Waldorf Problems

What, in a nutshell, are Rudolf Steiner’s teachings? One of his devout followers, Hermann von Baravalle (aka Herman V. Baravalle), attempts to give an answer in the book WALDORF EDUCATION FOR AMERICA. [1]

Von Baravalle—who should know his stuff, since he was a teacher at Steiner’s original Waldorf school in Stuttgart, Germany—begins by saying that Steiner agreed with most religions that the human soul or spirit is “not dependent on the body” [2]. In other words, the human soul continues to exist after death. Von Baravalle goes on to say that, unlike some religions, Steiner also taught that the soul existed before birth. But, according to von Baravalle, the greatest distinction between Steiner’s views and the views of most religions is that Anthroposophy (to give it it’s correct name—something von Baravalle doesn’t do) “does not appeal to authority from the past...In Steiner’s conception of the world the potential for revelation, for knowledge, exists right with us.” [3]

Several points need to be made immediately. ◊ Steiner’s books and lectures are actually chockablock with references to, and appeals to, ancient teachings. Taking his lead from Theosophy, Steiner melded Christianity with Hinduism, Buddhism, ancient myths, Persian and Egyptian dogmas, and the like. Self-evidently, these are doctrines derived “from the past.” [4] ◊ It is not correct to say that Anthroposophy stands out from most religions because it allows for the possibility that revelation can occur in the here and now. Contemporary revelation is a tenet of the Pentecostal faith as well as Mormonism, to cite just two examples. Evangelical preachers such as Pat Roberston and Jerry Falwell have often professed direct communiqués from God. The Pope does the same. [5] ◊ Steiner did teach that revelation can occur in the present to anyone. But he attached some strings. One had to become an initiate in Steiner’s religion, which meant—among other things—developing organs of clairvoyance. [6] All of Steiner’s doctrines proceed from the clairvoyance he claimed to possess. [7] Few if any of his followers have claimed psychic powers to equal his. Thus, most adherents of Anthroposophy proceed by faith, nor by personal revelation. In whom do they put their faith? Rudolf Steiner, who is now dead, so in this sense, too, his followers take their faith “from the [albeit recent] past.”

Personal revelation, according to Steiner, according to von Baravalle, becomes possible because “Human nature can unfold more completely as part of an evolutionary process.” [8] Evolution is, indeed, a central component of Steiner’s theology. [9] He did not subscribe to scientific, Darwinian evolution, however. He spoke of an ongoing process of spiritual development that will—in the distant future—produce virtually perfect humans. “It is one of the central ideas [of Steiner’s] that our human consciousness, our whole inner life, and our capabilities undergo evolution...” [10] One consequence of this belief, which von B. skims past, is that people who want revelation here and now may have to wait for centuries or even millennia before evolution takes them to a stage at which they can have such revelations. Until then, they will need to rely on Steiner—i.e., take his teachings on faith.

Von B. asserts that Steiner asserted that ancient peoples (who were less evolved than ourselves) had different consciousnesses than we have today. “These people were fundamentally different in the way they looked at life, their way of inner striving, their questions, and their needs.” [11] Steiner frequently asserted that various humans are less evolved than others, including humans alive today: Some are descended from higher racial stocks and some from lower. (See my essay, “Race.”) Steiner also differentiated true human beings from people who are not really human, and/or who are automata, and/or who may be seen as blind moles burrowing through the dark earth. (See my essays “Unenlightened,” “Not So Humouresque,” etc.)

Von B. explains that, according to Steiner, people in the past had different perceptions of the earthly and spiritual realms than are possible to us today—but nonetheless, what these people believed was, in a manner of speaking, true. “Out of the spirit they spoke about non-physical forms of existence...[Their beliefs were not fantasies; rather, they reflected] a change in consciousness, a difference in the condition of human minds...The ancient attitude had its emphasis on the beyond.” [12] Steiner actually incorporated such notions into his doctrines (e.g., nonphysical forms of existence, such as the three nonphysical bodies true human incarnate, and the spiritual lives we led in the Spirit Worlds before birth, etc.). [13] He thus took various elements from the past, but always within the assertion that he had superior knowledge, thanks to being more evolved and possessing exceptional powers of clairvoyance.

Von Baravalle goes on to explain that the evolution of mankind is not random (as Darwinian evolution is) but displays a definite pattern. “We see one pattern which comes out of the past: The further [sic] we go back, the more the emphasis on the physical existence is secondary and the more the emphasis on the inner qualities, what we call human values and the spiritual nature, gets stronger...This question is: Is this evolutionary process still going on? Is [the modern] emphasis on the physical existence getting stronger still? Again Rudolf Steiner gives a very important answer: Yes, it is [emphasis by von B.].” [14] This pattern would seem to suggest that ancient peoples were more advanced, i.e., more spiritual, than we are today. But on the contrary, Steiner’s doctrines actually assert that ancient peoples had a sort of natural clairvoyance [15], comparable to the intuition of spirit realms that he said newborn infants possess. [16] The people back then were immature, like contemporary infants. We have evolved to become more comfortable in the physical world. But of course the physical world is a place of snares: To gain a new, superior form of clairvoyance—to free ourselves from the snares of the physical world—we need (can you guess?) Rudolf Steiner and his “wisdom.”

Von B. explains that Steiner’s doctrines explain that mankind has turned a corner. The high point for materialism came in the nineteenth century, and since then people have gradually turned their gaze once more to spiritualism. “Rudolf Steiner says that this beginning will grow...You can, for instance, talk to many people today about the idea of reincarnation, whereas you would make [sic] an utter fool of yourself a few decades ago if you brought up the subject.” [17] We’ll return to the “turning point” in a minute. For now, concentrate on the “idea of reincarnation.” For Steiner, reincarnation was much more than merely an “idea.” It was a central tenet. [18] Von B. characteristically soft-pedals Steiner’s teachings, but the underlying message is plain. Our souls are independent of our bodies. Our souls existed before birth and will exist after death. Our souls, in fact, have moved through a long, evolutionary series of past lives, and they will move through many further evolutionary stages in future lives. (“The idea of reincarnation complements the idea of evolution; every individual goes through these evolutionary stages.” [19].) Is there any evidence to support these propositions? Von B. provides none. Are these propositions consistent with Biblical teachings? No: The Bible says when we die, we go to heaven or hell. V. B. skims over this minor quibble. One more point before we move on: Oddly enough, considering that Anthroposophy does not rely on dogmas from out of the past, Steiner’s teachings about reincarnation include the “age old [sic] thought that runs through the Oriental cultures, the thought of karma.” [20] (Note, again, the soft pedaling: not karma, but the “thought” of karma. Actually, Steiner asserted the actuality of karma over and over.) Now, the turning point: Hermann v. B. explains that evolution had to take us toward materialism, so that we could balance our natures and sharpen our wits, but now we may turn back again toward the spiritual. Strengthened by our brush with the material world, we will soon attain spiritual wisdom far greater than we enjoyed in the dim past. [21]

At this point in his manuscript, v. B. touches lightly on the subject of education for the young—and here Steiner’s racism peeps out: Hermann (or Herman) v. B. says that Western teachers would enjoy having Eastern pupils, who are more pliable than Western kids. Asians are less evolved than Western peoples, you see: They are “still imbedded in” an ancient, inferior spiritual mindset. [22] V. B. actually allows himself to refer to a “low, Oriental view.” [23] The nasty invidiousness of Steiner’s belief system threatens to burst into full view, here, and when von B. quickly shifts his discourse to a different topic, he sets out propositions that may strike some as equally offensive. He dismisses both the scientific view of the world (including secular “faith” in materialism) and the prevailing religious view: He waves away all views except Steiner’s: “Whether we accept religion or science...[we would have to believe that] the world was somehow created out of a gaseous state, a liquid state, and then a solid state...The future may bring atomic reactors of whatever it is that may appear in the churchyard of the big faith in material values and goods...[But] Rudolf Steiner took a completely different view.” [24] Von B.’s précis of the scientific account of creation is almost a travesty, while his dismissal of conventional religious views hints at Steiner’s heresy. But of course von B. doesn’t say these things explicitly; he sidles around them, and endeavors to seem eminently reasonable. (Keep count, though: So far we’ve seen rejection of Judeo/Christian religion; embrace of a bizarre form of evolution; intimations of racism; rejection of science; intimations of clairvoyance; promises of revelation at every hand... Soon we will be exposed to reincarnation, karma, surprising news about the evolution of animals, unusual calculations on the age of mankind, weird assertions about early human embodiments, and other mind-stretching (or -deadening) beliefs. This is getting to be impressive.)

Steiner’s view, by contrast, is that there is no real division between the material realm and the spiritual (heaven and earth are not separate). Instead, “The whole spiritual world and the material world are connected...what we have as a physical existence was once a spiritual existence that took form on [sic] certain forms [sic] in the course of evolution. Now there comes a most surprising difference between Steiner’s world conception and the usual ones. In Rudolf Steiner’s world conception man is as old as the world.” [25] This is, indeed, an unusual view. All of geology and scientific accounts of evolution are swept away. (According to science, for instance, the universe is about 15 billion years old, whereas homo sapiens emerged about 350,000 years ago.) [26] We are left with Steiner’s “surprising” view. And what reason to we have to accept this view? None, apparently, except that it is “surprising.” I’m not being flippant. Hermann v. B. offers no evidence to support Steiner. Instead, he seems to believe that Steiner’s views are sufficiently interesting and “democratic” [27] that they justify themselves. In this, he is faithful to the views of his guru, who evidently believed that if he blew their minds, people would flock to his banner. Some who enjoyed having their minds blown did flock, and some still do today.

Hermann v. B. continues with his exegesis of Steinerian evolution: “When you start from a conception of non-material existence...[the emergence of man in physical form] could be imagined as crystallization...The process starts...with a gaseous state...then it goes to the liquid [state], then to the solid state...[S]piritual existence would partially materialize itself during this process...What would a scientist ask about a point of view like that? How could a human being exist in a gaseous state? He would scratch his head in perplexity.” [28] In case you are scratching your head, let’s pause he to regroup. Humans are as old as the universe, and older than the physical universe. We sort of crystallized out of the spiritual world, although only partially. The process of full manifestation was gradual. In early stages, we existed in a gaseous state ad then a liquid state. Our physical, partially manifested bodies were, at those stages, gaseous and then liquid. Note that Steiner was not referring to man’s evolutionary ancestors, the way Darwin did. Rather, Steiner’s teachings assert that man—who was here from the start—was always man, but man evolved as the universe itself evolved.

If you’re ready to push on: Von Baravalle disposes of the possibility that man evolved from lower animals thus: “The animals aren’t the predecessors of man...but in the course of evolutionary process many of the animal forms rushed more quickly into contact with physical existence. Humans held back. Therefore, animals have a stronger component of physical processes in their nature. A beaver, for instance, just goes to work and builds his dwelling place. We are not so well adapted to the physical that we can go around and make houses...We still need an architect....” [29] I think that’s clear enough. But notice von Baravalle’s rhetorical sleight of hand. This is how he “proves” Steiner’s tenets: He states something implausible (animals crystallized out of spiritual before men did) and then draws a “logical” conclusion: “Therefore” animals are more fully physical than we are. Q.E.D.

All of this is, I might add, a reasonably accurate presentation of parts of Steiner’s teachings. Sanitized parts, partial parts. But no outright misrepresentations.

Hermann (or Herman, as he found it more convenient to be known in America) takes a stab at prognostication: “What will happen in the future according to this world conception? Well, when the spirit has an independent form of existence, it can even survive the end of the world.” [30] I’m breaking in here just to point out that once again Hermann/Herman tries to affirm Steiner’s teaching by simply saying they are attractive (e.g., we can outlive the end of the world: so don’t worry, be happy). “You will see that these thoughts with all their implications may be more sensible [or at least more appealing] than present [i.e., scientific or religious] views...[Consider prevalent religious teachings:] People lead a good life, adhere to their religions, and believe strongly in their messages, Then when you do not go to a [church] service on one Sunday...you die in the state of that sin... [so you will not] be among the blessed for eternity.” [31] Once again we see Hermann/Herman setting up a straw man, in this case positing a caricature of conventional religious belief. Then, employing the logical fallacy called “appeal to ignorance” (we don’t know that “A” is true, therefore “B” must be true), he makes an irrational affirmation of his Anthroposophical faith.

What is the justification for all this balderdash? “Freedom,” says Herman: “[W]hy did we have to go through all these troubles [i.e., evolution]? For one prize only...It is freedom...We see in Rudolf Steiner a man who had courage...to bear witness in the humble service of freedom and individuality.” [33] Not wishing to launch an ad hominem attack on Steiner, I’ll refrain from commenting on his “humility” (he, who was always right about everything: oops, I slipped). But notice how Herman, addressing an American audience, knew how to trim his sails. He assures us that Anthroposophy (whipped up by an Austrian, in Germany, where he celebrated German culture and the Aryan race) is as American as apple pie.

At this point I should add a personal note or two. I’m not aware that I ever laid eyes on Hermann von Baravalle. But I may have. (And think what this means. You are reading a sentence written by someone who either did or didn’t actually see someone who actually knew Rudolf Steiner. What is that, one degree of separation? It’s a small world after all. [34]) Von Baravalle held a faculty position at Adelphi College in Garden City, New York, at the same time that I was a student at what was then called “The Waldorf School of Adelphi College.” (Adelphi, unaware of the occult nature of Steiner’s views, had several links with the school, including a Waldorf teacher training program that the college agreed to host. All of this fell through when scandal rocked the school—as I’ll explain ASAP.) The headmaster at the Waldorf School of Adelphi College was John Fentress Gardener. He tried the same tack as von Baravalle: He tried to make Waldorf and Anthroposophy seem to be consistent with American values. In an essay titled “The Founding of Adelphi’s Waldorf School,” Gardner said he tried to defuse worries about the weird spiritualism behind Waldorf by working “to gain understanding for [the school and its methods]. I minimized the difference between a Waldorf school and other schools....” [35] Among Gardner’s tactics was his claim that “There was nothing in Rudolf Steiner that [the prototypically American writers] Thoreau and Emerson and Whitman would not have approved wholeheartedly.” [36] This claim would be defensible only if the great bulk of Steiner’s teachings (the gods’ divine cosmic plan, the magical effects of eurythmy, the existence of human automata, etc., etc.) were kept hidden. [37] Gardner stuck by this strategy, however, as is evidenced by a book he wrote after his forced retirement: AMERICAN HERALDS OF THE SPIRIT [38] is about the American Transcendentalists Emerson, Whitman, and Melville. The third appendix deals with “Rudolf Steiner’s extensive and immensely fruitful research.” The book’s thesis is that the American Transcendentalists anticipated spiritual doctrines that Steiner would perfect, “lending them the clarity of something fully experienced....” [39]

Unfortunately, Steiner himself undercut the contention that Waldorf schools are consistent with American values. Steiner explicitly embraced Central European (i.e., Germanic) culture and he warned that Westerners (i.e., West Europeans and Americans) would find the fruits of that culture indigestible. Indeed, Gardner was aware of Steiner’s caution: “Steiner warned against any ambitious plans to publicize Waldorf education prematurely among circles that did not share the same kind of inspiration [as he himself enjoyed]...Steiner said, in part: ‘[T]he western nations will not be able to understand what will arise out of the whole concrete Central European spiritual culture with regard to the art of education; on the contrary, it will annoy them, and it really ought not to be told them in its original form.’” [40]

Both John Gardner and Hermann von Baravalle were faithful to their spiritual leader. While bravely setting forth some (but by no means all) of Steiner’s teachings, von Baravalle tried to disguise them in Western clothing (recollect the title of his book: WALDORF EDUCATION FOR AMERICA). To a degree, it worked; to a degree, it didn’t. The Waldorf School of Adelphi College (later the Waldorf School of Adelphi University) eventually changed its name to the Waldorf School of Garden City after revelations of mystical beliefs and practices at the school kicked up a mighty brouhaha. (For two accounts of the scandal, see the opening section of my essay, “Unenlightened.”) When the scandal broke, in 1979, many parents became upset and yanked their children out of the school. Adelphi, too, cut its ties to the school, and Gardner and his several of his cohorts were driven into early retirement. As for Von Baravalle, he was spared the consequences of the scandal. Well before the scandal broke, he traveled around the US, spreading the (soft-pedaled) Steiner gospel. Von B. became known as the “Johnny Appleseed of Waldorf Education.” [41] In 1969, he returned to his native Germany, where in 1972 he suffered a stroke. He died in 1973. [42]

ENDNOTES

[1] Herman V. Baravalle, WALDORF EDUCATION FOR AMERICA (Parker Courtney Press, 1998). I have written three other essays about von Baravalle’s advocacy of Anthroposophy: See “Oh My Stars,” “Humouresque,” and “What a Guy.”

[2] Ibid., p. 13.

[3] Ibid., p. 13.

[4] See, e.g., Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, RUDOLF STEINER (Berkley: North Atlantic Books, 2004); also Rudolf Steiner, SPIRITUALISM, MADAME BLAVATSKY, AND THEOSOPHY (Great Barrington, MA: Anthroposophic Press, 2001), Rudolf Steiner, THEOSOPHY (Great Barrington, MA: Anthroposophic Press, 1994), and Rudolf Steiner, THEOSOPHY OF THE ROSICRUCIAN (London: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1981).

[5] There is little basis for asserting that Anthroposophy is unique. To a great extent, it is merely warmed-over Theosophy. But even if we look far afield, we can find parallels with other unusual or heterodox faiths. Consider Mormonism, for example. Anthroposophy and Mormonism (i.e., the Church of Latter Day Saints) have no direct connections with one another. Mormonism has grown to become a major, avowed faith, while Anthroposophy has remained a minor, covert faith. And yet:

◊ Both are extensions of Christianity—that is, they acknowledge the paramount importance of Jesus Christ, but they incorporate additional teachings beyond those derived directly from the Bible. Instead of "extensions," some would label these faiths as corruptions of Christianity.

◊ Seen from the perspective of orthodox Christian teachings, both are heretical—with the former straying even farther than the latter from mainline Christian dogmas.

◊ Both hold out the possibility of contemporary revelation. Another way to put this is that neither faith accepts the Holy Bible as the final word, i.e., God’s inerrant, perfect, complete Word. Anthroposophists look to Steiner (and his most “advanced” devotees) for recent news from the spiritual world. Mormons look to the Book of Mormon and the teachings of Joseph Smith’s successors.

◊ Both faiths place the “Godhead” at the pinnacle of spiritual authority. These doctrines differ, in varying ways, from the orthodox Christian conception of the triune God. For orthodox Christians, the three persons of God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are different aspects of the same ultimate Divinity. Steiner separated the three persons of God and placed them in their own über-hierarchy above the nine-step, triple-tiered  hierarchies of other spiritual beings. Mormonism teaches that the Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are physically separate beings (tritheism). Indeed, Mormonism asserts that each of these beings has a physical body. The three beings work in coordination with one another, but they are not a single consciousness.

◊ Anthroposophists believe in Steinerian evolution, which—operating through the agency of reincarnation—allows for future human perfection. Steiner taught that it is possible for humans to rise, in future incarnations, to the level of the “gods.” Mormonism teaches that a similar sort of progression may allow people to eventually become “gods.” Whether Mormonism includes or implies the doctrine of reincarnation is the subject of debate. See, e.g., www.religionnewsblog.com/11847/room-for-reincarnation-in-lds-theology.

◊ Both Mormonism and Anthroposophy stress salvation through good works, not salvation through grace. Mormonism teaches that, upon Christ’s return, people (both the living and the resurrected dead) will receive the degree of divine reward they deserve, based on their behavior during life on Earth. This tenet is comparable to the Anthroposophical belief that “good” people will attain higher evolutionary levels than “bad.” Some backward people/peoples/races will fall away as humanity progresses—according to Steiner, the good will have to battle the bad, but the good will also help some of the better bad to join them in a virtuous community. The linchpin for this teaching is the doctrine of karma, according to which each human gets her/his desserts.

Note that a system of teachings rooted in Christianity, having a theology, and offering the path to salvation, is undeniably a religion.
 
The Book of Mormon is certainly the best reference to consult in studying Mormonism. Reader-friendly editions are available, e.g., Grant Hardy (ed.), THE BOOK OF MORMON: A Reader’s Edition (University of Illinois Press, 2005). There are also guides, such as Timothy Wilson’s A PLAIN ENGLISH REFERENCE TO THE BOOK OF MORMON (Bonneville Books, 1998).

The Encyclopedia Britannica has a fine summary article about Mormonism: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-5018/Mormon. (E.g., “Mormons regard Christian churches as apostate for lacking [contemporary] revelation;” “[T]he three [Father, Son, and Holy Ghost] are considered to be distinct entities;” “Mormons believe that faithful members of the church may receive God's fullness and thus become gods themselves;” “After the millennium, the earth will become a celestial sphere and the inheritance of the righteous. Others will be assigned to lesser kingdoms named terrestrial and ‘telestial,’” etc.)

For a recent overview of Mormon teachings, see “Disparate Doctrines: Two Faiths [i.e., Evangelical Christianity and Mormonism] in Conflict,” sidebar, NEWSWEEK 12/17/2007.

[6] See, e.g., Rudolf Steiner, THE FOUNDATIONS OF HUMAN EXPERIENCE, Foundations of Waldorf Education (Anthroposophic Press, 1996), p. 28.

[7] See, e.g., “[T]he purpose of this book is to depict some portions of the supersensible world...It is only through knowledge of the supersensible that our sense-perceptible ‘reality’ acquires meaning...In compiling this book, I have included nothing I cannot testify to on the basis of personal experience in this field. Only my direct experience is presented here.” [THEOSOPHY, pp. 7-8.]. A particularly vivid description of clairvoyance can be seen in ART INSPIRED BY RUDOLF STEINER, Rudolf Steiner quoted by John Fletcher (Mercury Arts Publications, 1987), p. 95.

[8] WALDORF EDUCATION FOR AMERICA, p. 14.

[9] See, e.g., Rudolf Steiner, AN OUTLINE OF ESOTERIC SCIENCE (Anthroposophic Press, 1997), p. xii, introduction by Clopper Almon.

[10] WALDORF EDUCATION FOR AMERICA, p. 15.

[11] Ibid., p. 16.

[12] Ibid., p. 17.

[13] Re. nonphysical bodies, see, e.g., THEOSOPHY OF THE ROSICRUCIAN (London: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1981), pp. 22-25 (this is an early but striking example); for more about lives before and after our current physical lives, see, e.g., Rudolf Steiner, POLARITIES IN THE EVOLUTION OF MANKIND (Steiner Books, 1987).

[14] WALDORF EDUCATION FOR AMERICA, p. 18.

[15] See, e.g., Rudolf Steiner, NATURE SPIRITS. Lectures from 1908-1924 (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1995), pp. 62-3.

[16] See, e.g., A.C. Harwood, PORTRAIT OF A WALDORF SCHOOL (The Myrin Institute Inc., 1956), pp. 15-16.

[17] Ibid., p. 19.

[18] See, e.g., Rudolf Steiner, KARMIC RELATIONSHIPS: Esoteric Studies, Vol. 2  (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1974).

[19] WALDORF EDUCATION FOR AMERICA, p. 23.

[20] Ibid., p. 20.

[21] Ibid., p. 22. See diagram.

[22] Ibid., p. 22.

[23] Ibid., p. 19.

[24] Ibid., p. 23.

[25] Ibid., p. 23.

[26] See, e.g., the Encyclopedia Brittanica.

[27] WALDORF EDUCATION FOR AMERICA, p. 14.

[28] Ibid., pp. 23-24.

[29] Ibid., p. 24.

[30] Ibid., p. 25.

[31] Ibid., p. 25.

[33] Ibid., pp. 25-27.

[34] One reason I feel entitled to laugh at Steiner and Hermann/Herman is that, from the lofty perspective of the 21st Century, we are virtual contemporaries. If it helps, think of us as three old duffers having a senile spat. (In which case you should pull for me, since it’s two against one. (And speaking senilistically: Does anyone remember Herman’s Hermits? (I think that was a different Herman, though.)))

[35] John Fentress Gardner, “The Founding of Adelphi’s Waldorf School,” ONE MAN’S VISION: IN MEMORIAM, H.A.W. MYRIN (The Myrin Institute Inc., 1970), p. 48.

[36] Ibid., p. 46.

[37] Re. the gods’ “divine cosmic plan,” see Rudolf Steiner, FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER (Anthroposophic Press, 1998), p. 55; for the the magical effects of eurythmy, see, e.g., ART AS SEEN IN THE LIGHT OF MYSTERY WISDOM (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1996); concerning the existence of human automata, see, e.g., FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, p. 115.

[38] John Fentress Gardner, AMERICAN HERALDS OF THE SPIRIT (Lindisfarne Press, 1992).

[39] WALDORF EDUCATION FOR AMERICA, p. 298.

[40]“The Founding of Adelphi’s Waldorf School,” p. 46.

[41] WALDORF EDUCATION FOR AMERICA , p. 8.

[42] Ibid., p. 9.