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

23997Anthroposophy taught in Waldorf schools?

Expand Messages
  • Tarjei Straume
    Apr 6, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      I'll make a few personal comments on this topic, which is really a
      proven non-topic, and leave it at that. I'm not involving myself in
      any discussion on this for the following reasons:

      1) Waldorf Education is outside the scope of my personal expertise,
      and I am leaving such specialized topics entirely in the hands of
      professioans - in this case, Waldorf teachers. By the same token, I
      leave discussions about anthroposophical medicine to medical doctors,
      whether those MDs also practice anthroposophically extended medicine
      as well or not. And when it comes to astrophysics, geology,
      chemistry, or whatever the case may be, I always refer to
      practitioners and researchers in these fields, regardless of their
      leanings and/or views about anthroposophy.

      2) During the past 8 months, I have not had the time, nor sufficient
      motivation and interest for that matter, to participate in online
      discussions of any kind except on rare occasions with brief
      contributions, and this is very likely to continue to be the
      situation in my case. What articles and web publishing is concerned,
      it's a matter of not having the time. When it comes to discussions,
      it's also a lack of personal interest involved here. In connection
      with the dispute that led to the split between the Roman Church and
      its Protestant off-shoots, namely the sentence from the Holy
      Communion, "This is my body," (or as the priest usually says when
      feeding you the wafer, "The body of Christ"; with the sip of wine he
      says, "The blood of Christ") - Rudolf Steiner once said that it's
      symptomatic when people begin to discuss someting like this, that
      it's no longer understood. So for the most part imho, discussions
      take place among people who don't understand something, and good
      discussions are based upon a mutual endeavor to gain a foundation for
      understanding that is richer than it was before the discussion began.
      If this endeavor to understand is totally absent in one or more of
      the participants, the discussions are completely worthless.

      Back to the main question: "Is anthroposophy taught in Waldorf
      schools?" It's been established time and time again, through posts by
      Waldorf teachers and by quotes from Rudolf Steiner's lectures, that
      this is indeed not the case. Yet doubt is created in some confused
      minds by the repetitive propagandistic nonsense spewed out by Pete &
      Di and their ilk - nonsense that indeed qualifies the claim that
      critics are interested in truth and accuracy, to Dial-A-Joke for the
      month. By the same token, it has been explained over and over and
      over, also by Yours Truly who counts himself knwoedgeable on this
      particular topic, why anthroposophy is not racist, that it is in fact
      virulently anti-racist, and any semi-intelligent third party with an
      objective attitude and capable of self-dependent critical thinking is
      able to grasp this, but Pete & Di and their ilk are not capable of
      this for personal reasons of their own that are grounded in emotional
      traumas in their past, which leads to their thinking being controlled
      by twisted emotional dysfunctions.

      The question may be raised: How does Tarjei know that anthroposophy
      is not taught in Waldorf schools when he has never been a Waldorf
      student, and although a Waldorf parent, has never had much of an
      active hand in Waldorf school matters because he finds them boring
      and unintesting? So how can Tarjei know anything about anthroposophy
      not being taught in Waldorf? Although what I present here are my
      strictly personal views, not the views of Waldorf parents or Waldorf
      teachers or Waldorf schools, but the views of a non-affiliated,
      non-member lifetime student of Steiner's works, the answers to the
      above are elementary:

      1) In the first place, Rudolf Steiner explains in one of his lectures
      why Waldorf kids should not be taught anthroposophy. I've read this,
      and I believe it's been posted by someone to Anthroposophy Tomorrow
      or some other online anthro-group at an earlier date. I don't
      remember the reference and don't have the quote; perhaps someone else
      can look that up for me. I won't respond to any suggestion that I'm
      inventing this utterance by RS. Last time this happened was when I
      related a dialogue between RS and some members of the Roman Catholic
      clergy, without recalling the reference. Mr. Gaelman, who says he's a
      Catholic, suggested that I had invented this dialogue between Steiner
      and the priests. I immediately made it clear that I would never again
      particilate in a dialogue with Gaelman, which is why you've never see
      the two of us in the same thread since then. And the same goes for
      anyone who might suggest that I'm inventing this utterance about
      anthroposophy and Waldorf by Steiner, if nobody else digs up the
      reference and the quote.

      Rudolf Steiner explains somewhere in one of his lectures that growing
      children should not be taught anthroposophy, for the simple reason
      that it would create in them a desire to grow out of their skins, to
      leave their bodies and live only in the spiritual world - at least on
      the deep, subconscious level. At that age, when our bodies are
      growing, we are growing *out of* the spiritual world *into* the
      physical, learning about and adapting *to* the physical. Therefore,
      premature exposure to what anthroposophy has to teach, would be
      counterproductive to this growth and development. This may not be the
      case for everybody, but for many enough to discourage the teaching of
      anthroposophy to kids, and to definitely keep it completely out of
      the classroom.

      2) Although I've never been a Waldorf student myself, I've met a lot
      of Waldorf graduates from all walks of life and in the most diverse
      and unexpected places. The vast majority of the Waldorf students I
      have met personally - I dare say 95 % of them, knew nothing about
      Rudolf Steiner except his name, because in this neck of the woods,
      Waldorf schools are called "Steiner schools". So most people you
      mention the name "Rudolf Steiner" to would say, "Oh yes, those
      Steiner schools," or "Yes, I went to Steiner school" without having
      the slightest notion about what anthroposophy is, or about Steiners'
      cosmology or christology or anything else.

      There are exceptions, of course. There are some Waldorf graduates,
      and ideed also some Waldorf students at the high school level, who
      know about anthroposophy because they've been reading Steiner's
      lectures and books, always and without exception through their
      parents' bookshelves (like myself at a young age) or through friends,
      never through the classroom. A classic example of this would be my
      son's elder half sisters, now 26 and 28 years old, who have taken an
      active interest in anthroposophy through their mother's (also my
      son's mother's) personal interests and books. The 26 year old is a
      professional designer living in Barcelona; the 28 year old is herself
      a Eurythmist working at Oslo City Steiner School (a Waldorf high school).

      Beyond personal acquaintences and family, there are Waldorf graduates
      on the public scene as well who know nothing about anthroposophy nor
      about Steiner's philosophy or worldview. One of these is the current
      Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg (Labor Party).

      With this, my personal comments on Waldorf and anthroposophy are a
      closed book. Finito. Di & Pete can yell and scream and hurl their
      ignorant LOLs choking on their chicken soups all day and all night
      long; it makes no difference. If you want a good laugh, read up on
      what they say about dedication to truth and accuracy.

      For some bizarre reason, Diana has expressed curiosity about my
      activities and interests and work and so on, and even about my pets
      or absence of such. None of this is any of her ****ing bizniz. The
      only thing I have to say about this is that if Diana was a dog in my
      home, I wouldn't chain her up in a dog house on our property. On the
      contrary, I'd chase her to the woods, forcing her to survive on her
      own rabbits, if she could catch one, which I doubt.

      Nobody has described Diana better than Elvis Presley:

      You ain't nothin' but a hound dog
      Cryin' all the time
      You ain't nothin' but a hound dog
      Cryin' all the time
      Well, you ain't never caught a rabbit
      And you ain't no friend of mine

      Well they said you was high-classed
      Well, that was just a lie
      Yeah they said you was high-classed
      Well, that was just a lie
      Well, you ain't never caught a rabbit
      And you ain't no friend of mine

      You ain't nothin' but a hound dog
      Cryin' all the time
      You ain't nothin' but a hound dog
      Cryin' all the time
      Well, you ain't never caught a rabbit
      And you ain't no friend of mine

      [instrumental interlude]

      Well they said you was high-classed
      Well, that was just a lie
      Yeah they said you was high-classed
      Well, that was just a lie
      Well, you ain't never caught a rabbit
      And you ain't no friend of mine

      [instrumental interlude]

      Well they said you was high-classed
      Well, that was just a lie
      Ya know they said you was high-classed
      Well, that was just a lie
      Well, you ain't never caught a rabbit
      And you ain't no friend of mine

      You ain't nothin' but a hound dog
      Cryin' all the time
      You ain't nothin' but a hound dog
      Cryin' all the time
      Well, you ain't never caught a rabbit
      You ain't no friend of mine

      With gratitude to all those Waldorf teachers who have explained the
      topic at hand time and time again, with admirable patience and
      repetitions and extended explanations,


      Tarjei
      http://uncletaz.com/

      It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.
      - William G. McAdoo
    • Show all 5 messages in this topic