Why Anthroposophy is cult-like
This is a continuation
of the Cult Victim Thread.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dan Dugan
Subject: Why Anthroposophy is cult-like
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 02:21:07 -0800
I (Dan Dugan) wrote,
If you're serious, ask Dr. Paul Martin.
Otherwise, stop bullshitting us here.
And
Tarjei Straume replied,
The bullshit is the suggestion that exposure
to Anthroposophy creates cult victims. I have done a great deal
of research on Scientology, and I am still in touch with people
who were in that cult for a long time. I know the difference
between a destructive and coercive cult, and a free spiritual
movement. You obviously don't.
Scientology is dangerous, and I thank you
for working against it. We're with you, there.
I agree that as cults go, Anthroposphy is
a sissy; in almost all aspects not dangerous, just a huge waste
of time. Yet it was a cult when Steiner was alive, however benevolent,
and has clung to its cult-like characteristics without change
for 75 years. This is why I call Anthroposophy a "cult-like
religious sect," and say that it is a cult in the process
of becoming a religion.
Cult-like characteristics of Anthroposophy
include:
* It clings to rejected knowledge.
(The heart is not a pump, etc.)
* It requires teachers to commit to the world-view
for advancement in status.
(college of teachers)
* Its core doctrines are not published.
(First Class)
* It is exclusive.
(Only Anthroposophical knowledge of man leads to right education)
* It guards revelation of "difficult"
knowledge.
(Prospective parents won't be told about the role of Lucifer)
* It is a closed system.
(Almost all publications referenced are from Anthroposophical
presses and periodicals, all writers refer to Steiner)
* It uses Jargon that redefines common terms.
(Child development)
* It maintains separation from the world by
generating fear and loathing.
(Denigrating public schools, "us vs them" attitude,
paranoia)
* It suppresses critical dialogue, resulting
in elaboration but no development of theory.
(Consensus government, "like it or leave," Shunning)
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Why Anthroposophy is cult-like
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 12:52:03 +0100
Dan Dugan wrote:
I agree that as cults go, Anthroposphy
is a sissy; in almost all aspects not dangerous, just a huge
waste of time. Yet it was a cult when Steiner was alive, however
benevolent, and has clung to its cult-like characteristics without
change for 75 years. This is why I call Anthroposophy a "cult-like
religious sect," and say that it is a cult in the process
of becoming a religion.
Cult-like characteristics of Anthroposophy include:
* It clings to rejected knowledge.
(The heart is not a pump, etc.)
Very interesting example. When artificial
hearts failed, the surgeons were saying that it might indicate
the falseness of the theory of the heart as a pump.
The heart is a muscle that responds to the
movement of the blood and coordinates it. But when you get sexually
excited, for instance, it is not the heart that pumps the blood
into your sex organs. And it is not the heart that pumps the
blood to an infected toe, or draws it from the face when you
become pale.
* It requires teachers to commit to the
world-view for advancement in status.
(college of teachers)
Waldorf education is as I have said not my
specialty, but since the anthroposophical view of the human being
is the base of this educational system, a commitment to anthroposophy
looks like a reasonable expectation from my point of view.
* Its core doctrines are not published.
(First Class)
That's bullshit. The class lessons are part
of a special school for spiritual exercises for the especially
interested. It's a detailed extension of "Knowledge of the
Higher Worlds." It is not the "core doctrines"
of Waldorf education or Anthroposophy in general. This is conspiracy-secrecy-paranoia
bullshit.
* It is exclusive.
(Only Anthroposophical knowledge of man leads to right education)
If by exclusivity is meant that non-acceptance
of a spiritual view of man does not fit in, your point is valid.
Any private alternative educational establishement has the perfect
right to be self-defined in this respect though. That does not
make it a cult.
* It guards revelation of "difficult" knowledge.
(Prospective parents won't be told about the role of Lucifer)
Everything about Lucifer and Ahriman and Christ
is available in the widely published books. It is not witheld
from anyone by anybody.
* It is a closed system.
(Almost all publications referenced are from Anthroposophical
presses and periodicals, all writers refer to Steiner)
Publishers that specialize in anthroposophical
and related literature do not make it a closed system. And it
is irrelevant to the argument that anthroposophy is a cult.
* It uses Jargon that redefines common terms.
(Child development)
Jargon is common in all specialized fields.
Is medicine a cult? (Listen to doctors talking.)
* It maintains separation from the world by generating fear and
loathing.
(Denigrating public schools, "us vs them" attitude,
paranoia)
Bullshit. I have not detected any fear or
loathing in my son, nor in any other Waldorf students I have
encountered. They are not paranoid either.
But as I have pointed out, anthroposophists
are cultural heretics, so it is natural to make the distinction
in certain contexts between the anthroposophical community and
the non-anthroposophical community. To call that paranoia is
nonsense.
* It suppresses critical dialogue, resulting in elaboration but
no development of theory.
(Consensus government, "like it or leave," Shunning)
This is a topic that needs further clarification,
and that is best commented by teachers, not by me.
Incidentally, much of your criticism might
be very valid if it were not so exaggerating and distorting.
I think that turning lefties into righties
is wrong, very wrong, unless someone can convince me otherwise.
And it is not right to practice theories that are not examined,
and that do not make sense or do not feel right. So if this thing
about lefties is from Steiner, I would like to see an exact reference
(from anybody on the list), and preferably an extensive quote.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Steve Premo"
Subject: Re: Why Anthroposophy is cult-like
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 09:01:40 -0700
On 9 Feb 99, at 12:52, Tarjei Straume wrote:
Very interesting example. When artificial
hearts failed, the surgeons were saying that it might indicate
the falseness of the theory of the heart as a pump.
Were they saying that the heart does not pump
blood, or that the heart is not *only* a pump? If they were saying
that the heart does not pump blood, as Steiner asserted (and
you appear to believe), I would be astonished.
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: Debra Snell
Subject: Re: Why Anthroposophy is cult-like
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 09:22:46 -0800
(Dan Dugan)
* It requires teachers to commit to the
world-view for advancement in status.
(college of teachers)
(Tariei)
Waldorf education is as I have said not
my specialty, but since the anthroposophical view of the human
being is the base of this educational system, a commitment to
anthroposophy looks like a reasonable expectation from my point
of view.
Exactally PLANS point. Anytime a public school
system _requires_ a teacher to study a spiritual belief system
as the criteria for obtaining a job, it violates the first ammendment,
not to mention Equal Opportunity laws... Waldorf in the public
sector must deny it's very foundation in order to obtain funding.
Not only a legal problem, but a grave moral concern. How Betty
Staley can sleep at night, I'll never know. :+)
Debra
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Why Anthroposophy is cult-like
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 18:37:06 +0100
Steve Premo wrote:
Were they saying that the heart does not pump blood, or that
the heart is not *only* a pump? If they were saying that the
heart does not pump blood, as Steiner asserted (and you appear
to believe), I would be astonished.
It was in the news way back in the eighties,
and all I remember was that the "heart-being-a pump-theory"
might be at cause for the mistaken belief that artificial hearts
might work.
I have a cousin who is a medical doctor (and
knows nothing about anthroposophy), so I may ask him someday.
He keeps himself up to date on medical journals.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Why Anthroposophy is cult-like
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 19:04:07 +0100
Debra wrote:
Exactally PLANS point. Anytime a public
school system _requires_ a teacher to study a spiritual belief
system as the criteria for obtaining a job, it violates the first
ammendment, not to mention Equal Opportunity laws... Waldorf
in the public sector must deny it's very foundation in order
to obtain funding. Not only a legal problem, but a grave moral
concern. How Betty Staley can sleep at night, I'll never know.
:+)
Debra
Waldorf was never a public school system to
start with. It was a strictly private alternative to keep free
from the state and its educational authorities. I am defending
the rights of a private school, which should certainly be appreciated
in the Land of the Free and free enterprise and private initiatives.
Problems with state-controlled public schools are an entirely
different matter.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David McKay
Subject: Re: Why Anthroposophy is cult-like
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 11:31:26 -0800
Dan Dugan wrote:
I agree that as cults go, Anthroposphy
is a sissy; in almost all aspects not dangerous, just a huge
waste of time. Yet it was a cult when Steiner was alive, however
benevolent, and has clung to its cult-like characteristics without
change for 75 years. This is why I call Anthroposophy a "cult-like
religious sect," and say that it is a cult in the process
of becoming a religion.
Cult-like characteristics of Anthroposophy include:
* It clings to rejected knowledge.
(The heart is not a pump, etc.)
Very interesting example. When artificial
hearts failed, the surgeons were saying that it might indicate
the falseness of the theory of the heart as a pump.
What surgeons and when/where did they say
this?
The heart is a muscle that responds to
the movement of the blood and coordinates it. But when you get
sexually excited, for instance, it is not the heart that pumps
the blood into your sex organs. And it is not the heart that
pumps the blood to an infected toe, or draws it from the face
when you become pale.
Please explain the above with scientitic notations
and references. Sounds like the usual Anthro/Waldorf "out-of-context"
twisted information.
* It requires teachers to commit to the
world-view for advancement in status.
(college of teachers)
Waldorf education is as I have said not
my specialty, but since the anthroposophical view of the human
being is
* Its core doctrines are not published.
(First Class)
That's bullshit. The class lessons are
part of a special school for spiritual exercises for the especially
interested. It's a detailed extension of "Knowledge of the
Higher Worlds." It is not the "core doctrines"
of Waldorf education or Anthroposophy in general. This is conspiracy-secrecy-paranoia
bullshit.
Another brainwashed follower whom can't see
the forest for the trees
* It is exclusive.
(Only Anthroposophical knowledge of man leads to right education)
If by exclusivity is meant that non-acceptance
of a spiritual view of man does not fit in, your point is valid.
Any private alternative educational establishement has the perfect
right to be self-defined in this respect though. That does not
make it a cult.
Ah! But one of the main contentions on this
list is this view being put forth in *public* schools where it
is not OK. And yes, RSC, AWSNA do a great job of deceiving the
public in both their "public teacher training program"
as well as their "worm your way in" tactics thru the
"charter school" initiatives.
* It guards revelation of "difficult"
knowledge.
(Prospective parents won't be told about the role of Lucifer)
Everything about Lucifer and Ahriman and
Christ is available in the widely published books. It is not
witheld from anyone by anybody.
But it is not openly talked about with parents.
We were part of a private WE school that converted to a public
Waldorf Charter School for eight years. It wasn't until I was
on the Charter schools Board of Directors and the College of
Teachers decided we needed to do "vision work" that
I realized what our family had gotten into. In all my previous
attempts to figure out the what and why of WE I was told I wouldn't
understand because I didn't have the proper "training".
* It maintains separation from the world
by generating fear and loathing.
(Denigrating public schools, "us vs them" attitude,
paranoia)
Bullshit. I have not detected any fear
or loathing in my son, nor in any other Waldorf students I have
encountered. They are not paranoid either.
Well, it my son's as well as many other children
in his 1st & 2nd grade class that raised alarms that we as
parents finally responded to. He had a lot of "fear and
loathing" and that time and he still loaths the thoughts
and experiences he had there.
But as I have pointed out, anthroposophists
are cultural heretics, so it is natural to make the distinction
in certain contexts between the anthroposophical community and
the non-anthroposophical community. To call that paranoia is
nonsense.
You help make the point that a "Full
Disclosure Statement" about Anthroposophy and its foundation
of WE is much needed. What I saw over the years at many private
WE schools was to get enrollment as a primary goal (as should
be), but every time a school decided to "come out of the
closet" about Anthroposophy they would have a negative impact
on enrollment.
It seems that especially at a private WE school
there shouldn't exist an "anthroposophical community and
the non-anthroposophical community", as what it *does* instill
is a sense of "them against us" mentality, therefore
"paranoia".
David McKay
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David McKay
Subject: Re: Why Anthroposophy is cult-like
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 11:39:19 -0800
Debra wrote:
Exactally PLANS point. Anytime a public
school system _requires_ a teacher to study a spiritual belief
system as the criteria for obtaining a job, it violates the first
ammendment, not to mention Equal Opportunity laws... Waldorf
in the public sector must deny it's very foundation in order
to obtain funding. Not only a legal problem, but a grave moral
concern. How Betty Staley can sleep at night, I'll never know.
:+)
Debra
Tarjei:
Waldorf was never a public school system
to start with. It was a strictly private alternative to keep
free from the state and its educational authorities. I am defending
the rights of a private school, which should certainly be appreciated
in the Land of the Free and free enterprise and private initiatives.
Problems with state-controlled public schools are an entirely
different matter.
As I said in my previous post, it is just
as important to have Full Disclosure and honestly informed parents
whether it is private or public.
David McKay
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Why Anthroposophy is cult-like
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 21:42:32 +0100
I wrote:
Very interesting example. When artificial
hearts failed, the surgeons were saying that it might indicate
the falseness of the theory of the heart as a pump.
David McKay wrote:
What surgeons and when/where did they say this?
As I menioned in my response to Steve, it
was in the news twelve to fiften years ago in America. that's
all I remember. Up to date medical journals should be consulted
on this I think.
The heart is a muscle that responds to
the movement of the blood and coordinates it. But when you get
sexually excited, for instance, it is not the heart that pumps
the blood into your sex organs. And it is not the heart that
pumps the blood to an infected toe, or draws it from the face
when you become pale.
Please explain the above with scientitic
notations and references. Sounds like the usual Anthro/Waldorf
"out-of-context" twisted information.
It was *my* explanation as a layman, to set
straight what I see as misconstructions of anthroposophical anatomy.
If I were a medical doctor, I would be more than happy to supply
the appropriate references.
Another brainwashed follower whom can't
see the forest for the trees>
So I'm brainwashed - by whom? And by what
method? If you have you studied the techniques of brainwashing
as practiced by totalitarian regimes on prisoners of war, or
the more advanced techniques developed after World War II, I
would certainly like to have explained how it has been applied
in my case.
This is a totally irrational statement signalling
out-of-control hostility toward anyone involved with anthroposophy.
Ah! But one of the main contentions on
this list is this view being put forth in *public* schools where
it is not OK. And yes, RSC, AWSNA do a great job of decieving
the public in both their "public teacher training program"
as well as their "worm your way in" tactics thru the
"charter school" initiatives.
Your public school problems in America should
not be projected on private Waldorf schools in Europe, or on
the anthroposophical movement behind it, or its founder. It should
be addressed to the individuals involved in your local political
chaos, whether they are "defenders of the faith" or
not.
Everything about Lucifer and Ahriman and
Christ is available in the widely published books. It is not
witheld from anyone by anybody.
But it is not openly talked about with
parents. We were part of a private WE school that converted to
a public Waldorf Charter School for eight years. It wasn't until
I was on the Charter schools Board of Directors and the College
of Teachers decided we needed to do "vision work" that
I realized what our family had gotten into. In all my previous
attempts to figure out the what and why of WE I was told I wouldn't
understand because I didn't have the proper "training".
Sounds like poor communication, and I cannot
tell who is at fault.
Well, it my son's as well as many other
children in his 1st & 2nd grade class that raised alarms
that we as parents finally responded to. He had a lot of "fear
and loathing" and that time and he still loaths the thoughts
and experiences he had there.
Sounds like either a psychological problem,
or personality conflict, or both. You seem to think that Rudolf
Steiner has put fear and loathing in your son. If I'm brainwashed,
you're a basket case.
You help make the point that a "Full
Disclosure Statement" about Anthroposophy and it's foundation
of WE is much needed. What I saw over the years at many private
WE schools was to get enrollment as a primary goal (as should
be), but every time a school decided to "come out of the
closet" about Anthroposophy they would have a negative impact
on enrollment.
In that case, reduced enrollment should be
accepted. Sounds like a problem arising from the American commercial
success culture.
It seems that especially at a private WE school there shouldn't
exist an "anthroposophical community and the non-anthroposophical
community", as what it *does* instill is a sense of "them
against us" mentality, therefore "paranoia".
I know there is a lot of paranoia in American
schools, where students must be checked for weapons when entering
the premises and so forth. It's a shame that these lower forces
have also infested the Waldorf movement, though my impression
might be different if I examined it first hand.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sune Nordwall
Subject: Re: Why Anthroposophy is cult-like
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 11:48:43 +0100
Dan Dugan wrote:
Cult-like characteristics of Anthroposophy
include:
...
* Its core doctrines are not published.
(First Class)
This is not true.
Besides not being or containing any more or
other "core doctrines" than other Steiner lectures,
the I think 23 lectures held by Steiner to the first class of
the Free Highschool for Spiritual science were published some
years ago. What distinguishes them from other lectures is that
they also contain concrete suggestions for a number of meditations.
If you want to label anything "core doctrines",
"Anthroposophische Leitsaetze" (Leading thoughts?)
would maybe come closest. With them, Rudolf Steiner summarized
on his death bed (1924-5) for a last time the essence of anthroposophy,
as he saw it. I don´t have them right now, but to my memory
they have much more the character of material for meditation
than formalized "doctrines" in any sense. They were
also published as letters to the members in the Newsletter of
the society during the same time (1924-5) and later as a book.
As for most of the other points:
* It is exclusive.
(Only Anthroposophical knowledge of man leads to right education)
...
I think Tarjei has given quite good answers.
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: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Why Anthroposophy is cult-like
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 12:21:07 +0100
"Anthroposophical Leading Thoughts,"
Rudolf Steiner Press, 1973
"The Michael Mystery," St. George
Publications, Spring Valley, 1984
(Anthroposophische Leitsätze, GA 26)
The copyright on Rudolf Steiner's works expired
in 1995, 70 years after his
death. All his works are free for all.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD"
Subject: Re: Why Anthroposophy is cult-like
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 07:49:08 -0700
The essence of the cult nature of anthroposophy
is the group's mass adherance and unquestioning faith in a single
individual's beliefs, including not only realities, but magical
beliefs as well. As common as the phenomenon is, I find it frightening,
and I believe history substantiates my fears.
-----Original Message-----
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Wednesday, February 10, 1999 4:37 AM
Subject: Re: Why Anthroposophy is cult-like
"Anthroposophical Leading Thoughts,"
Rudolf Steiner Press, 1973
"The Michael Mystery," St. George Publications, Spring
Valley, 1984
(Anthroposophische Leitsätze, GA 26)
The copyright on Rudolf Steiner's works expired in 1995, 70 years
after his death. All his works are free for all.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD"
Subject: Re: Why Anthroposophy is cult-like
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 08:03:39 -0700
As to why Anthroposophy is cult-like, the
tireless defenses of Steiner's idiosyncratic views, as in this
posting, is proof enough. (philosophy of freedom? what kind of
freedom is this?)
-----Original Message-----
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Tuesday, February 09, 1999 10:55 AM
Subject: Re: Why Anthroposophy is cult-like
Steve Premo wrote:
Were they saying that the heart does not
pump blood, or that the heart is not *only* a pump? If they were
saying that the heart does not pump blood, as Steiner asserted
(and you appear to believe), I would be astonished.
It was in the news way back in the eighties,
and all I remember was that the "heart-being-a pump-theory"
might be at cause for the mistaken belief that artificial hearts
might work.
I have a cousin who is a medical doctor (and knows nothing about
anthroposophy), so I may ask him someday. He keeps himself up
to date on medical journals.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD"
Subject: Re: Why Anthroposophy is cult-like
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 08:31:13 -0700
This discussion is only important from the
perspective of an anthroposophist (I'm leaving out the c word)
who needs to feel everything Steiner said is the Truth. As a
physician, I feel that whether you call the heart a pump or not
has very little clinical relevance. As a physicist (and I am
both), I must add that I have yet to encounter an individual
involved in these discussions who even understood what a pump
is.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dan Dugan
Subject: Re: Why Anthroposophy is cult-like
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:49:02 -0800
Dan Dugan wrote:
Cult-like characteristics of Anthroposophy
include:
...
* Its core doctrines are not published.
(First Class)
SUNE NORDWALL
This is not true.
Besides not being or containing any more
or other "core doctrines" than other Steiner lectures,
the I think 23 lectures held by Steiner to the first class of
the Free Highschool for Spiritual science were published some
years ago. What distinguishes them from other lectures is that
they also contain concrete suggestions for a number of meditations.
Copyrights to Steiner's publications are held
by two rival factions. When they expired, one faction published
First Class texts in German, the other accused them of betrayal.
They have not been translated.
The texts of the Christian Community sacraments
aren't published, either.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: Why Anthroposophy is cult-like
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 14:33:35 -0500
On Wednesday, February 10, 1999 12:49 PM,
Dan Dugan wrote:
The texts of the Christian Community sacraments
aren't published, either.
-Dan Dugan
What relationship does the Christian Community
have with Waldorf Education?
Bob
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Why Anthroposophy is cult-like
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 20:48:46 +0100
Dan Dugan wrote:
Copyrights to Steiner's publications are
held by two rival factions. When they expired, one faction published
First Class texts in German, the other accused them of betrayal.
They have not been translated.
The texts of the Christian Community sacraments aren't published,
either.
I feel like repeating the words that were
once said to senator McCarthy: Do you have no sense of decency?
The Christian Community is a cult in the ancient
meaning of the word: Holy communion with the spiritual world.
I understand that you do not respect that anything can be sacred
to "the defenders of the faith." The point is nobody
has probably thought of the texts of the sacraments in printed
form being of interest to anyone except the priests who perform
them.
Like I have pointed out, anthroposophy is
open for everybody. But you act as though all anthroposophical
institutions should regard you as some kind of authorized inspector.
I became familiar with the texts of the Christian Community sacraments
a year and a half ago, when my mother died, and I asked the Christian
Community to perform the ritual. I am not interested in repeating
those words to individuals who feel nothing but scorn and contempt
for it, and who seek to abuse even that.
You may ridicule Steiner's scientific claim
as much as you like. But it is unnecessary to laugh at my mother's
farewell.
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sune Nordwall
Subject: Re: Why Anthroposophy is cult-like
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 22:41:37 +0100
Dan Dugan wrote:
Tue, 9 Feb 1999 02:21:07 as a truth:
* Its core doctrines are not published.
(First Class)
and then Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:49:02, one day
later, after having been informed that it was not true, admits
that what he said one day earlier is not true;
Copyrights to Steiner's publications are
held by two rival factions. When they expired, one faction published
First Class texts in German
When did you find out? Tue, 9 Feb at 02:22
...? Or Tue, 9 Feb 02:20, but "forgot" about it?
An interesting relation to truth. I thought
your work was dedicated to science; truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth.
In defense, I assume you will now say that
you´ve read too many books by Steiner and don´t know
up from down for sure any more ...
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: Why Anthroposophy is cult-like
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 16:57:41 EST
In einer eMail vom 10.02.99 20:20:11 MEZ,
schreiben Sie:
Copyrights to Steiner's publications are
held by two rival factions. When they expired, one faction published
First Class texts in German, the other accused them of betrayal.
They have not been translated.
Unfortunately there is a load of untranslated
stuff - demand dictates priority, and one of your other requests
(a model-free optics) should be translated sooner!
Bruce
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sune Nordwall
Subject: Re: Why Anthroposophy is cult-like
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 03:31:35 +0100
Dan Dugan wrote Tue, 9 Feb 1999 02:18:31:
Cult-like characteristics of Anthroposophy
include
(Do you have such a clear mind at two in the
morning as to come up with the following, or is it from the book
that you have hinted at that you are preparing? Then I really
suggest you get help in editing and proofreading it.)
* It clings to rejected knowledge.
(The heart is not a pump, etc.)
For something to be "rejected knowledge"
in the normal sense, it must first have been "accepted knowledge".
But as far as I know the concept of the heart as not primarily
being a "pump" has never been _generally discussed_
and accepted. How can it then be "rejected".
The "geocentric" concept of the
planetary system was first "accepted" then "rejected".
The concept of the heart as not being primarily a "pump"
not.
As a service to the list and to give some
perspective on the theme of the heart, I have put the first part
of the lecture where Steiner described his view of the heart
as not _primarily_ a pump but as a sensitive and a _mediating_
organ between the metabolic processes, mainly in the abdomen,
and the sense-nervous process, mainly "in the head".
It is the second lecture of twenty in the first medical course
held by Steiner to doctors and medical students and has the URL:
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/heart.htm.
The first lecture deals as an introduction
with the changing concepts of illness during the history of medicine,
from Hippocrates over Paracelsus, Stahl, Morgagni and a Troxler,
who taught medicine in Berne in the 19th century. to his own
time.
Everyone is free to think what they want about
Steiner, but it is difficult to deny that he really tried hard
and seemed to be well read up on the subjects he treated.
* It requires teachers to commit to the world-view for advancement
in status.
(college of teachers)
Your description misses the point.
If the central point of "commitment"
to waldorf pedagogics is when a waldorf teacher wants to "advance
in status", it is not normal and shows only that the school
in question has had problems getting the right teacher; that
is: one who knows what he is doing and has a basic understanding
of waldorf pedagogics. The normal central point of "commitment"
for a teacher to waldorf pedagogics is normally when you _chose
to be_ a waldorf teacher, not when you want to "advance
in status".
* Its core doctrines are not published.
(First Class)
As you now have admitted, this is not true.
If you knew it when you wrote it, why did
you write it?
* It is exclusive.
(Only Anthroposophical knowledge of man leads to right education)
I get the impression that you do not clearly
differentiate between what you want to say about anthroposophy
and what you want to say about WE and when your opinion concerns
both.
You write as if you mean that either anthroposophy
or waldorf education or both are "exclusive". I think
you are wrong in all cases.
Anthroposophy is not "exclusive"
in the sense that it is meant for "special people".
It is meant for anyone interested in it. It is openly visible
in the world. There are no special "secrets" in anthroposophy.
More than three hundred volumes containing maybe 4000 lectures
and 28 written works by Steiner have been published. Many of
them have been translated into other languages. Many are available
in all bigger libraries. They do not cost more than other books.
Introductory courses on anthroposophy do not cost much. Study
groups meet freely, costing nothing.
The _"only"_ thing that is "exclusive"
about anthroposophy is that it is very difficult to understand
if you think _only_ in terms of stiff "solid objects"
as the only reality about which you think. It takes _some_ form
of movement in the thoughts to begin to understand anthroposophy.
I won´t explicate (time shortage) why
I think you it does not hold for WE either.
* It guards revelation of "difficult"
knowledge.
(Prospective parents won't be told about the role of Lucifer)
Lazy one ...! The thinking or talking about
"Lucifer" is peripheral to all daily work as a waldorf
teacher and in no way essential for understanding the basics
of WE.
Tarjei answered some.
* It maintains separation from the world
by generating fear and loathing.
In my experience from a number of waldorf
schools in Sweden this is pure rubbish.
* It suppresses critical dialogue, resulting
in elaboration but no development of theory. (Consensus government,
"like it or leave," Shunning)
I think you have a small point here. But in
proportion to all the half imaginary and to a great extent unfounded
points on the list you wrote, it is a rather small one.
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: David McKay
Subject: Re: Why Anthroposophy is cult-like
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 21:56:31 -0800
McKay:
Another brainwashed follower whom can't
see the forest for the trees>
Tarjei:
So I'm brainwashed - by whom? And by what
method? If you have you studied the techniques of brainwashing
as practiced by totalitarian regimes on prisoners of war, or
the more advanced techniques developed after World War II, I
would certainly like to have explained how it has been applied
in my case.
This is a totally irrational statement
signalling out-of-control hostility toward anyone involved with
anthroposophy.
No, I just wonder why you and other Anthroposophists
repeat/put forth information about medical, physical, psychological,
geological, mathmatical that seems to be rote at best, yet you
defend Stieners delusional pratal as if there was any basis of
fact.
McKay:
Ah! But one of the main contentions on
this list is this view being put forth in *public* schools where
it is not OK. And yes, RSC, AWSNA do a great job of deceiving
the public in both their "public teacher training program"
as well as their "worm your way in" tactics thru the
"charter school" initiatives.
Tarjei:
Your public school problems in America
should not be projected on private Waldorf schools in Europe,
or on the anthroposophical movement behind it, or its founder.
It should be addressed to the individuals involved in your local
political chaos, whether they are "defenders of the faith"
or not.
That's a cop out if I ever heard one!
Tarjei:
Everything about Lucifer and Ahriman and
Christ is available in the widely published books. It is not
witheld from anyone by anybody.
McKay:
But it is not openly talked about with
parents. We were part of a private WE school that converted to
a public Waldorf Charter School for eight years. It wasn't until
I was on the Charter schools Board of Directors and the College
of Teachers decided we needed to do "vision work" that
I realized what our family had gotten into. In all my previous
attempts to figure out the what and why of WE I was told I wouldn't
understand because I didn't have the proper "training".
Sounds like poor communication, and I cannot
tell who is at fault.
Again no, as I said above "I was told
I wouldn't understand because I didn't have the proper "training"."
I, nor any other non-anthroposophist, were ever given a straight
answer. If there was any "poor comunication" it was
and always has been from the WE/Anthro side. In fact this list
is an outcome of hundreds of people from around the world that
didn't and haven't had their questions answered.
McKay:
Well, it my son's as well as many other
children in his 1st & 2nd grade class that raised alarms
that we as parents finally responded to. He had a lot of "fear
and loathing" and that time and he still loaths the thoughts
and experiences he had there.
Tarjei:
Sounds like either a psychological problem,
or personality conflict, or both. You seem to think that Rudolf
Steiner has put fear and loathing in your son. If I'm brainwashed,
you're a basket case.
Well, I must say I've run into so many Anthro's
like you on this list and over the years here in this country
that try (unsuccesfully) to divert the blame/problem on those
that have been abused by WE/Anthroposophy, that I know my basket
is not your case to want to hear or understand.
McKay:
You help make the point that a "Full
Disclosure Statement" about Anthroposophy and it's foundation
of WE is much needed. What I saw over the years at many private
WE schools was to get enrollment as a primary goal (as should
be), but every time a school decided to "come out of the
closet" about Anthroposophy they would have a negative impact
on enrollment.
Tarjei:
In that case, reduced enrollment should
be accepted. Sounds like a problem arising from the American
commercial success culture.
No matter where you are in this world it takes
money to stay in business. Private WE schools in this country
are far from being "American commercial success culture",
nor is it their main desire. Just like most of us in this world,
WE teachers and staff just want to make a decent living. That
living is tied to "enrollment". This isn't rocket science
Tarjei.
McKay:
It seems that especially at a private WE
school there shouldn't exist an "anthroposophical community
and the non-anthroposophical community", as what it *does*
instill is a sense of "them against us" mentality,
therefore "paranoia".
Tarjei:
I know there is a lot of paranoia in American
schools, where students must be checked for weapons when entering
the premises and so forth. It's a shame that these lower forces
have also infested the Waldorf movement, though my impression
might be different if I examined it first hand.
You miss my point. I said nothing about weapons nor lower forces.
What *have* you been smoking?!
David McKay
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Why Anthroposophy is cult-like
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 06:07:34 +0000
Dan Dugan wrote:
Cult-like characteristics of Anthroposophy
include:
* It clings to rejected knowledge.
This is certainly true of some who claim to
be anthroposophists; I dispute that it is true of anthroposophy
(i.e. the philosophy) itself.
* It requires teachers to commit to the
world-view for advancement in status.
This does not accord with my experience in
several Waldorf schools where, in general, those with the perceived
(by pupils, parents and colleagues) highest status are class
teachers (as compared to subject- and part-time teachers). This
needs addressing, but it'll not be properly addressed if it is
falsely attributed to a commitment to anthroposophy.
* Its core doctrines are not published.
This is blatantly false.
* It is exclusive.
Certainly some who claim to be anthroposophists
do show this less than laudable quality. And lots of others (amongst
whom I like to think I am included) don't.
* It guards revelation of "difficult"
knowledge.
We must be pretty illogical folk if we try
to guard against the revelation of something by publishing it!
* It is a closed system.
(Almost all publications referenced are from Anthroposophical
presses and periodicals, all writers refer to Steiner)
If they referred *only* to Steiner, you might
have the germ of a case. However, they refer also to many other
people. Is modern cosmology a "closed system" because
all writers refer to Einstein?
* It uses Jargon that redefines common
terms.
It does, and it is irritating. However, this
is true of a heck of a lot of things. Why (in the common use
of the terms) is Pluto "superior" whilst Venus is "inferior"?
Take a look at the use of the word "degenerate" in
Riemann geometry.
* It maintains separation from the world
by generating fear and loathing.
Again, whilst some anthropops may do this,
it is not generally true. Where, for example, have you seen Robert
Flannery or Bruce Jackson denigrate public schools?
* It suppresses critical dialogue, resulting
in elaboration but no development of theory.
Again, this is not my experience of anthroposophy,
although there are certainly some anthroposophists whose actions
support your contention. I have sat down with anthropops and
had discussions which are *much* more deeply critical than anything
I have come across here. And Dan, I think you are a subscriber
to at least one other mailing list where I have been known to
be critical, particularly of anthropopobabble.
As you are aware, Dan, single counter-examples
invalidate an hypothesis; and generalising from the particular
or selecting only those data which support your hypothesis are
not scientifically rational.
Noctis Gaudia Carpe,
Stephen
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy
Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Why Anthroposophy is cult-like
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 11:27:46 +0100
David McKay wrote:
No, I just wonder why you and other Anthroposophists
repeat/put forth information about medical, physical, psychological,
geological, mathmatical that seems to be rote at best, yet you
defend Stieners delusional pratal as if there was any basis of
fact.
I explained a certain aspect of physiology
(the blood circulation and the heart) the way I have understood
it when the subject was brought up. Beyond that I have been conscientious
in pointing out that not only medicine, but also pedagogy, is
outside my professional field (arts and literature). But the
funny thing is that when I suggest that someone else should answer
a given question because it is not my turf, I am accused of "copping
out." You cannot have it both ways.
McKay:
Ah! But one of the main contentions on
this list is this view being put forth in *public* schools where
it is not OK. And yes, RSC, AWSNA do a great job of decieving
the public in both their "public teacher training program"
as well as their "worm your way in" tactics thru the
"charter school" initiatives.
Tarjei:
Your public school problems in America
should not be projected on private Waldorf schools in Europe,
or on the anthroposophical movement behind it, or its founder.
It should be addressed to the individuals involved in your local
political chaos, whether they are "defenders of the faith"
or not.
McKay:
That's a cop out if I ever heard one!
A cop out? Should I be responsible for your
local school problems in America because of my philosophy, and
do those problems provide cause to criticize me for sending my
son to Waldorf school in Norway, for seeing an anthroposophical
medical doctor, and for studying and writing about anthroposophy
as a free-lance writer and magazine editor? You see, the Anthroposophical
Movement has no structure of authority as such, no "chain
of command." You can't just call someone "higher up"
and say, "Tell them to stop doing that!" And you certainly
can't expect an anarchist like me to suggest anything like that.
Tarjei:
Everything about Lucifer and Ahriman and
Christ is available in the widely published books. It is not
witheld from anyone by anybody.
McKay:
But it is not openly talked about with
parents. We were part of a private WE school that converted to
a public Waldorf Charter School for eight years. It wasn't until
I was on the Charter schools Board of Directors and the College
of Teachers decided we needed to do "vision work" that
I realized what our family had gotten into. In all my previous
attempts to figure out the what and why of WE I was told I wouldn't
understand because I didn't have the proper "training".
Sounds like poor communication, and I cannot
tell who is at fault.
McKay:
Again no, as I said above "I was told
I wouldn't understand because I didn't have the proper "training"."
I, nor any other non-anthroposophist, were ever given a straight
answer. If there was any "poor comunication" it was
and always has been from the WE/Anthro side. In fact this list
is an out come of hundreds of people from around the world that
didn't and haven't had their questions answered.
Anthroposophy raises a lot of questions that
are difficult to answer. I still think that a much better effort
should be made to answer questions, but most people have to find
them by reading and study.
McKay:
Well, it my son's as well as many other
children in his 1st & 2nd grade class that raised alarms
that we as parents finally responded to. He had a lot of "fear
and loathing" and that time and he still loaths the thoughts
and experiences he had there.
Tarjei:
Sounds like either a psychological problem,
or personality conflict, or both. You seem to think that Rudolf
Steiner has put fear and loathing in your son. If I'm brainwashed,
you're a basket case.
McKay:
Well, I must say I've run into so many
Anthro's like you on this list and over the years here in this
country that try (unsuccesfully) to divert the blame/problem
on those that have been abused by WE/Anthroposophy, that I know
my basket is not your case to want to hear or understand.
If you have been abused by anthroposophists
as you say, that does not ipso facto make me an abuser of anyone.
Neither is my son being abused in Waldorf school. That is my
point.
McKay:
You help make the point that a "Full
Disclosure Statement" about Anthroposophy and it's foundation
of WE is much needed. What I saw over the years at many private
WE schools was to get enrollment as a primary goal (as should
be), but every time a school decided to "come out of the
closet" about Anthroposophy they would have a negative impact
on enrollment.
Tarjei:
In that case, reduced enrollment should
be accepted. Sounds like a problem arising from the American
commercial success culture.
McKay:
No matter where you are in this world it
takes money to stay in business. Private WE schools in this country
are far from being "American commercial success culture",
nor is it their main desire. Just like most of us in this world,
WE teachers and staff just want to make a decent living. That
living is tied to "enrollment". This isn't rocket science
Tarjei.
This is precisely why I think that the Waldorf
enthusiasts should be more patient, which would avoid people
like yourself feeling run over.
McKay:
It seems that especially at a private WE
school there shouldn't exist an "anthroposophical community
and the non-anthroposophical community", as what it *does*
instill is a sense of "them against us" mentality,
therefore "paranoia".
Tarjei:
I know there is a lot of paranoia in American
schools, where students must be checked for weapons when entering
the premises and so forth. It's a shame that these lower forces
have also infested the Waldorf movement, though my impression
might be different if I examined it first hand.
McKay:
You miss my point. I said nothing about
weapons nor lower forces. What *have* you been smoking?!
1) Carrying weapons to school is connected
with paranoia.
2)I smoke rolling tobacco, a common practice
in Norway. And yes doctor, I know it's not good for me.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Why Anthroposophy is cult-like
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 11:34:52 +0100
Alan S. Fine MD wrote:
This discussion is only important from
the perspective of an anthroposophist (I'm leaving out the c
word) who needs to feel everything Steiner said is the Truth.
As a physician, I feel that whether you call the heart a pump
or not has very little clinical relevance. As a physicist (and
I am both), I must add that I have yet to encounter an individual
involved in these discussions who even understood what a pump
is.
Please explain it to us then.
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce
Subject: Re: Why Anthroposophy is cult-like
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 10:14:24 EST
In einer eMail vom 11.02.99 03:45:29 MEZ,
schreiben Sie:
Alan S Fine MD wrote:
As a physicist (and I am both), I must
add that I have yet to encounter an individual involved in these
discussions who even understood what a pump is.
Since you obviously
a) know what a pump is and
b) find it relevent to this discussion,
then might I be so bold as to suggest that
you tell us what you think a pump is? Or might one assume of
you (like you do of me) that you dont know?
Bruce
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD"
Subject: Re: Why Anthroposophy is cult-like
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 03:38:47 -0700
Since you obviously
a) know what a pump is and
b) find it relevent to this discussion,
then might I be so bold as to suggest that
you tell us what you think a pump is? Or might one assume of
you (like you do of me) that you dont know?
Bruce
A pump is a mechanism which moves a substance
from one place to another. One simple example is a piston pump
focing a fluid through pipe. There are many types of pumps, however,
from electochemical reactions that transport ions across barriers,
to electromagnetc fields that propel solutions with no moving
parts. These and other pumps are a vital part of the beautiful
and intricate workings of the heart. IThe Anthroposophical treatments
of this subject that I have seen are focused on demonstrating
that the heart is not a piston pump, a notion that is so obviously
oversimplified to begin with that it barely merits serious scientific
discussion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Why Anthroposophy is cult-like
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 11:40:44 +0100
Alan S. Fine MD wrote:
As to why Anthroposophy is cult-like, the
tireless defenses of Steiner's idiosyncratic views, as in this
posting, is proof enough. (philosophy of freedom? what kind of
freedom is this?)
My post below is not a tireless defense of
anything. And it has nothing to do with "Philosophy of Freedom."
Tarjei
Steve Premo wrote:
Were they saying that the heart does not
pump blood, or that the heart is not *only* a pump? If they were
saying that the heart does not pump blood, as Steiner asserted
(and you appear to believe), I would be astonished.
It was in the news way back in the eighties,
and all I remember was that the "heart-being-a pump-theory"
might be at cause for the mistaken belief that artificial hearts
might work.
I have a cousin who is a medical doctor (and knows nothing about
anthroposophy), so I may ask him someday. He keeps himself up
to date on medical journals.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
http://www.uncletaz.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce
Subject: Why Anthroposophy is not cult-like
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 10:14:22 EST
In einer eMail vom 11.02.99 03:18:24 MEZ,
schreiben Sie:
The essence of the cult nature of anthroposophy
is the group's mass adherance and unquestioning faith in a single
individual's beliefs, including not only realities, but magical
beliefs as well. As common as the phenomenon is, I find it frightening,
and I believe history substantiates my fears.
A few posts back Joel pointed out that "anthroposophists"
dont exist. I challenge a great many things that the Dr said/wrote,
and since I do this in Study Groups I can vouch for a great many
others too!
Bruce
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD"
Subject: Re: Why Anthroposophy is not cult-like
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 03:44:59 -0700
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce
Date: Thursday, February 11, 1999 8:44 AM
Subject: Why Anthroposophy is not cult-like
In einer eMail vom 11.02.99 03:18:24 MEZ,
schreiben Sie:
The essence of the cult nature of anthroposophy
is the group's mass adherance and unquestioning faith in a single
individual's beliefs, including not only realities, but magical
beliefs as well. As common as the phenomenon is, I find it frightening,
and I believe history substantiates my fears.
A few posts back Joel pointed out that
"anthroposophists" dont exist. I challenge a great
many things that the Dr said/wrote, and since I do this in Study
Groups I can vouch for a great many others too!
Bruce
I am afraid not everyone in your group shares
your healthy point of view.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce
Subject: Re: Why Anthroposophy is not cult-like
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 06:09:09 EST
In einer eMail vom 11.02.99 23:14:35 MEZ,
schreiben Sie: (Alan S Fine MD)
I am afraid not everyone in your group
shares your healthy point of view.
That is an interesting statement! I would
like, per many other pleas on this list, evidence for this statement.
Unless you are parading under a pseudo-name I cannot imagine
how you know WHO is in any study-group to which I am a member,
let alone what they think!
Please think before you make such ridiculous,
time and space wasting posts!
Bruce J
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD"
Subject: Re: Why Anthroposophy is not cult-like
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 08:28:11 -0700
In einer eMail vom 11.02.99 23:14:35 MEZ,
schreiben Sie: (Alan S Fine MD)
I am afraid not everyone in your group shares your healthy point
of view.
That is an interesting statement! I would like, per many other
pleas on this list, evidence for this statement. Unless you are
parading under a pseudo- name I cannot imagine how you know WHO
is in any study-group to which I am a member, let alone what
they think!
Please think before you make such ridiculous, time and space
wasting
posts!
Bruce J
I am not referring to a particular study group,
but to Anthroposophists in general.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce
Subject: Re: Why Anthroposophy is not cult-like
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 04:43:49 EST
In einer eMail vom 13.02.99 03:42:43 MEZ,
schreiben Sie:
I am not referring to a particular study
group, but to Anthroposophists in general.
I apologise still further, and, ignoring the
complimentary aspect, totally agree - we anthroposophists seldom
have exactly the same views; we do not (on the whole) agree without
questionning all that Steiner said.
There is one thing that he said that all anthroposophists
should believe - do not take me as gospel, but think out for
yourself all that I say (MY WORDS)
Bruce
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce
Subject: Re: Why Anthroposophy is cult-like
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 10:33:08 EST
In einer eMail vom 11.02.99 07:06:24 MEZ,
schreiben Sie:
Tarjei:
Your public school problems in America
should not be projected on private Waldorf schools in Europe,
or on the anthroposophical movement behind it, or its founder.
It should be addressed to the individuals involved in your local
political chaos, whether they are "defenders of the faith"
or not.
That's a cop out if I ever heard one!
Maybe I dont understand what you mean by a
cop-out, but I see Tarjeis logic as very reasonable. PLANS, as
I understand it, are trying to stop Waldorf infiltrating state
schools from the top, right? I am not aware that this is proposed
outside the USA. So how is the above a cop-out? Had he said "I
needn't answer this because.." it would be a cop-out, right?
Bruce
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Steve Premo"
Subject: Re: Why Anthroposophy is cult-like
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 08:58:31 -0700
On 11 Feb 99, at 11:27, Tarjei Straume wrote:
1) Carrying weapons to school is connected
with paranoia.
Believe it or not, this is not a common occurrence
in the U.S. I have read that there are schools where it is common,
but those are not typical schools.
Here in the Santa Cruz area, we did have one
kid expelled from a local high school for having a weapon in
his pack. It was noteworthy enough to make the local news.
The "weapon" was a pocket knife,
which he had taken fishing and had forgotten to remove from his
pack before going to school. He was not using it as a weapon.
A lot of people thought the school had gone
too far, and they might have reduced his punishment to a suspension;
I'm not sure.
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: Why Anthroposophy is cult-like
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 18:38:03 +0100
I wrote:
1) Carrying weapons to school is connected
with paranoia.
Steve Premo wrote:
Believe it or not, this is not a common occurrence in the U.S.
I have read that there are schools where it is common, but those
are not typical schools.
Here in the Santa Cruz area, we did have one kid expelled from
a local high school for having a weapon in his pack. It was noteworthy
enough to make the local news.
The "weapon" was a pocket knife, which he had taken
fishing and had forgotten to remove from his pack before going
to school. He was not using it as a weapon.
A lot of people thought the school had gone too far, and they
might have reduced his punishment to a suspension; I'm not sure.
In all fairness, there have also been incidents
here in Norway with teenagers carrying knives to school, and
there have been stabbing incidents and at least one homicide.
I should also point out that the *bad* news from America gets
high coverage in the press. Still, America has a much bigger
problem with violence. Norway has one of the most liberal gun
legislations in the Western world (especially if contrasted with
British gun laws), yet our homicide rate is very low, and the
only people who buy guns not for hunting but for self protection
against other people, are members of the hard core criminal underworld.
This may change though, because we have had a disturbing series
of brutal armed robberies lately. But much of the violent crime
is carried out by gangs of foreign nationality, and the police
has no control over the mafia from the East (Russia). Such conditions
tend to feed the elements of xenophobia, racism, and nationalism
- a problem that is haunting all of Europe these days.
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Why Anthroposophy is cult-like
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 23:42:47 +0100
Alan S. Fine MD:
The essence of the cult nature of anthroposophy
is the group's mass adherance and unquestioning faith in a single
individual's beliefs, including not only realities, but magical
beliefs as well. As common as the phenomenon is, I find it frightening,
and I believe history substantiates my fears.
What you describe has validity, but the extent
of the problem is exaggerated. It has been discussed, and is
continually being discussed, in anthroposophical circles and
media. The problem is not frightening, because there is a lot
of critical self-examination going on, but it is a hindrance
to progress.
The problem occurred already in the early
years of Rudolf Steiner's public dissemination of spiritual science
in the Theosophical Society. Many of the members were retired
librarians and school teachers and theologians and the like who
had been reading Blavatsky; they did not have a background in
natural science and epistemology. So Steiner's lectures acted
like a drug on them. This was pointed out to Steiner, who said
he was aware of it.
After the first world war, young people were
coming in who wanted to go out do things - theater, painting,
music, economy reform, new education, agrigulture, social work,
etc. A generation conflict arose between the young and the restless
on the one side who were eager for action, and the staid old
folks who had been following Steiner around for ten or twenty
years and absorbed the cosmology and everything else and felt
very wise. But Steiner encouraged new initiatives and gave them
the help they asked for. It is not necessary to know a lot about
anthroposophy to be part of a new activity arising from this
new spiritual impulse.
There is a problem with authority, with "der
Doktor" the guru. As an anti-authoritarian anarchist I am
deeply aware of this problem, and I have written about it too.
Steiner spoke constantly of exercising critical judgement, of
checking out everything independently, and not to accept anything
on authority. This has proven to be one of the toughest challenges
to his contemporaries and posterity alike. The reason for this
is the extent of Rudolf Steiner's genius and achievements. Not
only the respect engendered by this, but the reverence produced
by his personal character, lends a special weight to "der
Doktor hat gesagt." When we add to this the fact that anthroposophists
can (probably) only hope to achieve a similar level of spiritual
research in the distant future, the very acceptance of spiritual
science entails a trust in "der Doktor" that may be
justifiably called faith. But it is not an unquestioning faith,
and there is no cause to talk about "mass adherence."
I believe there is a misunderstanding about
the very definition of critical thinking from an agnostic/atheist
point of view. The misunderstanding is that awe and reverence
are anathema to self-dependent, objective, free, and critical
thought, and that critical thinking must, ipso facto, lead to
a certain set of optimal conclusions that involve iconoclasm
on absolutely all fronts. But this is a deceptive line of reasoning,
because most atheists are materialistic natural science freaks
with their own set of popes in public life. The critical anthroposophist
examines with objectivity everything proposed and alleged by
all kinds of "authorities" to accept or reject them
freely. But having absorbed and understood Rudolf Steiner's contributions
to various fields of knowledge, many people are led to the conclusion
on so many occasions that "der Doktor" was right after
all. This problem is amplified, of course, when we counter individuals
who say categorically that Steiner is always right without exception.
But there is no cause for alarm because of
*that.* The real potential danger arising from the dissemination
of anthroposophy has nothing to do with authority or reverence
for "der Doktor." It has to do with the potential abuse
of this widely distributed *occult* knowledge. We have already
seen severe abuse of occult knowledge, gathered from a variety
of sources, this century. The Nazi explosion that practically
destroyed Germany is one thing; Scientology is another. If a
person clings unquestioningly to Steiner, he kind of stagnates
in a harmless way, because Steiner's ethos was that of self-sacrificing
love, and the Christian practice of answering hate and hostility
with love and compassion. But we will get more and more people
who simply sift from Anthroposophy what they can use for their
own ends and their own advancement while they look for clever
shortcuts, and who use occult knowledge to control other people
who do not have this knowledge. So if there is anything frightening
about anthroposophy, it is this.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Why Anthroposophy is cult-like
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 06:10:27 +0000
Tarjei Straume wrote:
"der Doktor hat gesagt."
In the anthropoppy circles in which I move,
the '"der Doktor hat gesagt" syndrome' is one which
is recognised as being less than entirely healthy. It's reminiscent
of those commies for whom the first two words of any sentence
were "Marx said..."
Noctis Gaudia Carpe,
Stephen
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy
Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
The Uncle
Taz "WC Posts"
Tarjei's
"WC files"