Nuts
Following online discussions can be difficult. The participants may jump from subject to subject unexpectedly, various discussions may overlap, replies are often posted long after questions are asked, there are frequent typos and other confusions...
Still, the effort can sometimes be worthwhile. The even greater effort required to engage in such discussions can also be rewarding, sometimes.
Here is an exchange of messages posted in October/November, 2010. For reasons that I hope will become plain, I tossed at least one intentionally provocative statement into the conversation. (Note where the provocation led, as I intended.)
Topics discussed include the intelligence of Anthroposophists, the value of critical thinking, and the tendency of Anthroposophists to demonize their critics.
I have done some light editing, and I have included one message from another thread.
Passages preceded by ">" are quoted from previous messages. ">>" denotes quotation from still earlier messages.
—
The messages quoted below were originally available through Yahoo. The addresses I give are for the messages as they appeared at Yahoo. Unfortunately, Yahoo later discontinued their groups-messaging service. The best way to look for these messages now is to go to the Waldorf Critics site and make use of the search function available there [http://www.waldorfcritics.org/search.html].
—
[R.R.]
—
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/15362
Hi.
Awhile back, Peter [Staudenmaier] posted an excellent mini-essay here on rationality and rational discussion. [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/14978] I liked it so much that I swiped it and reposted it at Waldorf Watch [https://sites.google.com/site/waldorfwatch/criticism] Well, really, Peter kindly gave me permission to do so.
I'd like to supplement Peter's posting with something I put on the Waldorf Watch "news" page today [https://sites.google.com/site/waldorfwatch/news/]
"Many schizophrenics have auditory hallucinations in which they hear voices. Actually, auditory hallucinations are relatively common even among perfectly normal people ... One popular theory is that terrified and confused schizophrenics try to make some sense of a frightening world by concluding that the voices [they think they hear] come from an outside source ... When such explanations are challenged or don't fit apparent reality (no flying saucers are found), the patient patches up the false belief so it is still believable. Logically, there are only a few ways to do this. First, you can conclude you are very special, a truly unique person, the only one who has paranormal abilities ... Second, you can conclude that your voices could be heard by others if some external paranormal force or agency wasn't preventing it ... I propose that perfectly sane, intelligent, and honest true believers in the paranormal — those who refuse to question or use sensible tools of critical thinking — possess a similar thinking process ... Sane, intelligent, educated, honest, and perfectly decent people are quite capable of experiencing profound delusions and distortions ... For those blessed with at least a modicum of sanity, the tools of critical thinking give some chance of remaining grounded in the world as it is."
I am jumping the gun on this item, which I have taken from the September/October SKEPTICAL INQUIRER [http://www.csicop.org/si/]. The article has not appeared online yet, but it should do so soon.
To most rational people, Rudolf Steiner's doctrines are obvious nonsense. Yet some good, intelligent, sincere people embrace them — they become Anthroposophists. The profound question we confront is how this is possible. If only lunatics believed Steiner, the case would be closed: Nuts believe nutty things. What else is new? But how can sane individuals believe nutty things? This is a tough nut to crack (as it were).
But this is your lucky day. It just so happens that I have the answer (blush). See "Why? Oh Why? Oh Why? Oh Why?" [https://sites.google.com/site/waldorfwatch/why?] and "Inside Scoop: Tackling the Question, How Can Smart People Believe This Junk?" [https://sites.google.com/site/waldorfwatch/inside-scoop].
- Roger Rawlings
—
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/15367
...Here are a couple of further relevant pieces from the existing literature:
Harvey Irwin, The Psychology of Paranormal Belief: A Researcher's Handbook (University of Hertfordshire Press, 2009)
Andreas Hergovich, Reinhard Schott, and Martin Arendasy, "Paranormal belief and religiosity" Journal of Parapsychology (2005)
Marty Laubach, "The Epistemology of Esoteric Culture: Spiritual Claim-Making within the American Neopagan Community" Journal of Alternative Spiritualities and New Age Studies 3 (2007), 45-79
Greetings to all,
- Peter S.
—
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/15456
Hi Roger,
I'm just back from a trip and trying to catch up ... I read both of your Waldorf Watch pages. They helped me understand the thinking — or should I say nonthinking? — of some individual Anthroposophists I cannot just label "stupid."
- Margaret
—
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/15460
Hi Margaret,
I was "educated" by some very smart Anthroposophists (J. F. Gardner, F. Winkler, J. Wetzl, etc.), so I have thought about this a lot. Some of the well-meaning (and not-so-well-meaning) folks who have rushed forward to defend Steiner on this list may have created a misleading impression. It is perfectly possible to be very smart and even quite well educated and still be an Anthroposophist (or a Mormon or a Scientologist or...)
I think the key really is critical thinking. Anthroposophists (and Mormons and Scientologists and...) tend to think that critical thought is destructive. On the contrary, it is a crucially important tool we all need to use in figuring out what is what. (I'm writing this on an election day in the USA, when vast numbers of people with limited skill at critical thinking are going to... But I digress.)
I would suggest that critical thinking, far from being destructive, is the most constructive tool available to us. We do have big brains, after all. This doesn't make us all geniuses. But we have big brains, and learning to use them can be helpful.
Smart, well-educated people can be Anthroposophists (or...) if they decline to use their capacity for critical thought. If they DO use this capacity, becoming or remaining an Anthroposophist (or...) is virtually impossible.
- Roger
—
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/15463
On the subject of critical thinking, it might be worth adding this:
Some people never get the hang of it. They do badly in school and in most other parts of their lives. They are just plain dumb. Fortunately, such folks are rare. (I don't mean to condemn them, either. They may have good hearts, wonderful souls, sweet dispositions. You might enjoy their company and indeed love them. But they can't spell or add or think their way out of a paper bag.)*
Another subset of humanity consists of ultra-rational folks who apply strict logic to every area of life. These people, too, are rare. (And perhaps this is just as well. Unless a brilliant mind is paired with a loving heart, the result can be a sort of bloodless thinking machine.)
Most of us are in-between, on a sliding scale. A mason, for instance, learns to use critical thinking in the matter of masonry: Is the design for a project good, how many bricks will the job take, how much mortar, where will the loads be borne, how many hours will the job take, how many assistants are needed, what price must be charged to make a profit?
Generally speaking, every person who graduates from high school has developed at least a rudimentary critical intelligence that s/he applies in some situations (such as final exams).
The peculiar thing is that most people elect not to use critical intelligence in the most important spheres of life. A mason, for instance, may be a lifelong Baptist and Democrat for no other reason than that his daddy and granddaddy were Baptists and Democrats.
We could opine endlessly about why this is so, but I think we must acknowledge that most people don't use their best thinking skills in the most important spheres of life. And this, I submit, is tragic or at least potentially tragic. A child who has been "educated" by Anthroposophists, for instance, is in desperate need of critical intelligence. The kid simply MUST wake up, start thinking, and penetrate the clouds of occult fallacy enveloping her/him, or his/her life may well be wasted. Start out as an innocent child in a pretty Waldorf kindergarten, graduate years later as a totally befogged Waldorf 12th grader, and stumble around for the rest of your life in a haze of astrology, "intuition," and conversations with invisible, nonexistent friends. I've known many people who went down this sad road. I went down it myself, for many long years.
No. We have big brains. We really should use them. And we should use them ESPECIALLY in the most important spheres of life.
- Roger
* I don't want to give the game away, but this is an intentionally provocative statement. I'm using an old trick I learned as a teacher (old trick, old teacher) — to get a discussion going, say something debatable.
—
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/15473
It's kinda like the "no true Waldorf school" fallacy...*
No true Waldorf school would do the things some Waldorf schools do... and yet... they are still "Waldorf" schools, despite Waldorf's RIGHTS to the name. If they are not "true" Waldorf schools, pull the name!!! Otherwise, stop using the "no true Waldorf school" fallacy... (Frank, Dottie).
- PK [Pete Karaiskos]
Sharks feed in muddy waters!!!
http://petekaraiskos.blogspot.com/
* This is a reference to a logical fallacy that had been discussed by the group. It's general form is this: "No true Scotsman likes baseball. Andrew likes baseball. Therefore Andrew cannot be a true Scotsman."
—
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/15474
Hi.
I wondered if anyone would mistake a rational generalization for the "Scotsman" fallacy. It is not illogical to reach general conclusions. We do it all the time, and it is necessary. In a sense, all human knowledge depends on our ability to reach true generalizations.
Logic is violated when we don't use our big brains in a disciplined manner. If, for instance, I asserted
a) no true Waldorf critic could possibly disagree with me about anything
b) Peter disagrees with me about something
c) therefore Peter is no true Waldorf critic
— if I argued in this fashion, I would be falling into the fallacy (I would be rigging the game, setting up a major premise that allows me to reach the conclusion I was determined to reach no matter what).
I also wondered if I left too much unsaid, in my little tale of the logical mason. I used the term "critical thinking" rather loosely, taking it to be almost synonymous with rational or sensible thinking. I probably should have been more explicit about the "critical" nature of the thinking a mason employs.
If we want to hold to a narrower definition — critical thinking is the evaluation of the merits and faults of something — masons still display it. A good mason can look at a bad masonry job and understand why it is bad. More importantly, a good mason will use critical intelligence on the design of the project s/he is undertaking (or s/he should do so, certainly). If the plan was drawn up by someone else, s/he should critique it before starting the work to correct faulty parts of the plan, striving to ensure that the finished project will be successful. If the plan is the mason's own creation, then like any artist or craftsperson s/he should study it, seeking mistakes or weaknesses, and correct them. In other words, s/he should be her own toughest critic. This is an desirable skill in all lines of work, and it depends on narrowly defined critical thinking. In masonry, using such thinking may actually be a matter of life or death. Bad masonry projects collapse and kill people.
(But how can I say some of these things? Aren't I Scotsmanning, claiming that all good masons do thus and so, thereby ruling out the possibility that a good mason might do something else, or that a bad mason might do what I'm saying good masons do? I'm generalizing. I'm reaching general conclusions. I do this on the basis of logic, reading, and personal experience. I have worked on lots of construction projects, I have worked alongside masons, I have done masonry myself. So I am reaching conclusions based on fairly secure footings, I'd say. What I am not doing is playing with words or rigging the argument. I am not serenading you with bagpipes.)
- Roger
—
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/15475
Hi again.
(Rainy day.)
I'm always a little surprised at the directions the discussion here takes.
Here's the part of my recent message that I hoped would spark discussion:
"On the subject of critical thinking, it might be worth adding this: "Some people never get the hang of it. They do badly in school and in most other parts of their lives. They are just plain dumb. Fortunately, such folks are rare. (I don't mean to condemn them, either. They may have good hearts, wonderful souls, sweet dispositions. You might enjoy their company and indeed love them. But they can't spell or add or think their way out of a paper bag.)"
I offered this impolite, totally un-PC comment for a couple of reasons. The first is that, unpleasant as it is, the statement is true. But the larger reason is this: My statement stands in marked contrast to what Steiner said. When he decided that someone had serious problems, he was fully capable of declaring him/her to be subhuman. "That little girl L.K. in the first grade must have something really very wrong inside ... I do not like to talk about such things since we have often been attacked even without them. Imagine what people would say if they heard that we say there are people who are not human beings." — Rudolf Steiner, FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, pp. 649-650.
I have known some individuals who had severe intellectual deficits, people with Down syndrome. They were severely challenged, mentally. Yet I consider them fully human and indeed I have had enjoyable relationships with them. The severity of their problems should elicit our compassion and love. "Depending on the severity of intellectual disability, some people with Down syndrome never become self-supporting. However, the majority can be taught to contribute usefully in the home or in a sheltered working or living environment after they are grown." — "Down syndrome." ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA, Online, 04 Nov. 2010.
One of the biggest problems in any attempt to set up reasonable communications between Anthroposophists and non-Anthroposophists is that, when disagreements arise, the former tend to demonize the latter. And I mean literally demonize. According to Steiner, people judged to be nonhuman may be demons in disguise. "Our culture would not be in such a decline if people felt more strongly that a number of people are going around who, because they are completely ruthless, have become something that is not human, but instead are demons in human form ... Imagine what people would say if they heard that we say there are people who are not human beings. Nevertheless, these are facts." — Rudolf Steiner, FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, p. 650.
THAT, I submit, is hateful thinking. No person totally ruthless. No person is less than human. There are no people who are "not human beings." But such thinking, utterly detached from "facts," dominates Waldorf schooling.
And, of course, such thinking lends itself to the Scotsman fallacy:
a) No real human being rejects Anthroposophy
b) Roger rejects Anthroposophy
c) Therefore, Roger is not a real human being.
- Roger
—
Writing several days after the end of this discussion, I'd like to add some information that I assumed the participants possessed but that general readers may not. When Steiner spoke of people who become subhuman, he meant this literally. Steiner taught that we are meant to evolve upwards toward increased spirituality. In part, this process means evolving upward from low races to higher races. Some people, however, get stuck in low races. And some people actually move downward, to lower and lower races. In the worst cases, people actually fall out of evolution altogether — there is no race low enough for them, so they lose their souls and become subhuman “subordinate nature spirits”.
The following quotation is a bit dense, but it describes — in Steiner's own words — these doctrines:
“Man has either hardened [in heart and spirit] or possesses the possibility of developing to higher stages. Races would not stay behind and become decadent if there were not men who wish to stay behind and are obliged to stay behind, since they have not developed their eternal life-kernel [i.e., living essence]. Older races only persist because there are men who cannot or will not move forward to a higher racial form ... There are sixteen possibilities of becoming merged with the [i.e., a] race. They are called the ‘sixteen paths of perdition.’ On these paths man would merge with the material [i.e., become almost wholly material rather than spiritual]. By striving forward, however, he is drawn up from race to race to ever higher stages.
“We see then that it is actually possible for a man to combine with the one incarnation [i.e., to get stuck at one stage of development] in such a way that he remains behind in evolution. His other soul-brothers are therefore at a higher stage when he reappears in a new incarnation. He must then content himself with an inferior incarnation which has been left to him in a decadent race. This is something that positively takes place. It need not frighten people, however, for the present phase of evolution. No one is obliged to take all the sixteen paths and thereby fall out of evolution. We must only be aware of the possibility.
"Now let us take an extreme case and imagine that a man unites too fully with what is to constitute the character of an incarnation. Let us suppose he reaches what is to be reached in sixteen incarnations; he takes the sixteen false paths. The earth does not wait for him, the earth goes forward and he finally arrives at a point where he can no longer incorporate in a human body, for none are in existence. There will be no more bodies in which souls that have grown too much involved in their bodily nature can incarnate. Such souls lose the possibility of incarnation and find no other opportunity ... They must therefore live a bodiless existence. They must cut themselves off entirely from the progress of evolution. Why have they deserved this? By reason of the fact that they have not made use of life! The world is around them; they have possessed senses in order to perceive the world, to enrich the life-kernel and mold it to a higher stage. They do not advance with world evolution, they remain behind at a certain stage. Beings that stay behind at such stages appear in a later epoch with approximately the character of the earlier age. They have grown together with it, but not in the forms of the later epoch. They appear in a later epoch as subordinate nature-spirits." — Rudolf Steiner, NATURE SPIRITS (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1995), pp. 69-70.
Steiner also spread an even worse doctrine. He taught that some people are born inhuman — they are literally demons:
“That little girl L.K. in the first grade must have something really very wrong inside. There is not much we can do. Such cases are increasing in which children are born with a human form, but are not really human beings in relation to their highest I; instead, they are filled with beings that do not belong to the human class. Quite a number of people have been born since the nineties [the 1890s] without an I, that is, they are not reincarnated, but are human forms filled with a sort of natural demon. There are quite a large number of older people going around who are actually not human beings, but are only natural; they are human beings only in regard to their form. We cannot, however, create a school for demons.” — Rudolf Steiner, FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER (Anthroposophic Press, 1998), p. 649.
Steiner and his followers deny the humanity of many people. This is an appalling moral error.
—
Let's return, now, to the lengthy exchange of messages we have been following. After message 15475 (reproduced previously), I sent out the following:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/15476
No responses yet. Everyone's busy, I guess.
I have a crowded schedule for the next few days, so maybe I should just say the following before lapsing into silence again.
I try, always, to avoid saying or writing anything that is untrue. Sometimes the truths I tell are disagreeable, but my aim is always to tell the truth. (Naturally I can make mistakes, get things wrong, be a fool... All of us can. But I always try to be truthful.)
Everything I have written and posted at Waldorf Watch is provocative, to Anthroposophists. The truths I tell about Waldorf schools and Anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner are extremely provoking, to them. For the most part, I am sorry about this. I would prefer amity and sanity to prevail. I'd like for everyone to get along.
On some rare occasions, however, knowing that Anthroposophists will be offended even if I try to be considerate and delicate, I decide to just accept my role as agent provocateur. Then I invite Anthroposophists' aggrieved responses, in part out of sincere curiosity.
One interesting element of the recent situation: No Anthroposophist stepped forward to say "Aha! Roger has said something hateful!" Instead, a single Anthroposophist stepped forward to make yet another illogical comment on the subject of logic.
I would hope that my friends know me well enough to cut me a little slack or to recognize when I seem to be saying something out of character. Of course, we cannot truly know each other completely. Misunderstandings occur all the time, even among the best of friends. So the best I can do is the best I can do. I try always to tell the truth, and I try always to accept the consequences.
P.S. It isn't important, but maybe I should explain that in college I was a volunteer visitor/tutor at a mental institution. With other colleges students, I visited institutionalized people who had severe intellectual deficits. I grew to love the people I visited, and I cherish their memories. They were all real human beings.*
- Roger
* I am adding this note months after the online conversation recorded here — months during which I have periodically tried to restore my memories of the matters referred to here. For the most part, I have failed.
I attended a Waldorf school for 11 years, having many of the same schoolmates and teachers during that entire period. I got to know these people well, and my interactions with them left strong impressions. Many of my Waldorf memories are thus crisp and precise, although of course others are cloudy. After Waldorf, I attended three different colleges in three different states, and later still I taught at a fourth college in a fourth state. My college memories tend to be vague, with a large and ever-shifting cast of characters.
I cannot remember much about my volunteer work, and I certainly do not mean to make any great claims for myself as a humanitarian. I know that I volunteered for social work in Connecticut, and I was employed by a community action program in that state, but I can no longer say just when I made the visits I report in the message above. Some faces of the people I met during my volunteer efforts are clear in my memory, but almost everything else is unclear to me now. At least some of my contacts with individuals having Down syndrome came during other periods of my life.
I am appending this note because I have worked hard to tell the truth about all matters that I discuss here at Waldorf Watch, and I want to tell the precise truth in this matter. But in this particular matter, the truth is that my memories are hazy.
—
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/15478
Hi Roger,
As an "intelligent designer", I apply my critical thinking into the design. If a "executor" changes my design, they are, indeed, responsible for the changes they have implemented — good or bad. There was, indeed, a famous case of a bridge (catwalk) collapse in which the original design was revised by others and the result was a disaster.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyatt_Regency_walkway_collapse
It's always best for the "executor" to question any proposed changes to the plan with the designer especially when the intent of the design isn't clear to everyone.
In the case sited above, the designer trusted the executors to make the necessary changes in the design - something the executors were not qualified to do. This resulted in the bridge collapse and the conviction of the designer for gross negligence. The deaths of over 100 people could have been avoided with good communications between the parties with the plan and the parties executing the plan... The victims, of course, put their trust in the designer and the executors.
- PK
Sharks feed in muddy waters!!!
http://petekaraiskos.blogspot.com/2010/10/trying-to-work-with-highland-hall.html
—
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/15481
Roger:
I have worked in psychiatric halfway houses, sheltered workshops for disabled adults, and years ago ran a group home for disabled adults. I also experienced them as real human beings and find Steiner's nonsense about demons and various supposed spiritual defects in such people to be totally offensive. Nearly as offensive are some anthroposophists' beliefs (Dottie Zold comes to mind) about the supposed "spiritual gifts" of disabled people. Disability is a fact of life and doesn't reflect on a person's spiritual status in any way, shape or form.
- Diana
—
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/15486
Where should we draw the line between sweet reason and unacceptable effrontery? Different folks put the line in different places. For Anthroposophists, nearly everything I have written is beyond the line, outrageous, wicked. From my perspective, everything at Waldorf Watch is true. Period. Usually I attempt top convey the truth by writing clearly and logically. But sometimes I add a dollop of humor, which may or may not be an aid to comprehension. And sometimes I intentionally try to provoke [see, e.g., "Summing Up"*], which may or may not be an aid to comprehension. What do I try to provoke? Thoughts. Shocked recognition of the truth.
In this, as in other things, I am influenced by Henry David Thoreau. His masterpiece, WALDEN, is a medley (some would say jumble) of affronts, jokes, exaggerations, allegories, and plain truth-telling. Thoreau hits his reader with a left, then a right, then an uppercut, then a haymaker... He tries any and every approach to shake the reader out of complacency, trying to force the reader to confront the truth. I'm no Thoreau. I'm one little guy who will soon be forgotten. But if Waldorf Watch succeeds in helping anyone to find the truth about Waldorf education, I'll be content.
- Roger
* https://sites.google.com/site/waldorfwatch/summing-up
—
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/15490
And let's not forget, one does not have to be disabled to be a "demon" in Waldorf... just cross the wrong person and you too can become a demon at your very own Waldorf school... ;)
My daughter, being defiant (I thought they like independent thinking), was labeled a demon by her teacher and was bullied for years... cutting herself and finally going into a mental breakdown. Highland Hall [the Waldorf school she attended, in California, USA] denies any responsibility — despite years of permitting this to go unchecked.
Waldorf is not harmless and Steiner's ideas are used by very insensitive people to harm children in the name of Waldorf! And everyone else stands by and watches. Why?
- PK
Waldorf releases Waldorphans!!!
http://petekaraiskos.blogspot.com/2010/10/working-with-highland-hall-petes.html
—
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/15492
[Here's] why Waldorf teachers think of children as demons... what other being would confront a Waldorf teacher who had been lying? Right? Only a demon would confront the Angels of education... Waldorf teachers. The teacher who labeled my daughter as a demon is TEACHING Waldorf TEACHERS at Highland Hall. Hopefully, they will be able to spot demonic children with pinpoint accuracy like this one could.
Here's an experiment parents can try at home... convince your child they are a demon... and see how they grow up... or you could save yourself the trouble and send them to Waldorf!
- PK
Waldorf releases Waldorphans!!!
http://petekaraiskos.blogspot.com/2010/10/why-highland-hall-permits-bullying-and\.html
—
At his website, Waldorf Awareness, Pete Karaiskos has written this: "[I]f children may be demons, who decides if they are demons? Well, that would have to be the best trained people for this – Waldorf teachers. Do some Waldorf teachers really think children’s bodies can be inhabited by demons? YES, they REALLY DO! By some unfortunate stroke of bad luck, Waldorf teacher (and now teacher trainer at Highland Hall) Christine Leonard announced my own daughter was demonically possessed when she was 10 years old. To exorcise these demons, apparently exercise (running laps) was a good thing. So was cleaning toilets, having her belongings searched, labeled as a liar (for revealing what she saw), endless verbal abuse and being singled out as a… well… a demon — to the whole class. My daughter started on a path of self-destruction from that time on. Mrs. Leonard’s diagnosis has taken its toll on my daughter over the years — despite the therapy she has required. Some Waldorf teachers may believe Mrs. Leonard was right about her diagnosis of my daughter. They definitely believe Steiner when he says demons exist in children. If you ask me… there are demons at work at Waldorf — but they are not in our children. Not YET…" [http://petekaraiskos.blogspot.com/search?q=demon]
—
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/15493
> My daughter, being defiant (I thought they like independent thinking), was labeled a demon by her teacher and was bullied for years... cutting herself and finally going into a mental breakdown. Highland Hall denies any responsibility - despite years of permitting this to go unchecked.
Damn, Pete. I'm horrified. Was your daughter aware of this label? Did the teacher tell her, to her face, that she was a demon?
My God.
I'm aware, of course, that many Anthroposophists consider several of us who participate here to be demons. But inflicting such an insane, medieval, ignorant judgment on a child almost surpasses comprehension. Anthroposophists mean well, but there is no excuse for some of their actions and beliefs.
For all the damage that Waldorf inflicted on my family, we had things pretty easy. The school I attended was structured to be as seemingly normal as possible. Anthroposophy suffused everything at the school, but in a relatively low-key way. And the teachers were, for the most part, discreet as well as kindly. I think — or at least I hope — that none of them could have been so cruel.
One of the chief reasons I first began reading this list years ago is that I knew I had a lot to learn about Waldorf schools. What I have learned from you and others has been shocking. I assume that most Waldorf teachers are good souls and that most Waldorf students are not brutalized by their Waldorf experiences. I always thought, based on my own experience, that Waldorf schools are safe refuges. My argument with the schools was that they try to lead kids toward Anthroposophy, and generally they do this covertly, without explicit permission from parents.
But over these past several years, as I have read and studied and corresponded, I've heard more and more of these horror stories. A rare, exceptional event would be one thing, but there have been reports of so many horrific situations in and around Waldorf schools. I have had to adjust my thinking and acknowledge that there is a systemic problem in the Waldorf movement that goes beyond the covert efforts to spread Anthroposophy. I think I would summarize it by saying that Anthroposophy is a set of delusions. People who embrace those delusions become cut off, to varying degrees, from reality. A kind of fanaticism can result, along with self-righteousness. Then the initial good impulses that brought people to Anthroposophy — seeking spiritual answers, spiritual solace, spiritual awareness — can lead to the very opposite of what anyone could have wanted, harsh and ugly spiritual blindness.
Anthroposophists believe they are on the side of the angels and their critics are on the side of the demons — or their critics actually, literally, ARE demons. Steiner urged Waldorf teachers to undertake a messianic mission. “Among the faculty, we must certainly carry within us the knowledge that we are not here for our own sakes, but to carry out the divine cosmic plan. We should always remember that when we do something, we are actually carrying out the intentions of the gods, that we are, in a certain sense, the means by which that streaming down from above will go out into the world.” — Rudolf Steiner, FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER (Anthroposophic Press, 1998), p. 55. The intention, presumably, was good. But messianism almost invariably leads to intolerance and destruction. The problem is all the worse, of course, when the self-appointed "messiahs" are working in the service of a faith that is utterly irrational and fallacious.
Anyway, Pete, I'm very moved by the situation you described. I hope things will go well for your daughter for the remainder of her life. Recovery from the damage inflicted by a Waldorf school is possible, I truly believe, but when the damage is severe the recovery, obviously, may be prolonged and difficult. Please know that you and your daughter have many friends and well-wishers.
- Roger
—
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/15495
> The problem is all the worse, of course, when the self-appointed “messiahs" are working in the service of a faith that is utterly irrational and fallacious.
And a faith or "philosophy" up for various (and often wildly divergent) interpretations. This touches on what Dennis mentioned the other day. Waldorf schools are usually scrambling for teachers and not because that many parents are seeking an anthroposophical education for their children; its more that parents are often lured into Waldorf's facade because of their fear of conventional models of education. Let's be honest. Many Waldorf schools, when faced with the prospect of canceling a class because there is no teacher, will hire and hope to train-on-the-job well-intentioned but under-qualified wanna-be teachers. A common question to applicants is "what is your relationship with anthroposophy?" The applicant gives the answer he/she knows the hiring committee wants to hear and voila - instant job.
The new teacher then takes his/her "perceptual and cognitive talents" (comment by Dennis) and gladly accepts the sage advice of the dead guru that he/she was destined to be with this particular group of children whilst "carrying out the intentions of the gods" (Steiner) and thus begins a recipe for disaster: Anthroposophists on a religious/spiritual mission hiring un/under qualified new teachers to guide children as they incarnate and connect with the spirit world (eurythmy, etc.) all the while denying the anthroposophical reality of the education.
They think of this as "social renewal" and wonder why so many folks like Pete K. are upset.
- Walden
—
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/15496
If anything, I'd say that anthroposophists in Europe (or in Germany at least) often tend to have higher than average levels of education, and one of the striking things about the modern occult revival in general is that its central constituency was highly educated and economically comfortable. Figures like [Rudolf] Steiner and [Helena] Blavatsky and [Julius] Evola etc appealed above all to people who were eagerly seeking a way to get around the increasing professionalization and specialization of knowledge; as scientific and scholarly disciplines became more established, more academic, and more exclusive, the notion of asserting various kinds of 'higher' knowledge became powerfully attractive to the esoterically inclined.
This background accounts for many of the distinctive esoteric tendencies that anthroposophists today frequently display. One of the most interesting is the simultaneous pretense of intellectual elevation and an aggravated resentment against 'intellectualism'. Anthroposophists and other esotericists regularly view themselves as privy to special higher knowledge, or even special perceptual and cognitive talents, which they believe distinguish them from the unenlightened. This belief is typically combined with an aversion to 'intellectualism' and discussion and critical thought and the ostensibly materialist cast of modern science and scholarship and so forth.
I think [the] point about Steiner fans gravitating toward reading only Steiner-related material is important, and helps explain some of the peculiar reluctance to discuss Steiner's work that we see on this list much of the time. It also helps explain why the claims that various anthroposophists make about their favorite topics are so often inaccurate. They believe they have understood Steiner's work and are utterly disinterested in learning anything about Steiner's work, particularly from non-anthroposophists. This head-in-the-sand approach unsurprisingly yields a thoroughly naive and credulous view of Steiner and his teachings.
- Peter S.
—
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/15498
> > My daughter, being defiant (I thought they like independent thinking), was labeled a demon by her teacher and was bullied for years... cutting herself and finally going into a mental breakdown. Highland Hall denies any responsibility - despite years of permitting this to go unchecked.
>
> Damn, Pete. I'm horrified. Was your daughter aware of this label? Did the teacher tell, to her face, that she was a demon?
YES, she did. She told us both together. And told other parents and students. It was her way of justifying her own wrongdoings. There is no description ugly enough for this particular miscreant of a "teacher".
>
> My God.
Yeah... that was when I decided God cannot exist.
>
> I'm aware, of course, that many Anthroposophists consider several of us who participate here to be demons. But inflicting such an insane, medieval, ignorant judgment on a child almost surpasses comprehension. Anthroposophists mean well, but there is no excuse for some of their actions and beliefs.
>
It would be a "mistake" I suppose, if the entire school didn't rally around this teacher. In the end, the school didn't fire her... she resigned — primarily due to my letter-writing campaigns. The monsters that permitted this to go on for years know who they are... and they know I know who they are. They will be held accountable IN COURT.
> For all the damage that Waldorf inflicted on my family, we had things pretty easy. The school I attended was structured to be as seemingly normal as possible. Anthroposophy suffused everything at the school, but in a relatively low-key way. And the teachers were, for the most part, discreet as well as kindly. I think — or at least I hope — that none of them could have been so cruel.
>
> One of the chief reasons I first began reading this list years ago is that I knew I had a lot to learn about Waldorf schools. What I have learned from you and others has been shocking. I assume that most Waldorf teachers are good souls and that most Waldorf students are not brutalized by their Waldorf experiences. I always thought, based on my own experience, that Waldorf schools are safe refuges. My argument with the schools was that they try to lead kids toward Anthroposophy, and generally they do this covertly, without explicit permission from parents.
>
> But over these past several years, as I have read and studied and corresponded, I've heard more and more of these horror stories. A rare, exceptional event would be one thing, but there have been reports of so many horrific situations in and around Waldorf schools, I have had to adjust my thinking and acknowledge that there is a systemic problem in the Waldorf movement that goes beyond the covert efforts to spread Anthroposophy. I think I would summarize it by saying that Anthroposophy is a set of delusions. People who embrace those delusions become cut off, to varying degrees, from reality. A kind of fanaticism can result, along with self-righteousness. Then the initial good impulses that brought people to Anthroposophy — seeking spiritual answers, spiritual solace, spiritual awareness — can lead to the very opposite of what anyone could have wanted, harsh and ugly spiritual blindness.
>
Indeed. One cure for blindness is opening one's eyes. I hope to file a case with the attorney general, besides my own lawsuit. Highland Hall, over the course of a decade, destroyed my daughter's mental health. I was finally able to get her out of Highland Hall by the 9th grade. By the 10th grade, her mother claims she had "no control over her" and allowed her to be taken in by a 30 year old man who was supplying her with crystal meth. This is all part of the court record. It was my intervention that resulted in my daughter being institutionalized and the 30 year old man arrested.
The state of California is footing the bill for my daughter's health care and schooling under the LAUSD. Highland Hall is responsible and should be paying these costs — NOT the taxpayer. I hope to get the attorney general involved to recover the taxpayer dollars that Highland Hall should pay — and to investigate what happened to my daughter. I have a paper-trail a mile long pointing out what happened and the lies that were told to cover things up. There is gross negligence here, conspiracy to commit fraud, and a whole lot of other crimes by various people. Highland Hall WILL PAY for what they did... of that there is no question.
> Anthroposophists believe they are on the side of the angels and their critics are on the side of the demons — or their critics actually, literally, ARE demons. Steiner urged Waldorf teachers to undertake a messianic mission. "Among the faculty, we must certainly carry within us the knowledge that we are not here for our own sakes, but to carry out the divine cosmic plan. We should always remember that when we do something, we are actually carrying out the intentions of the gods, that we are, in a certain sense, the means by which that streaming down from above will go out into the world." — Rudolf Steiner, FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER (Anthroposophic Press, 1998), p. 55. The intention, presumably, was good. But messianism almost invariably leads to intolerance and destruction. The problem is all the worse, of course, when the self-appointed "messiahs" are working in the service of a faith that is utterly irrational and fallacious.
>
Then Steiner may get some people arrested... Too bad huh?
> Anyway, Pete, I'm very moved by the situation you described. I hope things will go well for your daughter for the remainder of her life. Recovery from the damage inflicted by a Waldorf school is possible, I truly believe, but when the damage is severe the recovery, obviously, may be prolonged and difficult. Please know that you and your daughter have many friends and well-wishers.
>
> - Roger
>
Thanks Roger. I always hold out hope, but addiction to crystal meth is something kids don't recover from... I'm told. If anyone can overcome this, it is my daughter... but without the support of the people who really love her, and considerable distance from the monsters at Highland Hall, I don't see it happening very easily. I can't even bring myself to pray anymore...
- PK
Waldorf releases WaldORPHANS!!!
http://petekaraiskos.blogspot.com/2010/03/pete-responds-to-his-daughters.html
—
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/15499
Hi Walden,
Like you, I've seen many, many Waldorf teachers hired from within a dangerously under-qualified pool of people. When Highland Hall fired one second grade teacher (100% of the parents stood up to support him) - the first grade teacher left with him to form a competing school nearby. The two teachers that Highland Hall found to replace these two people were left-overs after all the other new teachers had been hired. One was incredibly under-qualified, the other brought her teenage pedophile son with her to prey on our kids... WITH Highland Hall's knowledge... they even covered up incidents. (See the link to my blog below).
After that, Highland Hall started hiring "teachers" out of the parent body... one notable exception being the monster who "demonized" my daughter.
- PK
Waldorf releases Waldorphans!!!
http://petekaraiskos.blogspot.com/2010/02/letters-from-highland-hall-wilkins.html
—
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/15507
Pete: We haven't communicated all that much so I don't think there is, as yet, a great deal of trust between us...but there is, it seems, a bit of apprehension within me when I read some of the things you write...you sometimes remind me of me...there have been within my life periods of bitterness when I took "blasphemy" to level nine and my mind was filled with all sorts of dark imaginings.
A true story: I once worked with a child care worker at an institution for emotionally disturbed teenagers...I was a teacher. He and I were acquaintances not close friends but always related to each other well. He was an eccentric fellow (wore his hair in samurai style) but good with the kids and often in difficulty with the administration...he seemed to enjoy that.
His wife was an anthroposophist and they had children. The marriage went sour and the woman took the kids to an AS center north of here. I know nothing of the dynamics of their relationship but the estrangement went on for awhile.
The fellow got a gun and travel north to confront his wife. He brandished it but left without causing hurt to anyone. They informed the police after he left. He was intercepted on the highway by the police. The story goes he came out of his car with the weapon in his hand and he was shot to death. Some said it was police overreaction, some said it was a classic case of suicide-by-cop. I knew the man fairly well, so I'm inclined to accept the latter possibility.
In any event, the incident was not a foreign element in my mind...that is, I could imagine myself doing something similar or perhaps worst because I had been through a dark period some years before when I felt the need to revenge myself on people in positions of authority who had wronged me (with implications for my family)...my prayers were not answered so I concluded God was just going to sit on his ass and let the rain fall on the just and the unjust..."F-that", said I, "if You aren't going to straighten things out, I will"...I even thought (really imagined) about how I was going to dress as I brought the bad guys low...ah martyrdom, how bloody heroic...I intended to prepare my family for the eventuality and spoke of it to my oldest son who was still just a little boy...he wept in apprehension and his tears brought me to my senses...that was the end of my dark dream but not my bitterness toward Old He-Who-Is.
Time passed. My enemy suffered terrible blows of fate in the course of his life beyond my wildest dark imaginings. I regret not going to see him for purposes of reconciliation before it was no longer possible. Now and again I pray for his soul.
Pete, ride light in the saddle and look after yourself...the only people who profit ultimately from litigious enterprises are lawyers...money changes hands but seldom is justice done...I have no sage advice for relief from the terrible psychological stress that folks must sometimes go through...I know my Sufi references are not popular around here, nonetheless I remember his saying, "You must find out why God is beating you with a stick"...I really hope things go well for you and your family...I really do...regards, Dennis
—
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/15510
Hi Dennis,
Thank you - you do indeed have a handle on what I have gone through and am going through.
Exposure is what I am seeking for the monsters at Highland Hall. I don't care about recovering damages for myself. I'd love for them to have to pay the state for my daughter's health care - but only because I know it would hurt them. I think they owe my kids an education still...
As far as attorneys getting the money, I'm working on getting my attorney fees for free - and, again, I'm not interested in a windfall - just exposure and accountability from those who harmed my kids. They WILL be sorry for what they did... whatever that takes.
- PK
Waldorf releases Waldorphans!!!
http://petekaraiskos.blogspot.com/2010/10/where-do-waldorf-teachers-go.html
—
For other cautionary tales and words of advice,
see, e.g.,
"Clues"
"Secrets"
"Moms"
"Pops"
"Slaps"
