Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

13885Re: Gulags for Anthros

Expand Messages
  • carol
    Aug 8 3:54 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      "Perhaps that's true. Perhaps it is also true that if you do not wish
      your view of the Waldorf Critics to be challenged by one who you feel
      has less discernment than yourself that you would do well to not bring
      their activities here for consideration.-Val"

      Val, I really don't think that Robert has taken offence to your
      objections, on the contrary. From an outsider's vantage point, it looks
      like a healthy enough discussion/exchange of perspectives and personal
      experience. Between you both, I didn't see any Anthro bashing, nor an
      insistence on trivialising it in order to nurture an egoistic advantage.
      Nor did I see any sign that Robert doesn't have confidence in you as a
      moral, thinking individual.

      Try not to be offended by the reference on 'discernment'. The inner
      workings in life are so multi layered and wrought with such complex
      details that a mild suggestion of lack of discernment on behalf of an
      aspect, as has occured in this exchange should be best taken as lightly,
      and with as little emotion as possible. I don't think Robert wished the
      idea to suggest anything more than 'slight'.

      C.


      --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, "isenhart7" <isenhart7@...> wrote:
      >
      > --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, Robert Mason
      > robertsmason_99@ wrote:
      > >
      > > To Val:
      > >
      > > [Robert had written:
      > >
      > > [>>I wouldn't know what would make the
      > > "critics" "happy", unless it would be the
      > > complete extermination of Anthroposophy and the
      > > final victory of the Evils.<<]
      > >
      > > Val wrote:
      > >
      > > >>And then what would they do? I am relatively
      > > certain that they are not big fans of facism
      > > when they see it in others.<<
      > >
      > > Robert writes now:
      > >
      > > How would I know what they would do? The
      > > question is too iffy anyway, since the final
      > > victory of the Evils isn't going to happen. I
      > > guess the only kind of "happiness" that the WC
      > > people can look forward to, unless they change
      > > their ways, is the snail-like life that Steiner
      > > predicted for the "evil race" on the New
      > > Jupiter. -- And I don't know what "fascism" or
      > > what "others" you are talking about.
      >
      > The fascism I was asking about in the first place and others being
      > people other than the critics. I doubt anyone would be happy about
      > the prospect of having a snail-like existance.
      >
      > > [Robert had written:
      > >
      > > [>>. . . . the "critics" can use the scare-word
      > > *occultism* to do such things as getting
      > > Waldorf schools kicked out of churches, getting
      > > the "fundies" to cooperate in the campaigns
      > > against Waldorf methods in the public schools,
      > > etc.<<]
      > >
      > > Val wrote:
      > >
      > > >>So do you think that their whole defense of
      > > seperation of church and state is totally
      > > bogus?<<
      > >
      > > Robert writes:
      > >
      > > I think it's bogus in that it's a diversion, a
      > > smokescreen to hide their true intentions.
      > > (Again, I'm speaking of the loudest and most
      > > persistent voices at the WC; perhaps this might
      > > be less true of the peripheral people over
      > > there.) Now, I don't know whether or not
      > > they're being consciously dishonest. Perhaps,
      > > to some extent at least, they are not aware of
      > > their own true motives.
      >
      > They might not be aware of their own true motives but you do know
      > what their true intentions are?
      >
      > > But they have read enough of Steiner to have
      > > some understanding of the reasons why
      > > education, like "the church", should be
      > > separated from the political state. Still,
      > > they refuse this understanding, and ignore this
      > > one concept which might really solve the
      > > problem of "separation of church and state" in
      > > education.
      >
      > > In a "threefolded" polity, of course, Waldorf
      > > schools would always be out of "the state",
      > > since there would be no "public schools" at
      > > all, as we have them now as arms of the
      > > political state. I understand that some
      > > attempts are being made (especially in
      > > California) to introduce Waldorf methods into
      > > some public schools and to set up Waldorf
      > > "charter schools", or the like. I wasn't privy
      > > to the considerations that moved the Waldorf
      > > people to take that route, but I would guess
      > > that they decided that, under the
      > > circumstances, it would be a lesser evil:
      > > Given that the vast majority of children are
      > > forced into the public schools whether or not
      > > their parents wish it so, for most people there
      > > is no real freedom of choice in education, and
      > > so the only way that most children might have a
      > > real opportunity to enjoy the benefits of
      > > Waldorf methods, even slightly, would be if
      > > these methods were available in the public-
      > > political educational system.
      >
      > Is choosing a lesser of two evils anything like choosing between
      > Lucifer and Ahriman?
      >
      > > So, I would guess that the Waldorf people in
      > > California decided to grit their teeth and make
      > > a compromise with hard reality. Such hard
      > > choices have been an ongoing problem for the
      > > Waldorf movement throughout most of the world,
      > > and apparently there has been an ongoing debate
      > > about it, between the purists and the
      > > compromisers. If you go over to the
      > > "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" archives and follow
      > > the thread that I cited in my original post,
      > > you can see an example of this debate;
      > > Christine being a "purist" and FT Smith being
      > > an experienced "compromiser".
      >
      > I am not suprised that FT Smith is an "exerienced compromiser".
      > You'll have to excuse me though if I'm not up for reviewing Frank's
      > past attempts at compromising the pure on the AT list as there's
      > entirely enough of that kind of activity going on at the present for
      > my taste.
      > >
      > > But the real solution would be to "threefold"
      > > society at least insofar as to remove education
      > > from the control (and funding) of the political
      > > state. The WC people are not ignorant of this
      > > solution, yet they try to uphold the "public
      > > schools" as part of the political state
      > > supposedly to be kept separate from "religion".
      > > They should know enough to see that any
      > > education is inevitably "religious" in that it
      > > is a process of the developing relation between
      > > the human individual and the spirit; it doesn't
      > > belong to the "political" realm of relations
      > > among human individuals.
      > >
      > > Val wrote:
      > >
      > > >>Are you saying that the path of cognition
      > > that Steiner laid out is essentially a
      > > Christian Initiatory Path?<<
      > >
      > > Robert writes:
      > >
      > > Yes; and obviously so, it would seem to me.
      > > Since it apparently isn't obvious to you, I
      > > have to wonder how much knowledge you have even
      > > of basic Anthroposophy. I have to wonder
      > > whether you even read *Occult Science".
      >
      > Consider my question one of clarification of your meaning, your
      > thinking, and not mine.
      > >
      > > [Robert had written:
      > >
      > > [>>Yet again: just what do you think makes
      > > their "study" of Anthroposophy so "remarkable",
      > > other than deep hatred that comes ultimately
      > > from the demonic Adversaries?<<]
      > >
      > > Val wrote:
      > >
      > > >>I saw a rejection of Anthroposophy due to a
      > > fear of being hurt or in danger.<<
      > >
      > > Robert writes:
      > >
      > > I'd say that the fear is mixed up with the
      > > hatred; they aren't very different by nature.
      > > But just ask yourself: How realistic is this
      > > fear? What "danger" does Anthroposophy present
      > > of really "hurting" anyone? The only "danger"
      > > that comes from Anthroposophy is the "danger"
      > > to the evil work and wishes of the spiritual
      > > Adversaries and their minions, conscious or
      > > unconscious. Here is something I wrote for the
      > > WC list, about the "fear" at work there; but
      > > written only from an earthly view of things:
      >
      > I think the fear is very realistic and was based on actual
      > experiences people had involving their children and/or themselves.
      >
      > > ***
      > > I have to suspect that your ongoing, endless
      > > fight against Anthroposophy on this list is
      > > some kind of "reaction formation" against the
      > > deep knowing in your hearts: deep down,
      > > Anthroposophy does "move" your hearts, and --
      > > for some reason, or perhaps better said, for
      > > some *cause* -- this "movement" within your
      > > souls provokes fear, and then this fear
      > > manifests in your conscious lives as your
      > > obsessive fight against that which "moves" you.
      > > -- In down-to-earth terms, this "reaction
      > > formation" might be partially explained by the
      > > concepts of "bio-energetics" (or "orgonomics")
      > > originated by the late Wilhelm Reich: There is
      > > an intimate connection between our human
      > > emotions (feelings) and physical bodies
      > > (organisms). Painful feelings that are not
      > > expressed can get "stored", as it were, in our
      > > bodies, especially in our system of
      > > musculature. The muscles (or perhaps other
      > > organs) hold these painful emotions in a
      > > rigidified, unconscious state, and they can be
      > > "stored" for many years, even a lifetime.
      > > Reich calls this rigidified musculature *armor*
      > > (*Haltung*). But "life energy" flows through
      > > the body; healthy energy flows and pulsates.
      > > If the energy does not flow and pulsate, it
      > > becomes stale and poisonous. The "pain energy"
      > > that is trapped in "armor" really does become
      > > poisonous. And when healthy life-energy is
      > > aroused, it pulsates and tries to flow though
      > > the body, through the muscles. But when this
      > > flowing energy hits against the rigid "armor",
      > > a conflict erupts. The flowing, healthy energy
      > > tries to loosen the rigidified armor, to break
      > > it up, but when the armor starts to come loose
      > > those old, stored painful feelings start to
      > > come to the surface. And one feels, rightly in
      > > a way, that one is being flooded with a poison,
      > > perhaps even that one's "self" (the only self
      > > that one has consciously known perhaps for
      > > one's whole life) starts to break to pieces.
      > > One feels that one is coming to pieces and
      > > being flooded with a painful poison from
      > > within. And so one might react with fear,
      > > panic, anger, even hatred -- not so much
      > > against the old, stored pain, but against the
      > > flowing, healthy life-energy, and thus against
      > > whatever set that energy into motion. The
      > > paradox is that in order to feel the healthy,
      > > healing life-energy one must in the very
      > > process also feel the old, stored, poisonous
      > > pain. And many people cannot bear that
      > > paradox; they panic, "clamp down", "freeze up"
      > > -- anything to avoid the upwelling pain, to
      > > maintain the old, "armored" body, the
      > > rigidified "character structure, and thus to
      > > stop the flowing of the life-energy. And they
      > > may turn in hatred against that which evokes
      > > the flow of life-energy within themselves, and
      > > try to push away that "thing", that stimulus of
      > > life, perhaps even to destroy it, to kill it.
      > > The killing of that source of life becomes, in
      > > a sick but understandable way, a matter of
      > > survival for the one in panic. And there is a
      > > "logic" of sorts in this whole process; in
      > > order to feel healthy "life", one must feel
      > > pain; but one naturally wants to avoid pain, so
      > > one must avoid healthy life -- but not only
      > > avoid it, for the existence of any potential
      > > stimulus of life-energy is a threat to oneself,
      > > and therefore any such potential must be
      > > fought, must be stamped out.
      > >
      > > I really do suspect that this endless,
      > > obsessive fight against Anthroposophy derives
      > > from a deep, unconscious knowing within your
      > > hearts. Anthroposophy "moves" you, but for
      > > some reason you cannot tolerate this movement,
      > > and so you shun Anthroposophy. But you can't
      > > just leave it alone; deep down you "know" that
      > > it touches your deepest longings, and so you
      > > are obsessed with it. Your obsession takes the
      > > conscious form of a fight against
      > > Anthroposophy, but this fight is at base your
      > > fight against your own "inner movement". The
      > > fight is only the flip side of the coin of your
      > > longing; but it's still the same coin.
      > > ***
      > >
      > > Val wrote:
      > >
      > > >> . . . . As far as a pass [for the WC people]
      > > goes I see independent schools in the U.S. in
      > > big trouble, not just WS's. I keep hearing that
      > > the public schools are in crisis but I haven't
      > > had any experience with them except my own as a
      > > child and IMO they required reform then. So if
      > > there was an idea to merge these two systems
      > > and have a "best of both worlds" thing and
      > > people resist that idea with a passion and
      > > intensity then I'm more apt to look at what's
      > > wrong with this idea than I am at what's wrong
      > > with these people.<<
      > >
      > > Robert writes:
      > >
      > > As I've said, something is wrong with "that
      > > idea", but it may be a lesser evil under the
      > > circumstances. If the WC people were *really*
      > > concerned about the educational welfare of
      > > children, wouldn't it be more reasonable,
      > > instead of fighting so fiercely against the
      > > lesser evil, to try to change the much larger
      > > evil circumstances? Here is something else I
      > > wrote for the WC list:
      >
      > Allowing that public Waldorf schools are an evil of any degree seems
      > to me to also allow it reasonable that some people would take
      > exception to them.
      >
      > > ***
      > > I think it should be obvious
      > > that no human institution is perfect; Anthros
      > > are human beings and human beings have human
      > > failings. But from what I know of the
      > > educational methodology and the dedication of
      > > Waldorf people in general, it seems very
      > > unlikely to me that the failings, whatever they
      > > may be, in some Waldorf schools could hardly
      > > even begin to compare with the horrors of the
      > > public schools, in general, especially in the
      > > USA. Just looking at *one* of those horrors, I
      > > would guess that the forced doping of kids with
      > > Ritalin and/or Prozac in public schools does
      > > more harm in one day than all the human errors
      > > in all the (few) Waldorf schools in the USA
      > > have ever done.
      > >
      > > The public schools in the US are an ongoing,
      > > huge catastrophe. Everyone who is even semi-
      > > conscious knows this fact, especially the elite
      > > who create the system that forces most children
      > > into the public schools and who send their own
      > > children to private schools. And a growing
      > > number of parents who can't afford private
      > > schools are so desperate to get their children
      > > out of the public schools that they try to
      > > "home school" their children on the kitchen
      > > table. So, along comes a tiny private school
      > > movement that is based on methods that might
      > > give children a fighting chance of developing
      > > their human potential without being maimed in
      > > the process -- and you spend enormous energy
      > > fighting against that tiny movement, and not
      > > only that, but fighting against the world-view
      > > behind those beneficial methods. How much time
      > > and energy do you spend fighting against
      > > Ritalin or the other crimes of public
      > > education? And how much time and energy do you
      > > spend fighting against the other real threats
      > > to you and your children, threats such as the
      > > New World Order which is feverishly working to
      > > turn you into a drugged cyber-zombie slave in
      > > an inhuman global tyranny, if it will let you
      > > live at all?
      > >
      > > No, I don't believe that whatever human
      > > mistakes might be made in Anthro groups or
      > > schools generate all the criticism here. The
      > > "punishment" is so far out of proportion to the
      > > "crime", while other very real crimes go
      > > unprosecuted and unpunished. -- All that
      > > "energy" that "generates" comes from somewhere
      > > else.
      > > ***
      >
      > Again, my observation was that the energy came directly from very
      > negative experiences in Waldorf Schools.
      >
      > > Robert concludes:
      > >
      > > Again, I really wonder how much you have
      > > studied even the basics of Anthroposophy.
      > > Perhaps if you had a better grasp of
      > > Anthroposophy, you would have more discernment
      > > about adversaries such as the WC.
      >
      > Perhaps that's true. Perhaps it is also true that if you do not wish
      > your view of the Waldorf Critics to be challenged by one who you feel
      > has less discernment than yourself that you would do well to not
      > bring their activities here for consideration.-Val
      >
    • Show all 20 messages in this topic