of Descartes'
"I think, therefore I am." He felt that it was cramped
and desparate. The reason for this criticism was that Steiner's
view of thinking was that it was a faint, abstract reflection
of life - not life itself, but a shadow of it. So it's like saying,
"There is my shadow, the proof of my existence."
Stephen Tonkin wrote:
I have always felt that Steiner misunderstood
Descartes here. Put in context, Descartes was one of those who
was trying to find logically fundamental statements, i.e. those
that could be used to end infinite regresses.
You may be right about that. It is also my
impression that Steiner misunderstood the young Einstein to begin
with (his doctoral thesis of 1905), but gradually came to admire
him.
What Descartes arrived at could better
be stated in English as: "That I think is sufficient evidence
for my existence." Not, as is often misstated "Thought
is necessary evidence for existence" nor "Thought is
the only evidence for existence" nor "I am because
I think". Taking something like Descartes' fundamental statement
out of its philosophical and cultural context is to distort it.
Thank you for this clarification, which is
very perceptive. I have always found this axiom enigmatic, and
I still do.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Pythagoras (Was Re: Biodynamic Gardening)
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 00:03:53 +0100
Tarjei Straume wrote:
It is also my impression that Steiner misunderstood
the young Einstein to begin with
I agree, in spades. Mind you, that was noting
compared to the spectacular balls-ups made by Ernst Lehrs in
_Man or Matter_, where he demonstrates the "I don't understand
it so it can't be true" syndrome (e.g. Chapter X) and goes
on to promulgate the easily-falsifiable Goethean misconception
that colour can arise simply as a result of an interplay between
light and dark.
Don't get me wrong, Tarjei -- I think Steiner
and Goethe and Lehrs all had some valuable insights but, in the
realm of the physical sciences, they all made some magnificent
errors. Goethe and Steiner at least had the excuse of the times
they lived in -- Lehrs, who survived into the latter part of
this century, didn't.
Noctis Gaudia Carpe,
Stephen
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy
Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Pythagoras (Was Re: Biodynamic Gardening)
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 01:12:14 +0200
Steve Premo wrote:
I've read quite a bit of Asimov. Most of
it has been fiction, and some has been science writing, but I've
also read Asimov's Guide to the Bible, which is a fascinating
work.
It's a demythification, explaining everything
in terms of secular historical events rather than spiritual happenings.
It is astute on literary insight, because Isaac's father was
a religious Jew.
I have not read anything by Asimov containing scornful arrogance,
or promoting atheism. I have read things describing his creed
as a secular humanist, but nothing which was in any way disrespectful
toward religion, or suggesting that everyone should believe as
he does.
Can you point to some writings which demonstrate Asimov's "scornful
arrogance for every non-atheist conception of nature and of life?"
It was a voluminous book, a guide to the history
of science. Another one was a collection of essays. The titles
elude me. I borrowed them from the library right after Asimov's
death, to understand him better. In his history of science, the
words "mumbo jumbo," "quackery and magic,"
and a few others repeated themselves every time there was mention
of astrology or alchemy. And there were those columns he wrote
for the newspapers. I remember one in particular from 1987 in
the Houston Chronicle, where he explained the superstitious origin
of astrology. The Mesopotamians, the Sumerians, and the Babylonians
had, according to Asimov, discovered that the sun and the moon
influenced life and natural phenomena on earth. For this reason,
they "invented" the influences of the other planets,
which were pure superstition. He went on to explain why people
were superstitious. In his book about science history, he explained
that people were religious because they were little children
in need of mama's apron strings or a pacifyer to suck on. His
attitude to religious people was totally void of respect the
way I read them. I also talked to people in America who knew
him a little better. And I kept hearing "Oh, Isaac Asimov,
he is soooo arrogant."
I'm mentioning these things to demonstrate
that I did not make a statement about Asimov scornful arrogance
toward religious people without a reason. But it would be quite
wrong to say that this tendency characterizes Asimov. He was
a very gifted individual, but I think he was extremely one-sided
and opinionated, and that he regarded himself as some kind of
dean of the Scientific Community with its monopoly on science
and its definition. He always wrote with his blinds down, never
experiencing a writer's block, and he once said that "All
I am interested in is writing."
In fact, the essays by Asimov that interested
me most were about his family, because they revealed the warm,
caring, and human side of him that otherwise got lost somewhere
among robots in a mechanized, de-mythologized, chilling cosmos.
I found Isaac's love of his father quite moving, and his loyal
caring for his wife when she was operated for cancer.
Incidentally, I did use to buy and read that
"Magazine for Fantasy and Science Fiction," which was
edited and published by Asimov, who was called "the Professor,"
when I was a teenager. But the truth is, he never got me hooked.
Rudolf Steiner did.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Asimov
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 01:31:49 +0200
I need to add one little reflection as an
after-thought about Asimov and his often disrespectful arrogance
toward religion and spirituality. I mentioned that his father
was a religious Jew, and it is obvious that Isaac had the deepest
affection and love for his father. This is why I try to make
a careful distinction between certain things written or said
by this author on the one hand, and Isaac Asimov the human being
on the other. He probably respected people he knew or were close
to him regardless of religion or philosophy. So his arrogance
and scorn was against religiousness in the abstract, especially
when it threatened to disturb his own gospel of materialistic
science. He would probably have been very riled up about anthroposophy
if he had read about it.
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Steve Premo"
Subject: Re: Asimov
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 16:33:49 -0700
Thanks, Tarjei, for elucidating about Asimov.
On 1 Apr 99, at 1:31, Tarjei Straume wrote:
He would probably have been very riled
up about anthroposophy if he had read about it.
Maybe. I suspect that he would have dismissed
it out of hand, though, and would not considered it a significant
enough movement to get riled up about. No offense, but very few
people outside of anthroposophy or the waldorf movement consider
anthroposophy to be a significant movement, or consider Rudolf
Steiner to be an important historical figure, assuming they've
heard of him at all.
My dictionary's "biographical names"
section contains something on the order of 5200 listings of people,
living and dead, and Steiner isn't even listed. Merriam-Webster,
Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary.
I think it's great that you've found a philosopher
who resonates so well with your personal beliefs, and whose writings
hold so much meaning for you, but his appeal appears to be limited
to a very small group.
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Flannery
Subject: Re: Biodynamic Gardening
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 19:46:08 -0500
I asked Kathy Sutphen:
Could you please outline how this [inculcating
an anthroposophical spiritual agenda] might occur as part of
a gardening curriculum in any school, waldorf or public?
and she answered:
Since it wasn't practiced while I was there
I can only predict that teaching biodynamic gardening in a public
school would likely have included Anthroposophical religious-based
practices.
If this prediction has no basis in knowledge
or experience of gardening classes in a waldorf school, I would
call it speculation.
I base my suspicions on my experience with
Public School Waldorf Teacher Training in which we were repeatedly
put through exercises that were entirely based on Anthroposophical
religious beliefs.
Why do you jump to such a conclusion without
looking for some evidence? If I recall correctly, you have complained
about "chanting" and "walking geometric forms"
and "hearing the same story told in the same way day after
day".
What does this have to do with gardening classes?
Replies to my request regarding exactly
*what* biodynamic gardening is hasn't alleviated this suspicion
in the least. It sounds as if it involves using *fertilizers*
that are akin to homeopathic dilutions and planting according
to phases of the moon and other astrological markers, not to
mention a somewhat bizarre connection to Christ's blood and its
permeation of our earth. (I don't have the details on this, so
I am not yet sure of this connection.) I don't believe these
would be valid curriculum practices in a public school.
I don't know beans about biodynamics, really.
I know just enough to think that Dan's thumbnail might be reasonably
accurate, for an overview.
"Impressions: Organic agriculture plus
magic. Planting by planetary aspects. Compost seeded with special
preparations. Homeopathic preparations applied to soil. Half-a-dozen
standardized numbered preparations per Steiner's indications.
Quartz used because of its relationship with light. There's a
ritual burying of a cow's horn filled with manure, to be dug
up later and diluted."
Are you differentiating between a gardening
program in a school and the practice of biodynamics by farmers
and home gardeners?
I'll differentiate in this way.
<snip Kathy's story of her credentials
and why she's not happy about the way she was treated by her
former school>
So, what could have been the difference
between the course I would have taught and a course designed
on Waldorf pedagogical methods as taught in the summer biodynamic
gardening course at Rudolf Steiner College? Perhaps you can enlighten
me on this Robert. My family and I grow a huge, organic garden
every year. My daughters have partially financed trips abroad
from the proceeds they make selling our certified organic produce
at a local Grower's Market. We spend a large part of our summer
gardening, harvesting, weeding, canning, selling . . . But .
. . because I was not willing to use biodynamic techniques I
was not permitted to deliver a gardening curriculum. This *after*
we were declared a model Waldorf school in the public sector.
I wasn't asking you to explain your qualifications
to teach gardening, I was interested in whether or not you were
making any distinction between biodynamics and waldorf gardening
classes. I think the latter is the real issue.
This is my question. What is the difference
between biodynamic gardening and the organic gardening practices
that my family and I utilize each year to produce an absolutely
incredible harvest that has also served to educate my 2 children
in a variety of ways?
There are lots of differences (and Dan has
supplied a number for you, above).
But my request that you substantiate your
claim that waldorf gardening classes inculcate anthroposophy
or anthroposophical principles remains unanswered.
Robert Flannery
New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Asimov
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 03:03:25 +0200
Steve Premo wrote:
No offense, but very few people outside
of anthroposophy or the waldorf movement consider anthroposophy
to be a significant movement, or consider Rudolf Steiner to be
an important historical figure, assuming they've heard of >him
at all.
My dictionary's "biographical names" section contains
something on the order of 5200 listings of people, living and
dead, and Steiner isn't even listed. Merriam-Webster, Webster's
Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary.
So far, a low profile for Rudolf Steiner and
anthroposophy is preferable to a high one - especially, perhaps,
in America. Some of the reasons for this are clearly illustrated
by posts to this list.
I think it's great that you've found a
philosopher who resonates so well with your personal beliefs,
and whose writings hold so much meaning for you, but his appeal
appears to be limited to a very small group.
Especially when the group is small, it is
not advantageous with a high profile.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Hirsch
Subject: Re: Pythagoras (Was Re: Biodynamic Gardening)
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 11:48:01 -0500 (EST)
Stephen Tonkin writes:
# Newton stated that, if he had seen further than others,
it was because he had stood on the shoulders of giants. If you
can't identify the giants, how the heck can you stand on their
shoulders?
Well, one might argue that it is onl important
to stand on the shoulders is the person(s) on top. It is not
really necessary to know much about the shoulders on the bottom.
I suspect, as always, that it is important
to look at each case separately. Sometimes there will be great
value in studying the old masters (e.g. studying Euclid in a
geometry class), and sometimes very little (e.g. studying Newton's
alchemy in a chemistry class).
--Michael
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Kopp
Subject: Re: Pythagoras (Was Re: Biodynamic Gardening)
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 14:03:07 +1200
Michael Hirsch writes:
Stephen Tonkin writes:
# Newton stated that, if he had seen further
than others, it was because he had stood on the shoulders of
giants. If you can't identify the giants, how the heck can you
stand on their shoulders?
Well, one might argue that it is onl important
to stand on the shoulders is the person(s) on top. It is not
really necessary to know much about the shoulders on the bottom.
I suspect, as always, that it is important to look at each case
separately. Sometimes there will be great value in studying the
old masters (e.g. studying Euclid in a geometry class), and sometimes
very little (e.g. studying Newton's alchemy in a chemistry class).
--Michael
That would be fine, if Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical
schools left it at that. But they don't.
Instead, they teach an offshoot type of geometry
called "projective geometry". This is a recognized
and reasonable field -- for advanced students and practitioners
of geometry. I doubt that it is taught anywhere else in state
or private elementary or high schools as a regulary part of the
curriculum.
And why is it taught in SWA schools? Because
Steiner, and his cult followers and SWA people attach esoteric,
spiritual meaning to it.
No, they don't teach the esoteric, spiritual
meaning to the students -- that would be to openly contravene
their oft-stated "guarantee" that Anthroposophy is
not taught in the classrooms of SWA schools.
So what's wrong with teaching it? Will it
harm the kids? Well, no. Does it make them spiritualists and
cultists? Well, no. Does it have any practical educational or
life value for them, either when it's taught or later? That's
the debatable part: I and many other critics think not; SWA defenders
say that it has benefits for the developing mind and future intellectual
effort. May be. I think not. It's an area that researchers like
David Mollet might spend some time looking at.
The only thing my son David, now a graduate
of a public high school, remembers of his projective geometry
lessons is that the teacher made a big point of telling the students
that two parallel lines meet at infinity.
In the meantime, to me, it was just another
example of the SWA stealthy and covert use of Anthroposophical
tenets for spiritual purposes without my knowledge, understanding,
and consent.
There's plenty in the archives on this subject;
just search on "projective geometry". We've done it
pretty well, and, of course, reached no agreement between critic
and proponent, but there may be some life left in it yet, if
there are new views or data.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Pythagoras (Was Re: Biodynamic Gardening)
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 05:02:34 +0200
Michael Kopp wrote:
Instead, they teach an offshoot type of
geometry called "projective geometry". This is a recognized
and reasonable field -- for advanced students and practitioners
of geometry. I doubt that it is taught anywhere else in state
or private elementary or high schools as a regulary part of the
curriculum.
And why is it taught in SWA schools? Because Steiner, and his
cult followers and SWA people attach esoteric, spiritual meaning
to it.
Hey, we anthropops attach esoteric, spiritual
meaning to absolutely everything - to ourselves, to the children,
to the sunset, and to the morning news - even to the comic strips.
Naturally, Waldorf teachers may attach esoteric, spiritual meaning
to every subject they teach. That's the meaning that gives everything
value - without it, it has no value.
The only thing my son David, now a graduate
of a public high school, remembers of his projective geometry
lessons is that the teacher made a big point of telling the students
that two parallel lines meet at infinity.
And that's where Steiner meets Einstein. And
that reminds me: A Russian once told me that in the Soviet atheist
regime, Einstein's ideas, including his theory of relativity,
was highly suspect, and its study was strongly discouraged. When
I asked why, he said that Einstein's ideas bordered on the spiritual
and miraculous. At least, the Soviet authorities thought so.
In the meantime, to me, it was just another
example of the SWA stealthy and covert use of Anthroposophical
tenets for spiritual purposes without my knowledge, understanding,
and consent.
Stealthy and covert? You still haven't explained
to me about the dangers that you say are lurking behind my back
from Dornach. The paradox, perhaps about the Anthroposophical
Society is that it is the only organization of its kind, namely
an *occult and esoteric* organization that is completely *open.*
And it was this very openness that resulted in so many powerful
enemies for Rudolf Steiner.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ezra Beeman
Subject: Re: Pythagoras (Was Re: Biodynamic Gardening)
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 20:50:19 -0800
It (projective geometry) is great for trivia
as well: Did you know Desarque (of projective geometry) was Decartes'
(of the Cartesian coordinate system) roommate in college?
On a more serious note...
I learned Projective Geometry in 11th grade
(approx 16), about the same time my art class was using horizons
and vanishing points in form drawing (tables and other simple
three dimensional objects).
Is this yet another instance of WE's interdisciplinary
application of an abstract concept? Is the multifaceted approach
not one of the finest methodologies for understanding complex
subjects?
There is a proven role (the Sante Fe institute
comes to mind) for this kind of (interdisciplinary) approach
outside of a conspiracy of inculcated esoterica. And it sure
beats memorizing geometric proofs...
e
[long quote snipped by
editor]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "ksutphen"
Subject: Re: Biodynamic Gardening
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 16:10:26 -0800
Robert Flannery posted:
But my request that you substantiate your claim that waldorf
gardening classes inculcate anthroposophy or anthroposophical
principles remains unanswered.
I don't know, experientially, that Waldorf
gardening does inculcate Anthroposophy or its principles. What
I know is that *all* the other pedagogical practices I was taught
were based on Anthroposophical religious beliefs. Nothing on
this list, since I first requested information about biodynamic
gardening, would lead me to believe that teaching gardening ala
Waldorf methods would be any different.
And yes, I did carry on once again about my
own personal experience. Sorry . . . it was a period in my life
that I still find personally horrifying and somewhat unbelievable
in light of the fact that I was a public school teacher. What
is pertinent about my experience, in light of biodynamic gardening,
is that I was qualified to teach organic gardening, yet was not
permitted to do so because of my refusal to subject myself to
further indoctrination via Waldorf training.
Do I recall correctly that you are a Waldorf
teacher? And, if so, why don't you simply describe to me how
gardening in a Waldorf school curriculum is bereft of Anthroposophical
influence. I am interested in a discussion on this subject. Clearly
I have little personal information/experience re: biodynamic
gardening - only suspicion based upon experience in the Public
School Waldorf Teacher training courses.
Kathy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Flannery
Subject: Re: Biodynamic Gardening
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 20:23:51 -0500
Kathy requests:
Do I recall correctly that you are a Waldorf
teacher? And, if so, why don't you simply describe to me how
gardening in a Waldorf school curriculum is bereft of Anthroposophical
influence.
First off, as I said in an earlier post, I
don't know much about biodynamics--I know even less about how
gardening is taught in waldorf schools.
Secondly, since most waldorf schools (at least
in the U.S.) do not have a gardening curriculum, I can't share
any experiences from school. There just isn't much to go on.
Gardening was not part of the original curriculum
in Molt's school (take note, those of you who like to say the
curriculum hasn't changed a whit since 1919). Steiner said and
wrote nothing about teaching gardening.
But more to the point, I'm not interested
in taking up your offer--I began this thread in order to challenge
your claim that a waldorf gardening program is a vehicle for
anthroposophical dogma.
Unlike you, I'm not going to make any claims
about the content of such a program without any relevant personal
experience.
Robert Flannery
New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dan Dugan
Subject: Re: Pythagoras (Was Re: Biodynamic Gardening)
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 22:56:13 -0800
Ron Miller, you wrote,
p.s. Dan, please unsubscribe me. And thanks
for inviting me in. Good luck to you.
Not until you promise to copy each of your
son's lesson books to me as it is completed!
-Dan
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dan Dugan
Subject: Re: Pythagoras (Was Re: Biodynamic Gardening)
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 23:27:22 -0800
Tarjei, you wrote,
You may be right about that. It is also
my impression that Steiner misunderstood the young Einstein to
begin with (his doctoral thesis of 1905), but gradually came
to admire him.
I don't think so. Steiner participated in
the Einstein-bashing that was part of the popular anti-intellectualism
in Weimar Germany that also fed the fires of anti-Semitism.
"The time is now that we ought to speak
of such things, all the brilliant nonsense which is called relativity
theory through which Einstein became a great man. This would
be able to be rejected if one were to have clear concepts about
things, concepts which really correspond to the reality. ...
This idea doesn't have the slightest relationship to reality.
This whole unhealthy idea lives today as the theory of relativity
and enjoys the widest acclaim."
[Rudolf Steiner, The True Nature of Substance
& Energy, August 7, 1917 (Rick Mansell translation, tape
SL266, Rudolf Steiner Research Foundation, Redondo Beach, California)
The lecture of 7 Aug 1917 is the second lecture in the KARMA
OF MATERIALISM.]
-Dan Dugan
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dan Dugan
Subject: Re: Pythagoras (Was Re: Biodynamic Gardening)
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 23:32:55 -0800
Stephen Tonkin, you wrote,
Tarjei Straume wrote:
It is also my impression that Steiner misunderstood
the young Einstein to begin with
I agree, in spades. Mind you, that was
noting compared to the spectacular balls-ups made by Ernst Lehrs
in _Man or Matter_, where he demonstrates the "I don't understand
it so it can't be true" syndrome (e.g. Chapter X) and goes
on to promulgate the easily-falsifiable Goethean misconception
that colour can arise simply as a result of an interplay between
light and dark.
Don't get me wrong, Tarjei -- I think Steiner and Goethe and
Lehrs all had some valuable insights but, in the realm of the
physical sciences, tehy all made some magnificent errors. Goethe
and Steiner at least had the excuse of the times they lived in
-- Lehrs, who survived into the latter part of this century,
didn't.
When at the San Francisco Waldorf School I
pointed out the absurdity of teaching that Goethe refuted Newton,
I was advised to read Lehrs. I did, but I don't think it got
the results the Waldorf teachers expected.
-Dan Dugan
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sune Nordwall
Subject: Re: Biodynamic Gardening
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999 13:18:42 +0200
Kathy wrote:
Could someone on this list clarify for
me exactly what biodynamic gardening is. Are there spiritual
beliefs that underly the specific practices that would define
biodynamic gardening? What must one do to garden biodynamically?
Thanks for your input.
First, I want to say that I´m very unhappy
about what happened to you as a teacher in a school, transformed
into a public waldorf school. As I´ve said in another post,
I don´t think existing schools with public teachers should
be "taken over" and "transformed", "reeducating"
teachers who have no choice if they don´t want to become
unemployed.
A waldorf school in the south of Stockholm:
"Martinskolan", started in about 1980 on the premises
of a public school that had been closed down. But it was _completely_
closed and only the building remained, when it started up as
a new waldorf school.
As for biodynamic gardening and farming, I´ve
been trying to look around on the Internet for information.
Some results:
http://www.steinercollege.org/biodynamics.html contains a sort of introductory general summary on
the subject.
http://www.angelfire.com/id/biobaby/contentslist.html describes the contents of the lecture cycle by Rudolf
Steiner, on which biodynamic farming is based; "Spiritual
Foundations for the Renewal of Agriculture", held in 1924.
It costs about $22 and can bo ordered from Amazon books (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/093725035X/hppubli00/002-9405429-9092808).
Se also http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/AFSIC_pubs/srb9705u.htm
and http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/AFSIC_pubs/srb97-05.htm
What is Biodynamic Agriculture? by Koepf (one
of the pioneers of biodynamic farming) at $2.50 can be ordered
from The Josephine Porter Institute of Applied Biodynamics in
Woolwine WA see
http://igg.com/spiritual_ag/european/steiner/jpi/jpibks.html#steinerag. [obsolete domain]
http://www.tiac.net/users/seeker/biodyn.html [no good] contains a text: What Is Biodynamic Farming? by a
Melvin D. Saunders.
How biodynamic gardening is taught in waldorf
schools, if or when taught, I don´t know. My personal experience
of biodynamic farmers and gardeners is that are very down to
earth people, working and talking in very concrete ways about
their work.
As for the "theoretical" basis of
biodynamic farming, my impression is that most biodynamic farmers
and gardeners have great difficulties really understanding it.
Research done on the effect of different biodynamic
preparations is often clear, yet sometimes showing contradictory
results under different conditions that are difficult to analyze
because of the complexity of field research.
Finally, when looking around on the web, I
came across an interesting description of "anthroposophy,
Rudolph Steiner (18611925) and Waldorf Schools" in a "Sceptics
dictionary", put up by a Robert Todd Carroll, at It can
be found at http://wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us/~btcarrol/skeptic/steiner.html
[obsolete] and
http://skepdic.com/steiner.html
The dictionary contains no specific entry
on biodynamic farming.
Regards,
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell biology and
EU as a mechanical esoteric temple and threefolding of society
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce
Subject: Re: Pythagoras (Was Re: Biodynamic Gardening)
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 08:51:17 EST
In einer eMail vom 03.04.99 12:04:12 (MEZ)
- Mitteleurop. Sommerzeit schreibt Dan Dugan:
When at the San Francisco Waldorf School
I pointed out the absurdity of teaching that Goethe refuted Newton,
I was advised to read Lehrs. I did, but I don't think it got
the results the Waldorf teachers expected.
Who told you that Goethe refuted Newton, the
teachers or a Goethe biography? As I understand Goethe he had
a great respect for Newton, and nowhere does he (IMHO) refute
him.
Bruce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce
Subject: Re: Biodynamic Gardening
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 08:51:21 EST
I have skipped the thread here because I am
no expert, but Gardening is taught in almost all German FWS (possible
all); I also received gardening lessons when I was at (waldrof)
school.
If there is still a need could SOMEONE state
what still remains unresolved? Maybe this is one of Michaels
statistics?
Bruce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Tolz
Subject: Re: Pythagoras (Was Re: Biodynamic Gardening)
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999 10:05:48 -0500
Dan Dugan wrote:
Tarjei, you wrote,
You may be right about that. It is also
my impression that Steiner misunderstood the young Einstein to
begin with (his doctoral thesis of 1905), but gradually came
to admire him.
[DAN DUGAN]
I don't think so. Steiner participated
in the Einstein-bashing that was part of the popular anti-intellectualism
in Weimar Germany that also fed the fires of anti-Semitism.
[snip Steiner quote from 1917, criticizing
Einstein]
Dan,
All you've done is support the first leg (in
time) of what Tarjei wrote. You've taken a snapshot rather than
given us a movie. Can you (or Tarjei) help us out with the "gradually
came to admire him" comment by Tarjei?
Bob
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ksutphen
Subject: Re: Biodynamic Gardening
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999 14:46:37 -0800
Robert Flannery posted:
First off, as I said in an earlier post,
I don't know much about biodynamics--I know even less about how
gardening is taught in waldorf schools.
(snip - more about bd gardening)
But more to the point, I'm not interested in taking up your offer--I
began this thread in order to challenge your claim that a waldorf
gardening program is a vehicle for anthroposophical dogma.
But you haven't challenged my claim at all.
I keep asking you to do so, but it seems you simply want to needle
me about my suspicions that a Waldorf-based gardening curriculum
would be steeped in Anthroposophical beliefs. I have simply asked
that someone tell me what they know about the subject. If you
have nothing to say on the issue, I wish you would have made
that clear in your initial post.
Once again, it is my suspicion that bd gardening
ala Waldorf would be like the rest of the curriculum - based
on Anthroposophical spiritualism. I'm interested on what the
unique beliefs/criteria are to practice bd gardening and how
this is expressed on the curriculum level. For example: are all
the practices the same (inside and outside the context of a Waldorf
school), but the students simply aren't informed of the underlying
beliefs for various bd practices? This would make it like the
rest of the Waldorf curriculum/pedagogy I experienced.
Unlike you, I'm not going to make any claims
about the content of such a program without any relevant personal
experience.
Good for you. This was your opportunity to
tell me it ain't so.
I also asked if you are a Waldorf teacher.
I think I recall that you are, but perhaps I have you mixed up
with another contributor.
Kathy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ksutphen
Subject: Re: Biodynamic Gardening
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999 17:35:22 -0800
Sune posts:
As for biodynamic gardening and farming,
I´ve been trying to look around on the Internet for information.
Some results:
Thank you for your research. I appreciate
the time it took for you to respond to my question.
Kathy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael
Kopp
Subject: Re: Biodynamic Gardening
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 15:08:50 +1200
Kathy Sutphen wrote:
Robert Flannery posted:
First off, as I said in an earlier post,
I don't know much about biodynamics--I know even less about how
gardening is taught in waldorf schools.
(snip - more about bd gardening)
But more to the point, I'm not interested
in taking up your offer--I began this thread in order to challenge
your claim that a waldorf gardening program is a vehicle for
anthroposophical dogma.
But you haven't challenged my claim at
all. I keep asking you to do so, but it seems you simply want
to needle me about my suspicions that a Waldorf-based gardening
curriculum would be steeped in Anthroposophical beliefs. I have
simply asked that someone tell me what they know about the subject.
If you have nothing to say on the issue, I wish you would have
made that clear in your initial post.
Once again, it is my suspicion that bd gardening ala Waldorf
would be like the rest of the curriculum - based on Anthroposophical
spiritualism. I'm interested on what the unique beliefs/criteria
are to practice bd gardening and how this is expressed on the
curriculum level. For example: are all the practices the same
(inside and outside the context of a Waldorf school), but the
students simply aren't informed of the underlying beliefs for
various bd practices? This would make it like the rest of the
Waldorf curriculum/pedagogy I experienced.
Unlike you, I'm not going to make any claims
about the content of such a program without any relevant personal
experience.
Good for you. This was your opportunity
to tell me it ain't so.
I also asked if you are a Waldorf teacher. I think I recall that
you are, but perhaps I have you mixed up with another contributor.
Michael KOPP says:
My children, when at a Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical
school, were not "taught" even the rudimentary elements
of gardening and horticulture (no real agriculture, it's an urban
school with no large flat ground to plant) whether ordinary or
biodynamic.
This does not mean that they didn't DO gardening;
they did, quite a lot of it.
But it was never explained to them in either
orthodox scientific terms or folk terms or Anthroposphical terms
or biodynamic principles.
However, they did certain things only at certain
times; they did most things in ways which seemed unusual to them;
and they used "Preparation 500" and other things that
are well-known as biodynamic agents.
And as my son formed a relationship with a
classmate in the school who was the daughter of one of the main
Anthroposophical families, both parents being teachers in the
school, my son (a scientifically-minded skeptic long *before*
going to a Steiner school) brought home tales of how the teachers
planned and carried out the gardening activities of the students
according to biodynamic principles.
The school also offered evening sessions for
parents interested in learning about biodynamic principles, and
all the school's landscaping and amenities were planned and executed
(mostly by volunteer parent labour, when not done by students
themselves) according to biodynamic principles.
So, in fact, my children were participating
in relious rites without my permission, engaging in activities
not just informed by, but controlled by, Anthroposophy, in direct
contradiction of the school's promise to me that Anthroposphy
was not in the curriculum or classroom. (Well, I guess the latter
was technically true in this instance: all the gardening was
outdoors. <G> )
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ezra Beeman
Subject: Re: Biodynamic Gardening
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 1999 14:47:23 -0400
I suppose I could contribute to this thread
since I have first hand knowledge of the gardening curriculum
at the Sacramento Waldorf school. I think gardening was a sporadic
offering, and only applied to lower school (8-). Unfortunately
(for critics and maybe for me), I do not recall any BD elements
to the class. It mainly consisted of agrarian chores like tilling
the soil, feeding the animals weeding the flower beds. Sometimes
I wondered if we were not doing the gardener's work for him!
I am somewhat familiar with the basic tenets of BD farming, but
my knowledge of their application in the garden of SWS is not
direct. I can speculate they were used in preparing the compost
or fertilizer we used. (We were not told, but this does NOT mean
it was concealed from us. Our class dealt with GARDENING, NOT
BD farming, or RS.) In all probability, I think gardening in
WE was nothing more than botany lab.
Growing up on a farm myself, I did not see
a great deal of utility (ahh for the days when I was a pragmatist!)
in gaping at the cows. Moreover, I can see why immigrants from
agrarian countries would not find gardening useful and rather
learn typing or accounting for its efficiency in making gonzo
dollars in the Global Economy. That said, I think it extremely
important people remain linked to the soil (Nature, whatever)
so they do not grow up to epitomize the robot ideal in all its
synthetic splendor. To the degree a society divorces itself from
the soil (nature), classic schizophrenic tendencies of hopelessness,
alienation, psychosis and universal disorientation will become
pronounced in the population. The more one feels connected to
nature, the more one will belong. (This is something often broached
by futurists)
Pol Pot (and maniacs like him) aside, an appreciation
for Nature is fundamental for our understanding of the Universe
and how we fit it. You can examine all the literature you want,
study all the abstracted texts you care to, none will approach
the satisfied understanding a gardener reaps as he tills the
soil, plants the seeds and observes his garden grow.
At the time I did not like gardening much,
but weeding in the garden still beat most academic classes in
terms of enjoyment. I think my classmates were the richer for
it too.
e
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD"
Subject: Re: Biodynamic Gardening
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 22:53:29 -0600
If biodynamic gardening was proven superior
by proper scientific methods, I doubt anyone would have any objection
to the teaching of it, and the promotion of it. However, this
system of agriculture, as well as many of the tenets of anthroposophy
are not proven this way, and belong to a spiritual belief system,
not the material world. Such tenets of your belief system have
nothing to do with the mathematical reality of the pythagorean
theorem. It is the consistant blurring of the boundaries between
the material truths we all share, and the personal spiritual
beliefs of yours (and your fellow anthroposophists) which is
at the core of what makes those of us outside of your faith very
uncomfortable.
Your objection, Kathy (and I apologize
if I have misunderstood it), is that even if biodynamic farming
is the best in existence, and even if it could save the ozon
layer and the rain forests and the ecology, you would still protest
against students learning about it in public schools because
it is rooted in the spiritual-religious anthroposophical conception
about natural laws, such as etheric and astral forces connected
with the planets and phases of the moon.
By the same token, the law of the triangle works, it's very good
geometry. Still, Pythagoras believed in the gods and the spiritual
universe, and all his works are rooted in these views. For that
reason, Kathy, the drums of the ancient Greeks as well as the
drum of Shakespeare are reminders of the problem that is inherent
in an objection of this kind. I believe that everyone involved
with American public schools and the separation of church and
state would feel relieved if this problem would disappear.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Kopp
Subject: Re: Biodynamic Gardening
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 23:33:21 +1200
Ezra Beeman wrote a reallllllyyyy looooonnnngggg
pppaarrraaaagrraaapphh with hardly a pause for a deep breath,
about his biodynamic gardening experiences at Waldorf school,
humanity's deep psychological need for "connecting"
with the land, and his view of his other classes at Waldorf school:
[snip most of it]
To the degree a society divorces itself
from the soil (nature), classic schizophrenic tendencies of hopelessness,
alienation, psychosis and universal disorientation will become
pronounced in the population.
Michael KOPP says:
Thank you doctor Freudius Beemanius.
Now, is this a personal belief, or an observation
of life in California cities, or is there some statistical and
-- dare I say it, since you hate science so much -- scientific
evidence for this grandiose, sweeping statement?
Sarcasm at your apparently deep understanding
of the human psyche for a person of your tender years aside,
can you please give us something to back up this assetion?
BEEMAN:
The more one feels connected to nature,
the more one will belong. (This is something often broached by
futurists).
KOPP:
The more one will belong to _what_? Again,
can you please explain, and cite?
BEEMAN:
Pol Pot (and maniacs like him) aside, an
appreciation for Nature is fundamental for our understanding
of the Universe and how we fit it.
KOPP:
Yes, definitely, Pol Pot (and maniacs like
him) aside, please. What does Pol Pot have to do with, or why
do you mention him in context with, "our understanding of
the Universe and how we fit in"?
If you mean an appreciation of Nature -- that
is, real existence -- then I thank you for the ringing endorsement
of science as a means of apprehending the Universe.
If you mean an acquaintance with rural landscape,
pastorality, birds, bees, fish and fur, then I think you are
wrong. Large numbers of city-born and -bred people who never
venture far beyond the city limits have made big contributions
to our understanding of the Universe, through science. And large
numbers of people live happily in cities all their lives without
becoming psychopaths.
BEEMAN:
You can examine all the literature you
want, study all the abstracted texts you care to, none will approach
the satisfied understanding a gardener reaps as he tills the
soil, plants the seeds and observes his garden grow.
KOPP:
But these are ridiculous opposites: no one
reads garden books as a replacement for green thumbs and dirt
under the fingernails. And reading about scientific understanding
of the universe (presuming this is the analogy you're straining
at) is certainly a satisfactory substitute for my being able
to do science itself. I don't need to get my fingernails dirty
with garden soil to understand the Universe from Hawking.
BEEMAN:
At the time I did not like gardening much,
but weeding in the garden still beat most academic classes in
terms of enjoyment. I think my classmates were the richer for
it too.
e
KOPP:
I thought you said your school was an enchanting
academic environment, and you enjoyed every minute of every class,
and were enriched by all of it?
You mean to say you have the same view of
your classes -- taught by the Steiner pedagogy that is supposed
to inculcate love of learning -- as those supposedly schizophrenic,
psychotic, hopeless kids growing up in inner-city San Francisco
schools have of theirs?
Well, again, thank you for the admission,
Ezra. You're more helpful than you know.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Biodynamic Gardening
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 07:04:58 +0200
Kathy wrote:
Robert Flannery posted:
No he didn't. I did.
If Biodynamic farming was the "best
in existence . . . save the ozone . . . rain forests . . . ecology
. . ." what could I possibly have against it. Surely, if
controlled tests proved the validity of these assertions, so
what if it were rooted in Anthroposophical beliefs. The same
holds true for the Pythagorean Theorem. It works and has an objective
basis in testable reality - it is useful and holds true over
time and application . . .
But, as far as I know, none of the Anthroposophical *spiritual
scientific* beliefs can make this claim. The "heart is not
a pump", "blood is pure spirit", biodynamic gardening
is the best . . ." is all based on religious beliefs - not
testable and proven theses.
The question is not whether or not something
is testable or provable, but whether it works or not, and whether
it is true or not. If an apple taste better and is richer in
vitamins, I don't care if it cannot be tested.
I wrote:
I believe that everyone involved with American
public schools and the separation of church and state would feel
relieved if this problem would disappear.
Kathy wrote:
Which problem is that? Are you referring
to what I perceive as *the* problem pertinent to this list, i.e.;
the illegal funding and inclusion of Waldorf curriculum in public
schools, because doing so violates the US Constitution's 1st
Amendment and the California Constitution?
The illegality of such funding, if established
to be so, is linked to the constitutional separation of church
and state. That is a problem I don't envy you, on either side
of the issue.
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Biodynamic Gardening
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 07:04:45 +0200
Alan S. Fine wrote:
If biodynamic gardening was proven superior
by proper scientific methods, I doubt anyone would have any objection
to the teaching of it, and the promotion of it. However, this
system of agriculture, as well as many of the tenets of anthroposophy
are not proven this way, and belong to a spiritual belief system,
not the material world.
You are contradicting yourself. First you
say that you don't think anyone would object to biodynamic gardening
if it were good. Then you object because it's anthroposophical.
Such tenets of your belief system have
nothing to do with the mathematical reality of the pythagorean
theorem.
It is not a question of a belief system and
its tenets. Spiritual science is natural science extended to
the spiritual realm, taking into account laws and principles
in the universe and in nature that lie beyond the scope of natural
science alone. You may call it anything you want, but so may
I. I don't go along with your definitions, and you don't go along
with mine. Let's leave it at that.
It is the consistant blurring of the boundaries
between the material truths we all share, and the personal spiritual
beliefs of yours (and your fellow anthroposophists) which is
at the core of what makes thoseof us outside of your faith very
uncomfortable.
So you want to be a resident of the material
world we all share, but you don't want to be a resident of the
spiritual world, which we also all share. Well, I see you as
a part of the spiritual world whether you like it or not, and
I see the spiritual and the material aspects of nature inter-acting
as parts of one reality - not two separate ones. Take it or leave
it.
It has never been my ambition to make people
like yourself less uncomfortable, and I think it's a big mistake
for bourgeois anthroposophists to try to do so. The truth should
feel like a sharp knife sometimes.
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Daniel Sabsay
Subject: Re: Biodynamic Gardening
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 22:40:11 +0100
The ever sure of himself Tarjei Straume wrote
The question is not whether or not something
is testable or provable, but whether it works or not, and whether
it is true or not.
Really? How do you know what works, and what
is true?
If an apple tastes better
Let's leave this for a moment, since "tastes
better" is not only subjective, it is subtly influenced
by psychological/social conditions, just like taste and philosophical
preferences among Scientologists.
and is richer in vitamins, I don't care
if it cannot be tested.
Ah, but the very definition of vitamins is
derived from a scientific consensus that is based on replicable
testing. I fully appreciate that YOU don't care if it can be
tested or not, since you seem both insensitive and ignorant of
the epistemology of so much trusted knowledge that you take for
granted.
-- Daniel
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Daniel Sabsay, president "Ignorance is the ultimate renewable
resource"
East Bay Skeptics Society http://www.eb-skeptics.org
[email protected]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Daniel Sabsay
Subject: Re: Biodynamic Gardening
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 22:44:35 +0100
Tarjei Straume wrote
It is not a question of a belief system
and its tenets. Spiritual science is natural science extended
to the spiritual realm,
According to St. Rudi.
taking into account laws and principles
in the universe and in nature that lie beyond the scope of natural
science alone.
According to St. Rudi.
You may call it anything you want, but
so may I.
I call it self-delusional hogwash.
I don't go along with your definitions,
and you don't go along with mine. Let's leave it at that.
Oh no, we're not going to leave it at that.
This is the essence of what is wrong with anthroposophy guiding
public education. Your attitude is the evidence.
-- Daniel
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Daniel Sabsay, president "Ignorance is the ultimate renewable
resource"
East Bay Skeptics Society http://www.eb-skeptics.org
[email protected]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Kathy"
Subject: Re: Biodynamic Gardening
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1999 18:41:20 -0700
Robert Flannery posted:
Your objection, Kathy (and I apologize
if I have misunderstood it), is that even if biodynamic farming
is the best in existence, and even if it could save the ozon
layer and the rain forests and the ecology, you would still protest
against students learning about it in public schools because
it is rooted in the spiritual-religious anthroposophical conception
about natural laws, such as etheric and astral forces connected
with the planets and phases of the moon.
If Biodynamic farming was the "best in
existence . . . save the ozone . . . rain forests . . . ecology
. . ." what could I possibly have against it. Surely, if
controlled tests proved the validity of these assertions, so
what if it were rooted in Anthroposophical beliefs. The same
holds true for the Pythagorean Theorem. It works and has an objective
basis in testable reality - it is useful and holds true over
time and application . . .
But, as far as I know, none of the Anthroposophical
*spiritual scientific* beliefs can make this claim. The "heart
is not a pump", "blood is pure spirit", biodynamic
gardening is the best . ." is all based on religious beliefs
- not testable and proven theses.
By the same token, the law of the triangle
works, it's very good geometry. Still, Pythagoras believed in
the gods and the spiritual universe, and all his works are rooted
in these views. For that reason, Kathy, the drums of the ancient
Greeks as well as the drum of Shakespeare are reminders of the
problem that is inherent in an objection of this kind.
You've lost me here.
I believe that everyone involved with American
public schools and the separation of church and state would feel
relieved if this problem would disappear.
Which problem is that? Are you referring to
what I perceive as *the* problem pertinent to this list, i.e.;
the illegal funding and inclusion of Waldorf curriculum in public
schools, because doing so violates the US Constitution's 1st
Amendment and the California Constitution?
Kathy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Pythagoras (Was Re: Biodynamic Gardening)
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 07:04:25 +0200
Dan Dugan wrote:
Steiner participated in the Einstein-bashing
that was part of the popular anti-intellectualism in Weimar Germany
that also fed the fires of anti-Semitism.
"The time is now that we ought to speak of such things,
all the brilliant nonsense which is called relativity theory
through which Einstein became a great man. This would be able
to be rejected if one were to have clear concepts about things,
concepts which really correspond to the reality. ... This idea
doesn't have the slightest relationship to reality. This whole
unhealthy idea lives today as the theory of relativity and enjoys
the widest acclaim."
[Rudolf Steiner, The True Nature of Substance & Energy, August
7, 1917 (Rick Mansell translation, tape SL266, Rudolf Steiner
Research Foundation, Redondo Beach, California) The lecture of
7 Aug 1917 is the second lecture in the KARMA OF MATERIALISM.]
I have read this lecture more than once, but
it has been a while. It amazes me what kind of hogwash you cook
up in your failure-doomed attempts to label Steiner as an anti-semite.
You have a point what his derogatory remarks about blacks are
concerned, but even in your selected quotes on the PLANS website
about Steiner and the Jews, there isn't a single trace of anti-semitism.
You're beating a dead horse.
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Pythagoras (Was Re: Biodynamic Gardening)
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 07:04:32 +0200
Bob Tolz wrote (about Dan's pet theory about
Steiner's anti-semitic Einstein-bashing):
Dan, All you've done is support the first
leg (in time) of what Tarjei wrote. You've taken a snapshot rather
than given us a movie. Can you (or Tarjei) help us out with the
"gradually came to admire him" comment by Tarjei?
What I had in mind was Steiner's inclusion
of Einstein in "Riddles of Philosophy," and that his
criticism seemed to be mainly directed at people who kept talking
about the theory of relativity without understanding any of it.
In "Riddles of Philosophy," Steiner's says that Einstein's
ideas are about physics, but they are so important and revolutionary
that they belong to the realm of philosophy.
The question is, did Steiner understand Einstein?
And if he did, was his criticism valid? This is a question for
future generations to explore.
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Biodynamic Gardening
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 08:06:28 +0200
I wrote:
The question is not whether or not something
is testable or provable, but whether it works or not, and whether
it is true or not.
Daniel Sabsay wrote:
Really? How do you know what works, and what is true?
Empirical experience.
If an apple tastes better
Let's leave this for a moment, since "tastes
better" is not only subjective, it is subtly influenced
by psychological/social conditions, just like taste and philosophical
preferences among Scientologists.
Sure, even Scientologists eat apples.
and is richer in vitamins, I don't care
if it cannot be tested.
Ah, but the very definition of vitamins
is derived from a scientific consensus that is based on replicable
testing.
So you may test the vitamins and ignore the
taste. I don't care.
I fully appreciate that YOU don't care
if it can be tested or not, since you seem both insensitive and
ignorant of the epistemology of so much trusted knowledge that
you take for granted.
If I seem insensitive and ignorant of epistemology,
I hope that this impression of yours may help you sleep a little
better. But taste and smell should not be ignored in a thorough
investigation of epistemology. Neither should spiritual perceptions.
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Biodynamic Gardening
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 08:10:36 +0200
Tarjei Straume wrote
It is not a question of a belief system and its tenets. Spiritual
science is natural science extended to the spiritual realm,
According to St. Rudi.
and according to Uncle Taz.
taking into account laws and principles
in the universe and in nature that lie beyond the scope of natural
science alone.
According to St. Rudi.
and Uncle Taz.
You may call it anything you want, but
so may I.
I call it self-delusional hogwash.
I call it apple pie.
I don't go along with your definitions,
and you don't go along with mine. Let's leave it at that.
Oh no, we're not going to leave it at that.
This is the essence of what is wrong with anthroposophy guiding
public education. Your attitude is the evidence.
You have no business deciding who is to guide
the education of my children. And you have no business imposing
your set of values and your definitions on myself and my family.
Period.
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Biodynamic Gardening
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 14:45:46 +0200
Robert Flannery wrote:
Kathy, I didn't post this. It's Ezra, if
I recall correctly.
The post was mine.
Tarjei
Uncle Taz posted:
Your objection, Kathy (and I apologize
if I have misunderstood it), is that even if biodynamic farming
is the best in existence, and even if it could save the ozon
layer and the rain forests and the ecology, you would still protest
against students learning about it in public schools because
it is rooted in the spiritual-religious anthroposophical conception
about natural laws, such as etheric and astral forces connected
with the planets and phases of the moon.
<snip Kathy's response>
By the same token, the law of the triangle
works, it's very good geometry. Still, Pythagoras believed in
the gods and the spiritual universe, and all his works are rooted
in these views. For that reason, Kathy, the drums of the ancient
Greeks as well as the drum of Shakespeare are reminders of the
problem that is inherent in an objection of this kind.
I believe that everyone involved with American
public schools and the separation of church and state would feel
relieved if this problem would disappear.
http://www.uncletaz.com/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ezra Beeman
Subject: Re: Biodynamic Gardening
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 10:10:11 -0400
None dare call it fascism.
e
Daniel Sabsay wrote:
You may call it anything you want, but
so may I.
I call it self-delusional hogwash.
I don't go along with your definitions,
and you don't go along with mine. Let's leave it at that.
Oh no, we're not going to leave it at that.
This is the essence of what is wrong with anthroposophy guiding
public education. Your attitude is the evidence.
-- Daniel
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - -
Daniel Sabsay, president "Ignorance is the ultimate renewable
resource"
East Bay Skeptics Society http://www.eb-skeptics.org
[email protected]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sune Nordwall
Subject: RS on Einstein (Was: Re: Pythagoras (Was ...))
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 16:41:01 +0200
Tarjei wrote:
What I had in mind was Steiner's inclusion
of Einstein in "Riddles of Philosophy,"
[snip]
The question is, did Steiner understand
Einstein? And if he did, was his criticism valid? This is a question
for future generations to explore.
"Riddles of Philosophy" is an enlarged
version, written on the verge of the 1st WW in 1914, of a treatise
from the turn of the century by RS ("At the end of a century,
looking back at a century of spiritual development", Bd
XIV and XIX, Berlin: Verlag S Crohnbach 1900).
It describes about 150 philosophers from the
time of Antiquity to 1914 and ends with a short description of
the place of the theory of relativity up to that time, as RS
saw it, for the understanding of the theme of the book, that
he describes as:
"The expositions of
this book should show to what extent the knowledge of philosophy
has arrived at a world picture, in which the selfconscious soul
can find such a place for itself, that it can understand its
meaning and importance in the world."
What RS has to say there is (my translation,
as I don´t have the English version):
"A new thought tradition
has been initiated through the transformation of basic physical
concept that Einstein has tried. This strife is also important
for the development of the world view.
Physics has so far studied
its objects in such a way that it structured its thoughts about
them in relation to the empty three dimensional space and the
one dimensional time. Space and time were thought of as something
having their existence outside of the objects and processes.
They were thought of as independent, stiff quantities. For objects,
distance in space was measured, for processes, their duration
in time. According to this view, distance and duration belonged
as qualities to space and time, not to the objects and the processes.
The theory of relativity
of Einstein stands in opposition to this view. For this theory,
the distance between two objects is something that belongs as
a quality to the objects themselves. Just as an object has other
qualities, it also has this quality of being at a specific distance
from a second object. Except for this relation to one another,
that objects have as part of their nature, something as a space
in itself does not exist.
The hypothesizing of a
space makes a thought geometry for this space possible. This
geometry can then be used on the objects of the world. It arises
in the pure world of thoughts. The objects have to obey it. You
can say that the state of things must follow the laws established
_before_ the observation of objects.
In the sense of the theory
of relativity, this geometry is dethroned. Only the objects exist,
and they stand in a relation to one another that stands out as
geometrical. Geometry becomes a part of physics. But then you
can´ t say any more that its laws are possible to establish
_before_ the observation of objects. No object has a position
in space, only distances in relation to other objects.
Something similar is hypothesized
for time. No process exists at a specific point in time, but
at a certain distance in time from another process. In this way
the temporal and spatial distances between the objects flow into
one another as something similar. Time becomes a fourth dimension
that is similar to the three dimensions of space. A process of
an object can only be determined as something that takes place
at a distance in time and space to other processes. The movement
of an object becomes something that can only be thought of in
relation to other objects.
One expects that only this
view can led to non contradictory explanations of certain physical
processes, whereas such processes lead to contradictory thoughts
if you assume an independently existing space to be a reality.
If you consider that to
many thinkers only that was taken to be scientific about nature
that could be described in mathematical terms, the theory of
relativity is nothing less than an invalidation of the reality
of such a science. Because the scientific in mathematics was
only seen in that it could be established independently of the
observation of the laws of space and time. Now the objects and
processes of nature are to determine the states of space and
time. The only certainty is abandoned because of its uncertainty.
According to this view,
any thought of an essenciality, that determines itself out of
itself in the world, is excluded from man´s relation to
nature. Everything only exists in relation to something else.
Inasfar as man looks at
himself as part of the objects and processes of nature, the conclusions
of this theory of relativity stand out as inevitable. But if
you, as the experience of your own essence (Wesen) makes necessary,
don´t want to get lost in a psychic impotence, you must
not continue to search for that which is "essential-in-itself"
in nature, but in the raising over nature to the world of the
spirit.
The theory of relativity
is inevitable for the physical world; it drives you to the knowledge
of the spirit (Geist-Erkenntnis). The importance of the theory
of relativity lies in its pointing to the necessity of a knowledge
of the spirit that is searched for on spiritual ways independently
of the observation of nature. Its value for the development of
the world view lies in its making such a thinking necessary."
Regards,
Sune
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell biology and
EU as a mechanical esoteric temple and threefolding of society
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Biodynamic Gardening
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 17:16:44 +0200
Ezra Beeman
None dare call it fascism.
It's Nazism. The man who set the tone for
all subsequent criticism of WE and anthroposophy was Dietrich
Eckart with his anti-semitic fanzine "Auf Gut Deutsch."
Eckart (1868-1923) was an early friend and comrade of Adolf Hitler,
and he began his virulent and slanderous attacks against Steiner
and anthroposophy in 1919.
Dietrich Eckart (1868-1923) is the original
Father of Concern over Waldorf Schools and Anthroposophy, which
is proven by the fascist character surfacing in certain posts.
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ezra Beeman
Subject: Re: Biodynamic Gardening
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 11:39:25 -0400
Definitely not me, I would never spell out
anthro.
e
Robert Flannery wrote:
[repetition of quote snipped
by editor]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD"
Subject: Re: Biodynamic Gardening
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 09:45:17 -0600
You are contradicting yourself. First you
say that you don't think anyone would object to biodynamic gardening
if it were good. Then you object because it's anthroposophical.
I am saying that i support the objection to
it being taught in schools without parents consent, because it
is a spiritual concept and not a scientifically proven concept.
It is the consistant blurring of the boundaries
between the material truths we all share, and the personal spiritual
beliefs of yours (and your fellow anthroposophists) which is
at the core of what makes those of us outside of your faith very
uncomfortable.
So you want to be a resident of the material
world we all share, but you don't want to be a resident of the
spiritual world, which we also all share. Well, I see you as
a part of the spiritual world whether you like it or not, and
I see the spiritual and the material aspects of nature inter-acting
as parts of one reality - not two separate ones. Take it or leave
it.
What you call "the spiritual world",
I call YOUR spiritual world. So when you say "I see you
as a part of the spiritual world whether you like it or not",
I interpret that as "I see you as a part of MY spiritual
world whether you like it or not". I hope you can see how
those of different faiths might feel disturbed by this point
of view. This perspective of yours is not unique among anthroposophists.
It is why I would not entrust my child to a Waldorf school, and
it is why I support the principles of critics on this list.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Biodynamic Gardening
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 18:57:52 +0200
Alan S. Fine wrote:
What you call "the spiritual world",
I call YOUR spiritual world. So when you say "I see you
as a part of the spiritual world whether you like it or not",
I interpret that as "I see you as a part of MY spiritual
world whether you like it or not".
If it were MY spiritual world, I would be
God Almighty. Being of a less megalomaniac disposition, however,
I recognize that I am just a small part of it.
All things were made by him; and outside him
was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:3)
I hope you can see how those of different
faiths might feel disturbed by this >point of view.
Sure. But I won't keep my tongue or change
my words to please them. If my utterances offend anyone, or many,
so be it. It has never been my ambition to be inoffensive.
This perspective of yours is not unique
among anthroposophists. It is why I would not entrust my child
to a Waldorf school,
I am not asking you to entrust your child
to anyone,
and it is why I support the principles
of critics on this list.
Some anthropops find that disturbing and uncomfortable,
especially the fascist elements.
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ezra Beeman
Subject: Re: Biodynamic Gardening
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 13:59:23 -0400
Debate is not a scientifically proven, or
provable, concept. Please cease and desist all such foolishness.
e
"Alan S. Fine MD" wrote:
I am saying that i support the objection
to it being taught in schools without parents consent, because
it is a spiritual concept and not a scientifically proven concept.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Luke Schelly"
Subject: Re: Biodynamic Gardening
Date: 6 Apr 1999 15:28:29 -0400
another gem from Alan S. Fine MD;
I am saying that i support the objection
to it being taught in schools without parents consent, because
it is a spiritual concept and not a scientifically proven concept.
What ever happened to hypotetical concept
or proposition or area under research or investigation? Why must
you distinquish things only into spiritual and scientifically
proven? Is it because by labelling it spiritual you hope to exclude
it from people considering it in light of the possibility of
science trying to understand it? I am not saying that science
will understand it, but I am saying that science has not falsified
it yet. (although I could be wrong)
It is the consistant blurring of the boundaries
between the material truths we all share, and the personal spiritual
>beliefs of yours (and your fellow anthroposophists) which
is at the core of what makes those of us outside of your faith
very uncomfortable.
So you want to be a resident of the material
world we all share, but you don't want to be a resident of the
spiritual world, which we also all share. Well, I see you as
a part of the spiritual world whether you like it or not, and
I see the spiritual and the material aspects of nature inter-acting
as parts of one reality - not two separate ones. Take it or leave
it.
What you call "the spiritual world",
I call YOUR spiritual world. So when you say "I see you
as a part of the spiritual world whether you like it or not",
I interpret that as "I see you as a part of MY spiritual
world whether you like it or not". I hope you can see how
those of different faiths might feel disturbed by this point
of view. This perspective of yours is not unique among anthroposophists.
It is why I would not entrust my child to a Waldorf school, and
it is why I support the principles of critics on this list.
Let's try this:
What you call"*the* material world",
I call *your* potentially limited material world. So when you
say something like "I am disturbed by your definition of
reality" I interpret that as "I am distrurbed by your
unwillingness to accept only my definition of reality".
I hope you can see how those of different opinions as to what
may constitute the material world might feel disturbed by this
point of view. This perspective of yours is not unique to self-righteous
people like yourself. It is why I would not entrust my child
to you and it is why I love reading your anti-anthroposophy and
apparently by osmosis anti-waldorf posts.
Luke
(still waiting for the falsification to justify
the denigration)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "MICHAEL RONALL"
Subject: Re: Biodynamic Gardening
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 21:44:58 -0400
"Alan S. Fine MD" - 4/6/99 11:45
AM
replies to a post segment:
Well, I see you as a part of the spiritual
world whether you like it or not, and I see the spiritual and
the material aspects of nature inter-acting as parts of one reality
- not two separate ones. Take it or leave it.
by saying:
What you call "the spiritual world",
I call YOUR spiritual world. So when you say "I see you
as a part of the spiritual world whether you like it or not",
I interpret that as "I see you as a part of MY spiritual
world whether you like it or not". I hope you can see how
those of different faiths might feel disturbed by this point
of view. This perspective of yours is not unique among anthroposophists.
It is why I would not entrust my child to a Waldorf school, and
it is why I support the principles of critics on this list.
Now (MRx here), what happens if we replace
the phrase:
as a part of MY spiritual world whether
you like it or not".
by
"through my thinking whether you like
it or not"?
Should I still be concerend, Alan Fine; others,
if those of different faiths might feel disturbed by this
point of view.?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD"
Subject: Re: Biodynamic Gardening
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 22:12:54 -0600
-Now (MRx here), what happens if we replace
the phrase:
as a part of MY spiritual world whether
you like it or not".
by
"through my thinking whether you like it or not"?
Should I still be concerend, Alan Fine; others, if those of different faiths might
feel disturbed by this point of view.?
It would depend on what you were thinking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
The Uncle
Taz "WC Posts"
Tarjei's
"WC files"