Daniel on Anthoposophy
[Most Recent Entries]
[Calendar View]
[Friends]
Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in
dhindes' LiveJournal:
[ << Previous 20 ]
| Tuesday, March 4th, 2008 | | 3:21 pm |
Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 133
Continuing my commentary on paragraphs 41-43 of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism. Like Waldorf Education, Biodynamic farming is inseparable from its anthroposophical context. It is that context that I feel Peter Staudenmaier has not understood, and it is his misunderstanding that is at the root of so much of his misinformation and the outright fabrications of this article. As is typical, Peter Staudenmaier cannot resist imputing ill will to anthroposophists, citing author Stewart Easton to demonstrate the supposed disdain that the cult-like adherents of Steiner's biodynamics hold towards mere organic farmers. This is a rather transparent ploy. The purported condescension in Easton’s simple statement has been added by Mr. Peter Staudenmaier.
"Unlike most farmers who farm in what they speak of as an "organic" manner, the biodynamic farmer recognizes fully that the earth has indeed lost much of its fertility and is losing more every day, and that it is simply not enough in the present age merely to refuse to use herbicides, insecticides and chemical fertilizer, and to manufacture compost from waste farm products in the traditional manner. These things in themselves are good as far as they go, but much more I needed to restore its lost fertility to the earth. The 'organic' farmer may well farm 'biologically' but he does not have the knowledge of how to work with dynamic forces—a knowledge that was given for the first time by Rudolf Steiner."
Easton 's statement is probably shared by many practicing biodynamic farmers, and represents what many would consider a simple fact. This does not mean that biodynamic farmers do not frequently make common cause with other organic farmers and supporters of sustainable agriculture. The movement is not nearly as insular as Mr. Peter Staudenmaier makes it out to be. | | Saturday, March 1st, 2008 | | 6:36 pm |
Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 132
Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraphs 41 to 43 of Anthroposophy and Ecofascism:
Biodynamic farming is based on Steiner's revelation of invisible cosmic forces and their effects on soil and flora. Anthroposophy teaches that the earth is an organism that breathes twice a day, that ethereal beings act upon the land, and that celestial bodies and their movements directly influence the growth of plants. Hence biodynamic farmers time their sowing to coincide with the proper planetary constellations, all a part of what they consider "the spiritual natural processes of the earth." [Footnote: Lindenberg, p. 134.]* Sometimes this "spiritual" approach takes unusual forms, as in the case of "preparation 500."
To make preparation 500, an integral component of anthroposophist agriculture, biodynamic farmers pack cow manure into a steer's horn and bury it in the ground. After leaving it there for one whole winter, they dig up the horn and mix the manure with water (it must be stirred for a full hour in a specific rhythm) to make a spray which is applied to the topsoil. All of this serves to channel "radiations which tend to etherealize and astralize" and thus "gather up and attract from the surrounding earth all that is ethereal and life-giving." [Footnote: Steiner, Lecture Four from the 1924 Course on Agriculture.]**
Non-anthroposophist organic growers are often inclined to dismiss such fanciful aspects of biodynamics as harmless, albeit pointless, appurtenances to an otherwise congenial cultivation technique. While this attitude has some merit, it is not reciprocated by biodynamic adherents, who emphasize that "The 'organic' farmer may well farm 'biologically' but he does not have the knowledge of how to work with dynamic forces—a knowledge that was given for the first time by Rudolf Steiner."[Footnote: Easton, p. 444]*** For better or worse, biodynamic farming is inseparable from its anthroposophic context.
This, I feel, is an accurate description of biodynamic farming. It is obvious that Peter Staudenmaier is highly suspicious of the non-sense-perceptible aspect, but he has not factually misrepresented it. That aspect makes more sense when explained by someone sympathetic to the aims of biodynamic farming should be obvious. With farming in particular a theoretical method can be judged by its effectiveness. Farmers are known for being practical and for being suspicious of highfalutin theories. The broad dissemination of biodynamic agriculture is therefore evidence of its practical success. If biodynamic farming is indeed inseparable from its anthroposophical context then this is powerful evidence that Steiner's understanding of invisible cosmic forces has real efficacy in practical reality. * Once again Lindenberg yields a quote that is accurate. Peter Staudenmaier does his best to spin the respect for the earth and its spiritual aspects which are is inherent in Biodynamic farming into something both silly and dangerous, but the fact itself remains undisputed. ** I must note that Peter Staudenmaier has not cited a publisher or page-number for these short-phrase "quotations". The two phrases he quotes: "radiations which tend to etherealize and astralize" and "gather up and attract from the surrounding earth all that is ethereal and life-giving" are taken out of context, as Steiner never described the purpose of the preparation in those words. The first is taken from a sentence found on page 99 of the present German edition, "Dadurch, daß das Kuhhorn äußerlich von der Erde umgeben ist, strahlen alle Strahlen in seine innere Höhlung hinein, die im sinne der Ätherisierung und Astralisierung gehen." The 1958 translation by George Adams (page 74) from which Peter Staudenmaier probably took this reads, "Through the fact that it is outwardly surrounded by the earth, all radiations that tend to etherealize and astralise are poured into the inner hollow of the horn." Thus, it is not the spray that is made by mixing the contents of the horn that possesses the qualities, but the contents of the horn while it is in the earth. This is perhaps a minor point, but also very telling of the exactitude of Peter Staudenmaier's scholarship. The second quote comes from the next sentence in the text, "And the manure inside the horn is inwardly quickened with these forces, which thus gather up and attract from the surrounding earth all that is ethereal and life-giving." The gathering up and attracting is done inside the buried cows horn, and not by the Preparation 500 once it has been spread. In treating such a complex subject as the making of Preparation 500 and its use in such an offhand manner, Peter Staudenmaier has failed to adequately explain Steiner's carefully grounded indications. But then, his goal is merely to show how silly it all is, rather than to actually understand it. See, Steiner, Rudolf. Agriculture. London: Bio-Dynamic Agricultural Association, 1972. Page 74. ***
"Unlike most farmers who farm in what they speak of as an "organic" manner, the biodynamic farmer recognizes fully that the earth has indeed lost much of its fertility and is losing more every day, and that it is simply not enough in the present age merely to refuse to use herbicides, insecticides and chemical fertilizer, and to manufacture compost from waste farm products in the traditional manner. These things in themselves are good as far as they go, but much more I needed to restore its lost fertility to the earth. The 'organic' farmer may well farm 'biologically' but he does not have the knowledge of how to work with dynamic forces—a knowledge that was given for the first time by Rudolf Steiner."
Easton 's statement is probably shared by many practicing biodynamic farmers, and represents what many would consider a simple fact. This does not mean that biodynamic farmers do not frequently make common cause with other organic farmers and supporters of sustainable agriculture. The movement is not nearly as insular as Mr. Peter Staudenmaier makes it out to be. | | Wednesday, February 27th, 2008 | | 6:12 pm |
Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 131
Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 40:
Although not a farmer himself, Steiner introduced the fundamental outlines of biodynamics near the end of his life and produced a substantial body of literature on the topic, which anthroposophists and biodynamic growers follow more or less faithfully. Biodynamics in practice often converges with the broader principles of organic farming. Its focus on maintaining soil fertility rather than on crop yield, its rejection of artificial chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and its view of the whole farm or plot as an ecosystem all mark the biodynamic approach as an eminently sensible and ecologically sound method of cultivation. But there is more to the story than that.
What is missing from this largely accurate summary is the fact that Steiner's indications in the Agriculture Course are just that: indications, and not prescriptions. Beyond the rather obvious concerns such as viewing the farm as an ecological unit to be run on a sustainable basis, Steiner gave indications concerning other forces that influence the practices of farming. For example, he called attention to the role of the planets in the growth of plants. While this may at first appear rather nebulous, it can be quite easily tested in practice, and this is what Steiner encouraged. If Steiner says that the position of Mars in relation to the earth has an influence on the growth of rye, then this can be quite easily tested: plant some rye in a supposedly auspicious moment, then plant some more in a separate plot a week or two later and compare the growth of the two. You will very quickly determine whether Steiner's indications work in practice or not. And I would suggest that the experience of thousands of biodynamic farmers indicates that Steiner's indications do work in practice. If Mr. Peter Staudenmaier is troubled as to how Mars could possibly influence the growth of rye, then that is a problem for him to work out. Disparaging the obvious success of Biodynamic farming from a theoretical position that it ought to be impossible is simply not scientific. | | Tuesday, February 26th, 2008 | | 3:50 pm |
Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 130
Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 39:
Next to Waldorf schools, the most widespread and apparently progressive version of applied Anthroposophy is biodynamic agriculture. In Germany and North America, at least, biodynamics is an established part of the alternative agriculture scene. Many small growers use biodynamic methods on their farms or gardens; there are biodynamic vineyards and the Demeter line of biodynamic food products, as well as a profusion of pamphlets, periodicals and conferences on the theory and practice of biodynamic farming.
Finally, a factually accurate paragraph! It appears that Mr. Peter Staudenmaier is more familiar with biodynamic agriculture than with Waldorf education. He has neglected to mention the success of biodynamic agriculture in South America, the Philippines, and Australia, and Egypt, but that is probably an oversight. And biodynamic agriculture is not limited only to small growers; there are quite a few larger farms that employ the techniques, though Peter Staudenmaier would be correct to point out that biodynamic techniques are not very easily applicable to large-scale factory farming. | | Monday, February 25th, 2008 | | 10:26 pm |
Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 129
Continuing my commentary on the 37th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism. The “occasional outbreaks of racist gibberish” is probably a reference to one incident in Holland in 1995, which resulted in a teacher being fired. Investigation by the authorities and the press (it was front page material for several weeks) established that the incident was not a typical of Waldorf schools, yet it has remained a prime example used by Waldorf critics of the alleged racist bent they are so sure is inherent in Waldorf pedagogy. | | Wednesday, February 20th, 2008 | | 7:59 pm |
Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 128
Continuing my commentary on the 37th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism. Mr. Peter Staudenmaier appears to be profoundly ignorant of even the most basic aspects of Waldorf education (the kind of things you learn if you tour a school even once) so his statement that Waldorf education contains a pervasive anti-technological and anti-scientific bias, a suspicion toward rational thought, and occasional outbreaks of racist gibberish must be treated with great suspicion. In fact I have a hard time even imagining what a pedagogy would have to look like in order to systematically teach students a suspicion toward rational thought. The important place of math and science, starting particularly with the Waldorf middle school curriculum, certainly makes it hard to call the pedagogy “anti-scientific.” | | Sunday, January 27th, 2008 | | 9:51 pm |
Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 127
Continuing my commentary on the 37th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism. Students in Waldorf schools hear fairy tales only in the first (and sometimes the second) grade. During that time, they do not read them; they hear them (and fairy tales are certainly not the only thing in the curriculum for those grades). After that the curriculum moves on to more challenging things. So Mr. Peter Staudenmaier's claim that fairy tales are a staple of the Waldorf curriculum is only true for Kindergarten and first grade. Usually by second grade the curriculum has the teacher telling stories of great men and women of history and their achievements, told in a manner appropriate for the age group. | | Saturday, January 19th, 2008 | | 2:20 pm |
| | 11:52 am |
| | Wednesday, January 2nd, 2008 | | 8:45 am |
Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 125
Continuing my commentary on the 37th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism. I'm not sure I understand the accusation that there is “no jazz or popular music“ in Waldorf schools. Does Peter Staudenmaier mean that these subjects do not occur in the curriculum? Or does he mean to imply that there is some sort of blanket ban on such things anywhere on school grounds? As far as the curriculum goes, the music does generally lean towards folk and classical music, but that is the discretion of the individual class teachers and music subject teachers.* The music program varies depending on the size of the school and the talents of the teachers. Singing is required from Kindergarten onwards, in ever increasing complexity, and in larger Waldorf schools choral singing is introduced by the sixth grade. Every student participates. European Waldorf students are as interested in popular music as students anywhere in the world. *As an aside, how many US public schools have jazz or popular music in the curriculum? How many US public schools have any music in the curriculum? I personally have included a section on the development of popular music in the 20th Century – with numerous recorded examples – in a 12th grade course on the history of the 20th Century that I teach at a Waldorf School. This fact alone disproves Peter Staudenmaier’s claim in its absolute formulation. | | Wednesday, December 12th, 2007 | | 3:59 pm |
Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 124
Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 38:
Anthroposophy's peculiar predilections also shape the Waldorf curriculum. There are no sports at European Waldorf schools and no jazz or popular music; these phenomena are considered to harbor demonic forces. Instead students read fairy tales, a staple of Waldorf education. Taken together with the pervasive anti-technological and anti-scientific bias, the suspicion toward rational thought, and the occasional outbreaks of racist gibberish, these factors indicate that Waldorf schooling is as questionable as the other aspects of the anthroposophist enterprise.
Continuing his tirade and litany of absurd and distorted claims against Waldorf schools, Mr. Peter Staudenmaier here presents a string of inane claims that even the simplest investigation easily disproves. For example, the statement “there are no sports at European Waldorf schools” is particularly absurd. I have walked the grounds of the first Waldorf School in Stuttgart, and there is a track, basketball courts, and a gym with equipment for volleyball and gymnastics. The students use all all these facilities, as can be observed on any school day. Numerous other Waldorf schools I have visited on three continents are similarly equipped.* While I cannot say with certainty that every last one of the hundreds of Waldorf Schools in Europe have a sports program, there is no reason to believe they do not. Further, there is nothing in the Waldorf pedagogy that could be construed to be against sports.** But there are more problems with this paragraph that I will address tomorrow. *What is interesting from an American perspective is that there are no intermural competitive sports in the German Waldorf schools. This becomes understandable when you discover that there are no intermural competitive sports in the German public schools either. Such sports are the domain of local associations independent of the schools –like the US Little Leagues – and Waldorf students can, and do, participate just like their peers in German public schools. **When asked about sports in the Waldorf School, Steiner responded thus (to an audience in England):
"[Question:] How should instruction in gymnastics be carried out, and should sports be taught in an English school, hockey and cricket, for example, and if so in what way?
[Steiner:] It is emphatically not the aim of the Waldorf school method to suppress these things. They have their place simply because they play a great part in English life, and the children should grow up into life. Only please do not fall prey to the illusion that there is any other meaning in it than this, namely, that we ought not to make children strangers to their world. It is an error to believe that sports are of tremendous value in development. They are not of great value in development. Their only value is as a fashion dear to the English people, but we must not make the children strangers to the world by exclusion from all popular activities. You like sport in England, so the children should be introduced to sports. One should not meet with philistine opposition what may possibly be philistine itself.
Regarding "how it should really be taught", there is very little indeed to be said. For in these things it is really more or less so that the child imitates what someone does first. And to devise special artificial methods here would be something scarcely appropriate to the subject."
Rudolf Steiner, The Kingdom of Childhood. Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1995. Pages 134-135.
| | Friday, December 7th, 2007 | | 5:01 pm |
Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 123
Continuing my commentary on the 37th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism. </p> Mr. Peter Staudenmaier's further conjecture, that his ten-second investigation "suggests" that everything tens of thousands of parents over eight decades know about the school that they have chosen to send their children to is completely wrong, is the height of incompetent scholarship. Waldorf's reputation has not been won on a multi-million dollar advertising campaign. Rather, Waldorf's reputation is the result of decades of results. And the Waldorf movement is not the fastest growing pedagogical movement in the world because it abuses and mis-educates children. Almost every Waldorf school in the world (over seven hundred and counting) started as a parent initiative, and grew from the enthusiasm of parents who are deeply concerned with their children's education. If Mr. Peter Staudenmaier's allegations here were even remotely accurate there would simply be no Waldorf movement and Steiner's pedagogical indications would be a footnote in history. | | Wednesday, December 5th, 2007 | | 9:58 pm |
Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 121
Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 37:
Along with privileging ostensibly "spiritual" considerations over cognitive and psycho-social ones, the static uniformity of this scheme is pedagogically suspect. It also suggests that Waldorf schools' reputation for fostering a spontaneous, child-centered and individually oriented educational atmosphere is undeserved. In fact Steiner's model of instruction is downright authoritarian: he emphasized repetition and rote learning, and insisted that the teacher should be the center of the classroom and that students' role was not to judge or even discuss the teacher's pronouncements. In practice many Waldorf schools implement strict discipline, with public punishment for perceived transgressions.
In suddenly declaring Waldorf "pedagogically suspect" without ever having bothered to study it, I have to wonder where Mr. Peter Staudenmaier gained such expertise in the field of in education. I also have to wonder what comprehensive background in pedagogy informs his expert opinion on the subject. We have already seen just how little Mr. Peter Staudenmaier knows about Waldorf in his failure to use the proper term in discussing even the most basic aspects of the pedagogy. The fact that he finds Waldorf to value un-named "spiritual" considerations, supposedly over other, un-named "psycho-social"* ones is quite curious; curious in that he has evidently not undertaken even a basic study of these "spiritual" considerations. I have to wonder how he is so sure that they are wrong if he doesn't even know what they are. Nebulous references to superior "psycho-social" considerations without any elaboration or citations strikes me as the work of a writer who is putting ink to paper in the effort to make a point without actually thinking first. * Ironic indeed is the fact that the odd construction "psycho-social" essentially says the same thing as "spiritual". "Psycho" is derived from the Greek "soul" so Peter Staudenmaier is decrying Waldorf 's ostensibly "spiritual" bent over a more mainstream "soul-social" one. | | Tuesday, December 4th, 2007 | | 6:35 pm |
Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 120
Continuing my commentary on the 36th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism. </p> In this second third of the grade school years, between the nine-year change and the eleven-year change, the child lives in the immediacy of outer impressions, but is not yet ready to comprehend cause and effect. If this is presented, it can be repeated back, but not yet really grasped, not really understood. This is possible only after the eleven-year change. It is then that mechanistic sciences such as physics can be introduced.* These, too, should be introduced in the context of ordinary life. Minerals are found in the earth, not just in boxes and photographs. They are found in specific geographic regions, and for specific reasons. Levers are used in ordinary life, and can be introduced with concrete examples. Thus is the Waldorf pedagogy shaped by the characteristics of the changing consciousness of the child in its development through the school years. The exact ages may differ in individual children, but the pattern remains universal. I could go on and write an entire book on the subject, and indeed, several such books have been written. It is a pity that Mr. Peter Staudenmaier could not avail himself to such a book before considering himself expertly informed on the subject of Waldorf education. * Rudolf Steiner, The Kingdom of Childhood. Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1995. Pages 37-39. | | Sunday, December 2nd, 2007 | | 4:35 pm |
Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 119
Continuing my commentary on the 36th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism. </p> In the pedagogy of the Waldorf School, this nine-year change has a number of important implications. Because the outer world is now separate, it can be observed and investigated, taken back into the inner world via the senses. This should be done in a way that maintains the integrity, the wholeness, and unity of the outer world. For example, plants should be studied in the context of soil ecology and their native ecosystem, and not as a piece of green matter of a given shape, brought in to the classroom for inspection.* This is just one of many examples of how Steiner's theoretical stages of child development are tied to practical pedagogical indications and shape the curriculum of Waldorf Schools. * Rudolf Steiner, The Kingdom of Childhood. Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1995. Page 48, and Rudolf Steiner, The Child's Changing Consciousness. Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1988 – the entire book. | | Saturday, December 1st, 2007 | | 7:00 pm |
Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 118
Continuing my commentary on the 36th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism. </p> In addition, Rudolf Steiner has identified two further milestones in the development of children between the ages of 7 and 14, that is, between the 1 st and 8 th grade.* The first occurs around age 9 years four months, and the second around age 11 years eight months. Now it should be noted that these divisions, especially in such precision, are archetypal, that is they will almost never correspond exactly with any one particular child. In the particular child the markers of the starting and ending of the whole period in question is the age between first dentition and puberty, the actual age being of secondary importance. The first milestone comes at the end of the first third of this period, and is referred to in Waldorf circles as “the nine year change.” Prior to the nine-year change, the child lives in a consciousness that encompasses the entire immediate environment, and does not distinguish between inner and outer, between self and other. After the nine-year change, the child experiences strongly the separation of self from world. The transition is not immediate or quick, it starts even years earlier, with occasional moments of awakening, which often remain as significant memories in the child's later life, and these moments then become more frequent. After the nine year change (whether it occurs at nine years four months or much earlier or later) the process is complete, so that the separateness is now the normal state of consciousness, and the united consciousness is experienced as lost. * See among others, Rudolf Steiner, The Roots of Education. Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1997. Page 69 | | Tuesday, November 27th, 2007 | | 6:58 pm |
Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 117
Continuing my commentary on the 36th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism. </p> In Steiner's pedagogy there are two major events, or milestones, in childhood development. Both indicate processes that culminate at that point, and both are referred to in Peter Staudenmaier's paragraph, though inaccurately. The first is the first dentition, or loss of the baby teeth, and the second is puberty. These two major milestones are roughly seven years apart, so that childhood and adolescence can be divided into roughly three seven-year periods. Now what these seven-year periods signify to Waldorf pedagogy is indeed important, and there is much talk of these seven-year periods in Waldorf education. The first seven-year period, from birth to the beginning of the first dentition, is a period in which the physical body in particular is developing.* Now contrary to Peter Staudenmaier's belief, the physical body is not the only thing developing, for the etheric and astral bodies are also developing, and a fourth element, called the ego, is also present and active. However, of all the developments, Steiner considers the development of the physical body to be the most significant. Likewise, the second seven-year period is one in which the etheric body's development has especial significance. This is not to indicate, as Peter Staudenmaier does, that the physical body stops development, or that the astral body is inactive. Both continue to develop, but the etheric body's development is most important. The onset of puberty (which today is closer to age 12 than 14) signifies the start of a period of special development of the astral body. The etheric body and physical bodies continue to develop, as does the ego. In one poetic description, Steiner talked about a second, third and fourth "birth"; that at first dentition the etheric body was "born", at puberty the astral body was "born" and at roughly 21 the ego is "born". This is to be understood allegorically, since in Steiner’s view they are all present even before the child’s physical birth. * The theme of seven-year periods in human development is quite common in Steiner's work, and he develops it in literally hundreds of lectures in dozens of books. A good overview can be obtained by reading Rudolf Steiner, The Child's Changing Consciousness. Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1988. | | Monday, November 26th, 2007 | | 9:38 pm |
Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 116
Continuing my commentary on the 36th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism. </p> Steiner called for an education based on a comprehensive understanding of the changes in development of the human being through childhood. This concept of "developmentally appropriate" education is hardly unique to Steiner. Steiner had additional perspectives on the development of the human being, and this allowed him to designate developmental stages and the appropriate pedagogical responses decades before mainstream educational theorists came to similar conclusions. Indeed, not all of the subtle developmental stages have yet shown up in non-Waldorf research (since Waldorf is so far ahead of developments in what is called "progressive" education, people in Waldorf circles often wonder when some researcher will "discover" yet another thing that has been done in Waldorf for the last 80 years). This is not to imply a contradiction between Waldorf and non-Waldorf child development theories. I will discuss Steiner's theory of child development tomorrow. | | Sunday, November 25th, 2007 | | 4:09 pm |
Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 115
Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 36:
The curriculum at Waldorf schools is structured around the stages of spiritual maturation posited by Anthroposophy: from one to seven years a child develops her or his physical body, from seven to fourteen years the ethereal body, and from fourteen to twenty-one the astral body. These stages are supposed to be marked by physical changes; thus kindergartners at Waldorf schools can't enter first grade until they've lost all their baby teeth.
The above paragraph displays all the subtlety and understanding of Conquistador describing the religious beliefs of the Inca. That is, a few of the details are recognizably related to some of the forms, but the whole is grossly mistaken and displays a serious lack of effort at understanding. Take for example the term "ethereal body". Peter Staudenmaier obviously means "etheric body" but is apparently not familiar enough with even the most basic terminology to use the correct word. One can hardly expect subtly of understanding from someone who has not even read closely enough to note the terms. I'll talk more about this tomorrow. | | Friday, November 16th, 2007 | | 3:03 pm |
Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 114
Staudenmaier lackes an understanding of the anthroposophical understanding of karma and all its nuance. For example, it would indeed strain credulity to believe that every individual child in each class in every Waldorf School chooses every other student in the class and the teacher before birth. If nothing else, such a conception provides precious little space for the agency of free will. So it will probably surprise no one besides Peter Staudenmaier that this is not an article of faith for every teacher in every Waldorf School. Inasmuch as Waldorf teachers are students of Anthroposophy (and while many are, quite a few are not) they may take into consideration that karma might play some role in the interaction they have with their students. But this consideration applies equally to all other social interactions. And precious few Waldorf teachers pretend to a degree of karmic insight sufficient to know the pre-earthly intentions of all, or any, of their students. Instead the concept of karma helps the teacher respect the individuality of each student. Given the nature of the concept of karma – that in the course of repeated earth lives we learn in order to grow – it is hardly surprising that this relates to the very principle of education. Thus it is not incorrect that to one who believes in the concept, "karma is the basis of all true education". However it is mistaken to contend as Peter Staudenmaier and others do that this basic principle somehow translates into a rigid belief in the iron hand of fate determining classroom configurations. A proper understanding of the anthroposophical conception of Karma is critical for forming a basis for understanding how this does and does not effect Waldorf education. The essential point that so many critics seem to miss is the fact that karma does not equal pre-destiny. In the anthroposophical conception, karma is like a checklist of to-do items for a lifetime – a list that may be completed along with many additional adventures, or that may not have even one item completed. Because of the existence of free will and the forward-looking as well as backward-looking nature of karma, many unplanned things may happen in any life (with consequences for the future) and no one can tell what is karmic, and what is the result of free will. Thus no true anthroposophist (or Waldorf teacher) will go around claiming that this or that event or tendency is "karma". Absent clairvoyance, which very few claim for themselves, no one can tell one way or the other. |
[ << Previous 20 ]
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
dhindes's journal