return to WCA Archive Index
-- Topica Digest --2269
RE: the evolution of Pride
By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
RE: In Praise of Peter Staudenmaier
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: In Praise of Peter Staudenmaier
By pkcompany netzero.net
St Michael
By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
Dottie Berra
By pkcompany netzero.net
Fictionology
By pkcompany netzero.net
Corporal punishment in American schools
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Dottie Berra
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: Dottie Berra
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
Re: In Praise of Peter Staudenmaier
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 10:44:36 +0000
From: Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
Subject: RE: the evolution of Pride
Keith McLean wrote:
)
)
) Mike Helsher wrote:
) )
) )
(snip)
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) My equations are not heartless. I am not
) ) ) defending
) ) ) ) ) my materialistic world
) ) ) ) ) view.
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) )Yes they are, and yes you are.
) ) )
) ) ) This is just an ad hom. It doesn't help at all. And
) ) ) you're wrong.
) )
) ) No, your wrong, and I'm right!
) )
) ) shall we dance?
)
) (g)
)
)
) Bond: "Do you want me to talk?!"
)
) Dr No.: "No, Mr Bond! I want you to DIE!"
)
) :)))
)
Er...no, not quite Dr No...:
James Bond: Do you expect me to talk, Goldfinger?
Auric Goldfinger: No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to die.
:)
Regards,
Keith
Tyranny begets tyranny.
- K Mclean
------
Our knowledge has made us cynical,
our cleverness hard and unkind.
We think too much and feel too little:
More than machinery we need humanity;
More than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness.
Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost.
- Charlie Chaplin ("The Great Dictator" [1940])
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 13:33:44 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: In Praise of Peter Staudenmaier
Mike Helsher wrote:
)
)
)
) --- Thomas Mellett (Tombuoyed aol.com) wrote:
)
) )
) ) Merry Michaelmas everyone!
)
) Ah ha! Now it all comes to make sense, as to how and
) why I have migrated here, at this time.
)
) A couple of years ago I was planning a massive anthro
) raid on this list, on michaelmas, with 20 to 30 high
) powered anthros with pages and pages high test anthro
) jargon, but I got out voted...:(
Sounds like you guys have too much time on your hands. Do you have one
of those big map tables where you move little toy angels and dragons
around with shuffleboard sticks and discuss strategy?
) I think it would be interesting to start up a Waldorf
) inspired charter school with all the charactors from
) this list, and the AT.
)
) Peter S, Tarjei, Dianna, and Dottie could run the
) kindergarten.
)
) Frank, Pete K, Banjee, and Barnaby could run the
) grades.
)
) Dan D. Father Tom, Nina, and Deborah could run the
) high school.
)
) And Me? I'll teach wood shop and auto mechanics. Oh,
) and basementology, if a need for such a subject should
) arise.
)
)
I suspect that's very much like any other Waldorf school - people with
remarkably different opinions about Anthroposophy and teaching methods
brought together to "teach". Problem is, they become combatants and the
internal fighting becomes more important than the teaching. They let
their philosophies get in the way of what's best for the children and
good teachers are sometimes fired from schools - not for lack of good
teaching, but for lack of compliance with the rest of the mob. I'm sure
the motley crew you described above would function just as well as any
other Waldorf school.
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 13:46:59 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: In Praise of Peter Staudenmaier
baandje wrote:
)
) Pete: “Maybe he was a bigot, but what is apparent from his remarks is
) that he was a racist (that he held a view that one race is above
) another), not a bigot (someone who pre-judges individuals based on their
)
) race). I suspect, in this regard, you have passed me Baandje - in your
) criticism of Steiner.”
)
) *
)
) Food for thought, and I admit I have always assumed “bigot” means “less
) tolerant” than “racist”. But I use the word bigot, given Steiner’s
) intolerance was not restricted to racial questions. The man was also a
) spiritual bigot. He was intolerant of other spiritual and religious
) paths: some that were either older and/or directly competing so to speak
)
) with his newly-created Anthroposophy. I also feel he was a social bigot.
)
) It was either his social vision for humanity, or the war of all against
) all – no in-between for Steiner.
Yes, I see where you're coming from here. But I don't believe bigot is
the correct word to describe it - basically because I don't feel he felt
hate for the people he was intolerant of. But that could be splitting
hairs. He was a know-it-all and so he was eager to point out the flaws
of scientists, philosophers, US presidents, entire countries, anybody
who didn't agree with him.
) As far as my criticism versus yours: I feel the man shared lots of
) valuable and relevant esoteric wisdom, regardless of his obviously
) flawed personality and inflated ego. I sift the wheat from the chafe.
Yes, I do too. It isn't that we disagree on this, it's that we perhaps
have different ideas of what constitutes wheat and what constitutes
chafe. I think his philosophy is absolutely valid as a religious
stream, as a belief system, as a philosophy. I have always said this.
)I ACCEPT the man had issues, and I move on. Can’t say I’ve read comments
)
) from anyone here in three years that reflects that level of acceptance
) or understanding when it come to Steiner and his positive spiritual
) contributions.
Well, when it comes to spiritual contributions, one either believes or
doesn't believe. I can't say, after having studied it, that I believe
any of it, but I can certainly say I "accept" that that was how he felt
about things. That I'm not here to accept Steiner's positive spiritual
contributions bothers you? Why?
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 15:28:30 +0000
From: Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
Subject: St Michael
St Michael from a Roman Catholic perspective:
http://www.traditioninaction.org/SOD/j093sdMichael_9-29.htm
Some images of Michael in art:
http://www.wga.hu/art/d/david/1/michael.jpg
http://www.smwa.org/SMWA_Store/Photos/P15_copy.jpg
A child's painting, Waldorf student maybe:
http://www.anthroposophy.org.au/images/St%20Michael.jpg
An Indigeneous Americas imagery version:
http://www.kinggalleries.com/Dec04/Garcia%20Tahbo%20Show/Jason%20Garcia%20St.%20Michael%20Tile.JPG
Regards,
Keith
Tyranny begets tyranny.
- K Mclean
------
Our knowledge has made us cynical,
our cleverness hard and unkind.
We think too much and feel too little:
More than machinery we need humanity;
More than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness.
Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost.
- Charlie Chaplin ("The Great Dictator" [1940])
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 16:47:59 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: Dottie Berra
Dottie may very well be the re-incarnation of Yogi Berra - when he dies
that is. Here are a few recent Dottie-isms...
"Never surprises me ever"
"What I find about Tom sometimes is that he has his
opinion about things that I disagree with."
"But all in all I wanted to say that I do trust that
things happen in every school including Waldorf and
this would be normal as we are all human."
"Now, some of his
students might talk of it and take it in terms of
their own understandings but they would not be mine
nor have I understood them to be Rudolf Steiners. As
best as I can understand."
"How do you suppose that 'consciousness' issues
directly from the brain? I mean what is consciousness
to you? What is 'consciousness' to those who expect it
to issue from a spiritual realm? And what spiritual
realm would they expect it to issue from? And is that
outside the human being? I think that's an interesting question."
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 16:50:24 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: Fictionology
Tom recently posted this interesting article (from The Onion)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/29241
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 13:22:22 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: Corporal punishment in American schools
Timely for our recent discussion, the front page of the New York Times today
announces that paddling is alive and well in American schools. I still have
a problem copying links but if you go to nytimes.com it is on the front page
today. I'll quote.
"Anthony Price does not mince words when talking about corporal punishment -
which he refers to as taking pops - a practice he recently reinstated at the
suburban Fort Worth middle school where he is principal.
"I'm a big fan," Mr. Price said. "I know it can be abused. But if used
properly, along with other punishments, a few pops can help turn a school
around. It's had a huge effect here."
Tina Morgan, who works on a highway crew in rural North Carolina, gave
permission for her son to be paddled in his North Carolina middle school.
But she said she was unprepared for Travis, now 12, to come home with a
backside that was a florid kaleidoscope of plums and lemons and blood
oranges."
Later:
"The most recent federal statistics show that during the 2002-3 school year,
more than 300,000 American schoolchildren were disciplined with corporal
punishment, usually one or more blows with a thick wooden paddle. Sometimes
holes were cut in the paddle to make the beating more painful." Thirty
percent of these students were in five Southern states: Texas, Mississippi,
Tennessee, Alabama and Arkansas (the American "Bible Belt").
Twenty-eight states have banned it, but it is not only legal but widely
practiced elsewhere. Some places where it has been banned, there are
attempts underway to reinstate it. Some places require parental consent,
others don't. Some policies prevent men from paddling girls. Parental
attitudes vary greatly. In places like North Carolina, an influx of northern
liberal types creates a conflict where these people never dreamed they'd
enrolled their kids in "good school districts" that take a wooden paddle to
their kid's backside. Some of these people fight back, but in so doing
sometimes rally the defenders of the tradition, who have a lot of support.
Groups like the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Association of
School Psychologists and the American Medical and Bar Associations take a
stand against corporal punishment. Christian evangelicals are largely behind
the attempts to reinstate it or shore up support for it where opinion has
turned against it. Administrators claim they can't keep order if they don't
have the threat of the paddle as a deterrent. Dozens of lawsuits are ongoing
and courts have tended to side with the school districts when corporal
punishment policies are disputed.
In one suburban Dallas district, 15% of the students were paddled in the
'05-'06 school year. Two other nearby districts just banned it completely.
Memphis, where my cousin used to teach, just banned it.
That's how it is today.
It would be very interesting to inquire of all the Waldorf schools in the 22
states where corporal punishment is legal, how many of them have
specifically banned corporal punishment themselves.
Diana
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 23:30:37 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Dottie Berra
I just received an email that informed me that I missed these gems:
“And I am wondering how do you get 5457 / 17 = 321 ?”
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/29222
“At some point the story is going to be seen for what it is or hopefully
the one perpetrating this story will come to his senses before he dies”.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/29243
Pete
Pete Karaiskos wrote:
)
) Dottie may very well be the re-incarnation of Yogi Berra - when he dies
) that is. Here are a few recent Dottie-isms...
)
) "Never surprises me ever"
)
) "What I find about Tom sometimes is that he has his
) opinion about things that I disagree with."
)
) "But all in all I wanted to say that I do trust that
) things happen in every school including Waldorf and
) this would be normal as we are all human."
)
) "Now, some of his
) students might talk of it and take it in terms of
) their own understandings but they would not be mine
) nor have I understood them to be Rudolf Steiners. As
) best as I can understand."
)
) "How do you suppose that 'consciousness' issues
) directly from the brain? I mean what is consciousness
) to you? What is 'consciousness' to those who expect it
) to issue from a spiritual realm? And what spiritual
) realm would they expect it to issue from? And is that
) outside the human being? I think that's an interesting question."
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 00:02:05 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: Dottie Berra
Yeah, the lower school kids I taught LOVED making fun of others in this
same manner. My advice: talk to his parents first, and see how they’d
like to approach dealing with his mocking attitude and behavior.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 23:48:01 -0700
From: Walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: In Praise of Peter Staudenmaier
Mike wrote:
) A couple of years ago I was planning a massive anthro
) raid on this list, on michaelmas, with 20 to 30 high
) powered anthros with pages and pages high test anthro
) jargon, but I got out voted...:(
Who outvoted you and where did this happen, Mike?
-Walden
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 2269
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Dottie Berra
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Dottie Berra
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: Dottie Berra
By pkcompany netzero.net
Re: In Praise of Peter Staudenmaier
By mhelsher yahoo.com
Admin: ad hominem warning [RE: Dottie Berra]
By dan dandugan.com
appropriateness of ridicule
By dan dandugan.com
Admin: who saves digests?
By dan dandugan.com
RE: Koetzsch's Anthroposophy 101 -) evolution
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: Koetzsch's Anthroposophy 101 -) evolution
By eltrigal78 yahoo.com
RE: appropriateness of ridicule
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: appropriateness of ridicule
By Tombuoyed aol.com
RE: appropriateness of ridicule
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: Koetzsch's Anthroposophy 101 -) evolution
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: appropriateness of ridicule
By mhelsher yahoo.com
RE: appropriateness of ridicule
By mhelsher yahoo.com
RE: appropriateness of ridicule
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: appropriateness of ridicule
By mhelsher yahoo.com
RE: appropriateness of ridicule
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: appropriateness of ridicule
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: appropriateness of ridicule
By barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 07:26:54 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Dottie Berra
Baandje:
)Yeah, the lower school kids I taught LOVED making fun of others in this
)same manner. My advice: talk to his parents first, and see how they'd
)like to approach dealing with his mocking attitude and behavior.
This isn't lower school. These people are serious. Ridicule is the
appropriate public response to Dottie's particular species of narcissistic
self-deluded venal religiosity. Much of what she writes is psychotic, but
she's sincere, many people share her beliefs if not her singular mode of
expressing herself, and they believe they can and should reshape society in
accordance with these beliefs, with the direct blessings of the spiritual
realms.
I think taking anthroposophists seriously is correct - they run schools,
remember? they're claiming lately 1000 of them - and a wide variety of other
projects supposedly for the betterment of humanity. They have been willing
to fight tooth and nail for access to public money. Ridicule is a civilized,
fair and gentle public response to the absurd things they utter in public -
and we don't post but the occasional snippet here, compared to their output
all over the Internet.
I will do my part and add some more recent Dottie quotes.
"I was feeling so hopeless after reading Tom's post on Staudenmaier. Here it
is Michaelmas and a cannon shot comes from within."
"I friend emailed and I told him how I was feeling at the moment about being
shot through with a cannon on Michaelmas. I mean here I am working with the
spirit world to make a difference during the short time I am here and I get
a shot like this."
(Note that like so many of our anthroposophist friends, Dottie thinks this
is about her.)
"It's funny because I had the experience that I would let Michael see
through my eyes today."
I'm sure Michael really appreciated that.
"As a warrior for Michael I had to do all I could to stand in such
sentiments after having read his paper when what really I was feeling was
cut off at the knees. And then I thought, wow, if I live long enough I might
have forty or more years of this. Whew."
"I fought racism my whole life. And I was kicked down for it over and over
again until I finally moved out of New Jersey and Philadelphia and came to
Los Angeles. Since that first reading of Archangel Michael His Mission and
Ours, I've read over one hundred books of Rudolf Steiner."
Testify, Sister!
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 13:49:46 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Dottie Berra
baandje wrote:
)
) Yeah, the lower school kids I taught LOVED making fun of others in this
) same manner. My advice: talk to his parents first, and see how they’d
) like to approach dealing with his mocking attitude and behavior.
Well, Dottie seems to think quite highly of you as a teacher Baandje...
apparently you only "portray" yourself as a former Waldorf teacher. You
must be a liar, just like the rest of us here at "the hole".
"And this cat portrays himself/herself as a former
Waldorf teacher? Whew?
Banjee:
"But I use the word bigot, given Steiner’s
intolerance was not restricted to racial questions.
The man was also a
spiritual bigot. He was intolerant of other spiritual
and religious
paths: some that were either older and/or directly
competing so to speak
with his newly-created Anthroposophy. I also feel he
was a social bigot.
It was either his social vision for humanity, or the
war of all against
all – no in-between for Steiner."
Man what ignorance from the Hole,
Dottie"
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 14:04:49 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Dottie Berra
Oh, and Dottie's sock puppet - Mike T speaks about you too Baandje:
"Hi Dottie,
This is not only ignorance - it is made up fiction, no less than a lie.
This
guy has no moral scrupples - he is prepared to lie to his eye teeth (as
it
is evident he hasn't got a clue, and has never read anything of
Steiner); no
wonder he is part of the hole. No doubt he has many of his own personal
skeletons in the closet because an individual like this see's fit to
judge
the highest, which can only come from a poor character.
Mike T"
Watch how this process goes, Baandje. Speak your truth about Steiner,
or Waldorf and watch yourself being dragged through the mud. It doesn't
matter if your experiences are true, or if you are entitled to your
opinion about what you have read of Steiner - you couldn't possibly know
what you're talking about. In fact, you have never read anything of
Steiner - they know this by your opinion. You don't agree with them -
so now, you HAVE to be discredited. Now, you have to ask yourself
Baandje, who is speaking the truth here - you or these guys? Are they
right - are you posing as a former Waldorf teacher? Have you never read
Steiner? Surely it must be impossible for someone who has been a
Waldorf teacher and who has read Steiner to have a viewpoint like
yours... right? We can't have free-thinking people claiming to have
been Waldorf teachers... right?
Pete
Pete Karaiskos wrote:
)
)
) baandje wrote:
) )
) ) Yeah, the lower school kids I taught LOVED making fun of others in this
) ) same manner. My advice: talk to his parents first, and see how they’d
) ) like to approach dealing with his mocking attitude and behavior.
)
)
) Well, Dottie seems to think quite highly of you as a teacher Baandje...
) apparently you only "portray" yourself as a former Waldorf teacher. You
)
) must be a liar, just like the rest of us here at "the hole".
)
) "And this cat portrays himself/herself as a former
) Waldorf teacher? Whew?
)
) Banjee:
) "But I use the word bigot, given Steiner’s
) intolerance was not restricted to racial questions.
) The man was also a
) spiritual bigot. He was intolerant of other spiritual
) and religious
) paths: some that were either older and/or directly
) competing so to speak
) with his newly-created Anthroposophy. I also feel he
) was a social bigot.
) It was either his social vision for humanity, or the
) war of all against
) all – no in-between for Steiner."
)
) Man what ignorance from the Hole,
)
) Dottie"
)
) Pete
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 09:41:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mike Helsher (mhelsher yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: In Praise of Peter Staudenmaier
--- Walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca) wrote:
)
) Mike wrote:
) ) A couple of years ago I was planning a massive
) anthro
) ) raid on this list, on michaelmas, with 20 to 30
) high
) ) powered anthros with pages and pages high test
) anthro
) ) jargon, but I got out voted...:(
)
) Who outvoted you and where did this happen, Mike?
)
) -Walden
Humm, I must remain loyal to the secret society to
which I belong. I will say that it was at a time when
I was involved with the investigation of the rumors
alluding to the mental physical, and spiritual
torture, and conversion rituals performed on children,
and non-conforming adults, in the basements of Waldorf
schools, and at the Anthro headquarters. These
investigations began what is know as "the Basement
files" and I have since taken on the management of the
basement dept. over on the AT list. Unfortunately
these investigations have opened up a can of worms, so
to speak, and getting all the facts and evidence in
order has turned into a logistics nightmare. So a full
report on the project is still pending, at the moment
- more will be revealed.
Another interesting phenomenon we've discovered in the
process, is the correlation between these so called
basement events, and the un-investigated personal
psyche basements of the individuals so claiming them.
This has naturally broadened the scope of the newly
formed basement department, and left me in a myriad of
details to contend with (not to mention the huge
influx of demons and other pesky hellish bad guys).
At this time I have to keep the "dragnet" idea that
"the names have been changed to protect the innocent"
in favor, and not give actual names as to who was, and
is, involved in these ongoing investigations. Which
lead to my original anthro raid idea as a
basementology experiment intended to gain more facts
and evidence.
As to "where' all this happened, I can only suggest
that the inconclusive evidence at the time, points to
the respective basements of "Plans" itself, and all
its members, as well as all the "anti-plansers" and
their associates. But more so, all this is happening
right now, to a degree, in the individual basements of
everyone reading this - right now!
More will be revealed.
Mike Helsher
Official Basement Supervisor
AT Basement Dept.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 12:12:54 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Admin: ad hominem warning [RE: Dottie Berra]
Diana Winters, you wrote,
)Ridicule is the
)appropriate public response to Dottie's particular species of narcissistic
)self-deluded venal religiosity. Much of what she writes is psychotic, but
)she's sincere, many people share her beliefs if not her singular mode of
)expressing herself, and they believe they can and should reshape society in
)accordance with these beliefs, with the direct blessings of the spiritual
)realms.
Diana, please do not write about individuals here. You may critique
what they say, but not their personalities.
-Dan Dugan
Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 12:32:56 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: appropriateness of ridicule
Diana, you wrote,
)I think taking anthroposophists seriously is correct - they run schools,
)remember? they're claiming lately 1000 of them - and a wide variety of other
)projects supposedly for the betterment of humanity. They have been willing
)to fight tooth and nail for access to public money. Ridicule is a civilized,
)fair and gentle public response to the absurd things they utter in public
Amen to that!
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 13:04:15 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Admin: who saves digests?
Due to a problem with my service provider, I've missed quite a few
emails in September. I need the digests of this list to compile the
archive for the web site. If you save them, or if you save an archive
of all the messages, please contact me off-list.
Thanks, Dan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 23:13:25 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Koetzsch's Anthroposophy 101 -) evolution
Frank wrote:
)Now most animals aren't able to
)avoid traps until they've fallen several times and
)somehow survived.
Actually moist humans are pretty much the same.
See you, peter
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 16:21:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: Frank Smith (eltrigal78 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Koetzsch's Anthroposophy 101 -) evolution
--- Peter Farrell (feetapparel hotmail.com) wrote:
)
) Frank wrote:
) )Now most animals aren't able to
) )avoid traps until they've fallen several times and
) )somehow survived.
)
) Actually moist humans are pretty much the same.
) See you, peter
You mean female moist humans, I presume.
Frank
Frank Thomas Smith
http://SouthernCrossReview.org
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 01:20:38 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: appropriateness of ridicule
Ridicule is hate. If Critics believe ridiculing Steiner/Waldorf is
appropriate, that’s entirely their opinion. Just don’t feign
astonishment when someone correctly describes the activity of that sort
as that of a hate group.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 01:36:18 +0000
From: Thomas Mellett (Tombuoyed aol.com)
Subject: RE: appropriateness of ridicule
baandje wrote:
)
) Ridicule is hate. If Critics believe ridiculing Steiner/Waldorf is
) appropriate, that’s entirely their opinion. Just don’t feign
) astonishment when someone correctly describes the activity of that sort
) as that of a hate group.
Oh, baandje,
The use of such harsh judgmental terminology as "hate groups" by either
side in these discussions simply tears at the very fabric of my etheric
body and causes the corresponding lowerarchy of nature elementals to cry
in their little gnome huts.
Couldn't we all try to find more appropriate anthroposophically correct
language, such as, . . . my angel is now inspiring me. . . Yes, I've
got it!
Let's call them Antipathy Groups, shall we?
Father Thom
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 01:38:08 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: appropriateness of ridicule
baandje wrote:
)Ridicule is hate. If Critics believe ridiculing Steiner/Waldorf is
)appropriate, that’s entirely their opinion. Just don’t feign
)astonishment when someone correctly describes the activity of that sort
)as that of a hate group.
Ridicule is not hate.
See you, Peter
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 01:37:21 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Koetzsch's Anthroposophy 101 -) evolution
Frank wrote:
)
)--- Peter Farrell (feetapparel hotmail.com) wrote:
)
) )
) ) Frank wrote:
) ) )Now most animals aren't able to
) ) )avoid traps until they've fallen several times and
) ) )somehow survived.
) )
) ) Actually moist humans are pretty much the same.
) ) See you, peter
)
)You mean female moist humans, I presume.
)
I had no gender in mind when I wrote that. I guess it was my own proven
ability to fall into the same traps over and over agin that cause me to
insert the "i".
See you, Peter
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 18:48:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mike Helsher (mhelsher yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: appropriateness of ridicule
--- Thomas Mellett (Tombuoyed aol.com) wrote:
)
)
) baandje wrote:
) )
) ) Ridicule is hate. If Critics believe ridiculing
) Steiner/Waldorf is
) ) appropriate, that’s entirely their opinion. Just
) don’t feign
) ) astonishment when someone correctly describes the
) activity of that sort
) ) as that of a hate group.
)
)
) Oh, baandje,
)
) The use of such harsh judgmental terminology as
) "hate groups" by either
) side in these discussions simply tears at the very
) fabric of my etheric
) body and causes the corresponding lowerarchy of
) nature elementals to cry
) in their little gnome huts.
)
) Couldn't we all try to find more appropriate
) anthroposophically correct
) language, such as, . . . my angel is now inspiring
) me. . . Yes, I've
) got it!
)
) Let's call them Antipathy Groups, shall we?
)
) Father Thom
How bout "Basement groups" with sectarian variations
there of. Hell, as far as true concensus is concerned,
were all still floundering around in the dark
basements anyway. Barking and scratching and howling
at the moonlight that seeps in throught the cracks.
Mike
)
)
)
==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like
) here, no matter how basic. New threads are always
) welcome.
)
)
)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 18:49:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mike Helsher (mhelsher yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: appropriateness of ridicule
--- Peter Farrell (feetapparel hotmail.com) wrote:
)
) baandje wrote:
)
) )Ridicule is hate. If Critics believe ridiculing
) Steiner/Waldorf is
) )appropriate, that’s entirely their opinion. Just
) don’t feign
) )astonishment when someone correctly describes the
) activity of that sort
) )as that of a hate group.
)
)
) Ridicule is not hate.
)
) See you, Peter
Yes it is! (to banjee)
Mike
)
)
)
==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like
) here, no matter how basic. New threads are always
) welcome.
)
)
)
)
)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 01:54:31 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: appropriateness of ridicule
Mike wrote:
)
)--- Peter Farrell (feetapparel hotmail.com) wrote:
)
) )
) ) baandje wrote:
) )
) ) )Ridicule is hate. If Critics believe ridiculing
) ) Steiner/Waldorf is
) ) )appropriate, that’s entirely their opinion. Just
) ) don’t feign
) ) )astonishment when someone correctly describes the
) ) activity of that sort
) ) )as that of a hate group.
) )
) )
) ) Ridicule is not hate.
) )
) ) See you, Peter
)
)Yes it is! (to banjee)
)
Around here it's a sign of affection.
See you, Peter
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 20:54:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mike Helsher (mhelsher yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: appropriateness of ridicule
--- Peter Farrell (feetapparel hotmail.com) wrote:
)
) Mike wrote:
) )
) )--- Peter Farrell (feetapparel hotmail.com) wrote:
) )
) ) )
) ) ) baandje wrote:
) ) )
) ) ) )Ridicule is hate. If Critics believe ridiculing
) ) ) Steiner/Waldorf is
) ) ) )appropriate, that’s entirely their opinion.
) Just
) ) ) don’t feign
) ) ) )astonishment when someone correctly describes
) the
) ) ) activity of that sort
) ) ) )as that of a hate group.
) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) Ridicule is not hate.
) ) )
) ) ) See you, Peter
) )
) )Yes it is! (to banjee)
) )
)
) Around here it's a sign of affection.
) See you, Peter
Ah ha! now were getting somewhere!
My Mom lost 50 pounds after being called a "fat bitch"
in a work-group meeting by a loved and trusted cousin
that lost his temper.
So what your saying is that critics indeed have
affection for RS and anthroposophy, and are ridiculing
thus (hating?) as a sign of that affection.
Perhaps anthroposophy seems a bit bloated and
overweight? The words on paper and some of the silly
renditions of such have seemed that way to me at times
(I once had a self proclaimed "steinerhead" tell me
that I shouldn't buy solar panels for my house because
that would be misusing the "sun beings"). So if some
people have eaten way to much anthro starch, in the
form of memorized words on paper, then they got obese
and need to go on a diet before they die of heart (not
the pump) disease.
But it's not RS (he's dead) or the anthroposophy (in
the form of memorized words on paper) that is actually
overweight, is it? It's some of the anthro's
themselves that get all fattened up on it, and worship
Rudolf Steiner like Thanksgiving day and eat and eat
and eat.
Well, I personally have lost 40 lbs recently on a low
sugar and starch diet. Steiner once said something
about the potato being like a demise of society, or
something like that, and I agree. Protein is the way
to go man! it's responsible (so I've heard the experts
say) for us ape like humanoids evolving into the
thinking beings that we are (well, some of us anyway).
And obesity and heart disease have increased on the
order of a hundred fold since the advent of processed
starch and sugar into our consumer culture on a
massive scale.
SO! I see I'm not the only person that has a secret
agenda around here! All this time all you critics have
really been in love with RS and anthroposophy so much,
that you've been willing to ridicule and scorn the fat
anthros, out of affection, for the truth!
My goodness, "oh what a tangled web we weave!"
Mike
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 04:57:57 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: appropriateness of ridicule
Mike wrote:
)
)So what your saying is that critics indeed have
)affection for RS and anthroposophy, and are ridiculing
)thus (hating?) as a sign of that affection.
No. I may have an affection for Anthroposophists but not for Anthroposophy.
)
)Perhaps anthroposophy seems a bit bloated and
)overweight?
It just seems stupid and incorrect to me.
What happened to the stuff about metaphor?
See you, peter
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 09:44:48 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: appropriateness of ridicule
Peter: “Ridicule is not hate.”
*
And you’re simply repeating what I said: you’re entitled to your
opinion. The other point I made is this: don’t act shocked when, because
of attitudes such as yours, people correctly (my opinion) classify
Waldorf Critics as a hate group.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 09:49:24 +0000
From: Barnaby McEwan (barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: appropriateness of ridicule
baandje wrote:
)
) Ridicule is hate.
What a ridiculous idea.
) Just don’t feign astonishment when someone correctly describes the
) activity of that sort as that of a hate group.
Nobody's astonished if members of a cult-like sect froth at the mouth
when The Leader is ridiculed.
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 2270
-- Topica Digest --
RE: appropriateness of ridicule
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: In Praise of Peter Staudenmaier
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: appropriateness of ridicule
By diana.winters verizon.net
FW: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Unanthroposophic waldorf schools
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: appropriateness of ridicule
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: appropriateness of ridicule
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: appropriateness of ridicule
By mhelsher yahoo.com
RE: appropriateness of ridicule
By barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com
RE: In Praise of Peter Staudenmaier
By eltrigal78 yahoo.com
RE: appropriateness of ridicule
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: In Praise of Peter Staudenmaier
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: In Praise of Peter Staudenmaier
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: In Praise of Peter Staudenmaier
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Joel and Peter S. on epistemology
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: In Praise of Peter Staudenmaier
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: In Praise of Peter Staudenmaier
By diana.winters verizon.net
Re: Joel and Peter S. on epistemology
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Man and Animal - part 1
By eltrigal78 yahoo.com
Man and Animal - part 2
By eltrigal78 yahoo.com
RE: In Praise of Peter Staudenmaier
By diana.winters verizon.net
Man and Animal - part 3
By eltrigal78 yahoo.com
RE: Man and Animal - part 3
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: Joel and Peter S. on epistemology
By mhelsher yahoo.com
Re: Joel and Peter S. on epistemology
By campaign ipwebdev.com
RE: appropriateness of ridicule
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: appropriateness of ridicule
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: In Praise of Peter Staudenmaier
By Tombuoyed aol.com
RE: appropriateness of ridicule
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: In Praise of Peter Staudenmaier
By mhelsher yahoo.com
RE: In Praise of Peter Staudenmaier
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 12:12:50 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: appropriateness of ridicule
Barnaby: “What a ridiculous idea.”
*
Yes, I’ve pointed out twice now that people have their various opinions
on the subject.
-------
Barnaby: “Nobody’s astonished if members of a cult-like sect froth at
the mouth when The Leader is ridiculed.”
*
An example of what I was getting at with my comments about Waldorf
Critics, their hating, and other people’s perception of Waldorf Critics
as a hate group.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 08:24:35 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: In Praise of Peter Staudenmaier
Frank:
)But back to Peter, who repeatedly depicts anthroposophy and Steiner as
)racist (but perhaps not so racist, not always, but nevertheless.) it's
)difficult sometimes to interpret exactly what he's trying to say. But Ok,
)no problem.But then he feeds this stuff to the WC fundies, to be used in
)turn by them to unjustly discredit Waldorf education in the U.S This is,
)imo, dirty pool. They may call it "getting the truth" out, but they have
)no more idea of the truth than Peter S. does, pouring over his musty
)papers and lectures like an unredeemed Faust. I doubt anyone does who
)didn't live in Germany during the Third Reich.
Let's see if I've got your arguments straight here, Frank:
It was too long ago for anybody to bother studying it, especially if they're
not German.
(contradicting the above) It's okay if somebody studies it, but they
shouldn't publish their findings (that's "feeding stuff" to people).
Peter S. is not a clear writer, sometimes you can't tell what he means.
People who study something should be mocked, they're poring over "musty"
papers (probably starving in a dim cold garret somewhere sharing bread
crusts with the rats). Wait a minute, last we heard he was in romantic Rome
and some people were not too subtly fantasizing about *that*. So much is
projected onto this guy for all the dastardly things he's supposed to have
"done to" anthroposophy it's pretty funny. The reverse fantasy - Peter S.
saving anthroposophy from itself - is not a whole lot more credible. At
least Frank's taking a stand, even if it's a stupid one :)
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 08:33:05 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: appropriateness of ridicule
Baandje:
)Ridicule is hate. If Critics believe ridiculing Steiner/Waldorf is
)appropriate, that's entirely their opinion. Just don't feign
)astonishment when someone correctly describes the activity of that sort
)as that of a hate group.
I think of you all the time, baandje, when I read the newspaper these days.
I have to suspect that you yourself rarely read newspapers, or the naivete
of some of the things you say here would surely have started to dawn on you.
"Ridicule is hate" - well, for one thing, in the places where they really
believe things like that, they rarely *restrict* themselves to ridicule, but
get right down to business setting embassies on fire and beheading people.
Ridicule is an important contribution to sane public dialogue, it's nearly a
pillar of civilization. Ridicule is sometimes an obligation and a vital
public service.
And no - religion should NOT be exempted, once again the correct argument
actually works in the opposite direction.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 09:11:46 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: FW: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Unanthroposophic waldorf schools
Deborah recently wrote on AT:
)Somebody over on the WC (Diana) published a list of all the stuff that is
good about waldorf and then finished by saying they )would be great schools
if they just got rid of the anthroposophy.
)I've been thinking for a long time that it would be wonderful if some brave
folks started a sort of lab school: waldorf without the
)anthroposophy. The obvious group to undertake this much needed experiment
are the waldorf critics. They are experts at
)distinguishing the essential from the non-essential in waldorf, (snip etc)
)It would be fun to see the WC try to actually accomplish something in the
real world.
The simple answer to this Deborah is that we don't run off to start other
schools because we don't need to, it's been done. Other schools offer all of
the things that Waldorf supporters have been brainwashed to believe can't be
found elsewhere. No school is perfect of course, or has everything any
individual child could possibly need. I don't think critics harbor that
illusion - that school can be an enchanted fairy wonderland for children, or
that to spend childhood in such a place and avoid the real world as long as
possible is even a good idea. That no one would get sick, and no social
issues would ever come up, or there'd be nobody we had trouble getting along
with. That's a Waldorf illusion. Nor do critics claim we are qualified to
run schools, unless we happen to be professionals ourselves.
With few exceptions our family found that what Waldorf offered is available
in the Quaker schools, with the added bonus that the Quaker schools are
committed to nonviolence. It is not that I don't miss certain aspects of the
Waldorf community - I sometimes miss the parent peer pressure around healthy
foods and stricter limitations to media, for instance. But it's more than
made up for by the healthier community and, as I say, the strong stand
against violence in the school.
A wide variety of other alternative schools offer most of what Waldorf
offers, and even the much-maligned public schools often ironically have much
better offerings in the things Waldorf has made itself famous for, such as
strong arts, practical work, etc. Around the corner from my house for
instance is a public agricultural high school, one of the city's magnet
offerings, and the kids literally spend half the day on academics and the
other half, well, basically milking cows. When we were still at the Waldorf
school, one of the classes made a field trip to visit this school LOL.
What's more students are of a wide variety of socioeconomic backgrounds.
Nothing about the place looks Waldorfy, that's for sure, the outside of the
actual school building you could mistake for a prison. What an irony that
what is going on inside is what Waldorf claims to offer, minus the silk
scarves.
Now admittedly they don't have everything - I don't think you can do much in
the way of arts there, for instance. If you want arts, you might try the
creative and performing arts magnet high school. In a way this is the
critics' point - you can't have everything, that's a vision of a religious
utopia rather than a school in the real world.
Diana
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 13:58:50 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: appropriateness of ridicule
baandje wrote:
)
) Ridicule is hate. If Critics believe ridiculing Steiner/Waldorf is
) appropriate, that’s entirely their opinion. Just don’t feign
) astonishment when someone correctly describes the activity of that sort
) as that of a hate group.
Yep, you're right. One hate group I'd like to draw attention to is
South Park. How vile and disgusting. And then there's The Daily Show.
Don't even get me started on THAT hate group. And these Blue Collar TV
people - I've never seen such hate - except in that Carlos Mencia
character. In fact, I'm quite certain there are dim-witted people who
think all of these represent hate groups... but then I hate dim-witted
people as much as I hate Waldorf teachers.
Dut-du-duh...
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 10:07:22 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: appropriateness of ridicule
Yes, like I was saying I can't help wondering how sheltered or removed from
the public world a person would have to be to hold the views that baandje
holds. (Or, of course, beholden to a fanatical "You can't dare criticze me"
religion or worldview himself, though that doesn't seem quite the case with
baandje.)
It's not to say every instance of ridicule is something noble and good - it
could be good or bad, right or wrong, very cleverly done or very stupid.
Lots of times the ridicule itself is idiotic. But to criticize something
because it's ridicule *per se* is off base.
Most major newspapers and many of the commentators they publish, all the
television networks, many politicians and statesmen, and a great many of our
most esteemed writers, not just nonfiction but much great fiction too, and a
wide variety of other public figures are, in themselves, "hate groups" by
baandje's definition.
Diana
-----Original Message-----
From: Pete Karaiskos [mailto:pkcompany netzero.net]
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 8:59 AM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: RE: appropriateness of ridicule
baandje wrote:
)
) Ridicule is hate. If Critics believe ridiculing Steiner/Waldorf is
) appropriate, that's entirely their opinion. Just don't feign
) astonishment when someone correctly describes the activity of that sort
) as that of a hate group.
Yep, you're right. One hate group I'd like to draw attention to is
South Park. How vile and disgusting. And then there's The Daily Show.
Don't even get me started on THAT hate group. And these Blue Collar TV
people - I've never seen such hate - except in that Carlos Mencia
character. In fact, I'm quite certain there are dim-witted people who
think all of these represent hate groups... but then I hate dim-witted
people as much as I hate Waldorf teachers.
Dut-du-duh...
Pete
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 07:16:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mike Helsher (mhelsher yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: appropriateness of ridicule
--- Peter Farrell (feetapparel hotmail.com) wrote:
)
) Mike wrote:
) )
) )So what your saying is that critics indeed have
) )affection for RS and anthroposophy, and are
) ridiculing
) )thus (hating?) as a sign of that affection.
)
) No. I may have an affection for Anthroposophists but
) not for Anthroposophy.
) )
) )Perhaps anthroposophy seems a bit bloated and
) )overweight?
)
) It just seems stupid and incorrect to me.
)
)
) What happened to the stuff about metaphor?
) See you, peter
Well, the whole post was sorta kinda a metaphor for
what seems like a mysterious and elusive concept
around here....
HUMOR!
Seems our correspondence has boiled down to simple I
say "Yes" and you say "No" or you say "no" and I say
"Yes" kind of a thing.
I think to make the conversation more interesting, and
perhaps even more sophisticated, we should try find
and use complicated acronyms. My favorite musician,
Frank Zappa, once wrote something to the effect of how
politicians us acronyms in a simplistic kind of a way,
to create a state of what he calls the "acronymbus"
which lulls votes from "acronymbicles".
I think this idea could be formed into a new and quite
attractive religion - "Acronymbusism"
Mike
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 14:23:15 +0000
From: Barnaby McEwan (barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: appropriateness of ridicule
baandje wrote:
) I’ve pointed out twice now that people have their various opinions
) on the subject.
I have to say I wonder why people write "Well, you're entitled to your
opinion." What is the point of saying something so obvious? Do you
believe I hate you because I ridiculed what you've written? Since
"ridicule is hate", you ought to.
) An example of what I was getting at with my comments about Waldorf
) Critics, their hating, and other people’s perception of Waldorf
) Critics as a hate group.
Plenty of people ridicule Tom Cruise's antics and his barmy religion
too. Does that mean these people hate him or Scientology?
The "hate group" thing is not "other people's perception". It's yours
and that of other Waldorf defenders. Nobody "feigned astonishment" when
Plans and this list is called a hate group by followers of The Greatest
Spiritual Leader Of All Time, since it's entirely predictable behaviour.
What people have done is object and call for evidence to back the claim
up: none has ever been forthcoming. I asked you a few days ago to show
us anyone outside Waldorf who thinks that but so far you've chosen
instead to just repeat the accusation, ever less credibly.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 07:29:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: Frank Smith (eltrigal78 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: In Praise of Peter Staudenmaier
--- Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net) wrote:
)
)
) Frank:
) )But back to Peter, who repeatedly depicts
) anthroposophy and Steiner as
) )racist (but perhaps not so racist, not always, but
) nevertheless.) it's
) )difficult sometimes to interpret exactly what he's
) trying to say. But Ok,
) )no problem.But then he feeds this stuff to the WC
) fundies, to be used in
) )turn by them to unjustly discredit Waldorf
) education in the U.S This is,
) )imo, dirty pool. They may call it "getting the
) truth" out, but they have
) )no more idea of the truth than Peter S. does,
) pouring over his musty
) )papers and lectures like an unredeemed Faust. I
) doubt anyone does who
) )didn't live in Germany during the Third Reich.
)
)
)
) Let's see if I've got your arguments straight here,
) Frank:
)
) It was too long ago for anybody to bother studying
) it, especially if they're
) not German.
No. I was talking about "the truth". How and why
Germans (most of whom voted for Hitler)acted and
reacted and their motives during the Third Reich (I've
personally spoken to many) can only be fathomed by
them.
)
) (contradicting the above) It's okay if somebody
) studies it, but they
) shouldn't publish their findings (that's "feeding
) stuff" to people).
No. I didn't say they shouldn't publish their
findings.
Rather feeding the hungry vultures with pieces of
rotting meat to satisfy their insatiable appetites for
scandal. Hope that's clearer.
)
) Peter S. is not a clear writer, sometimes you can't
) tell what he means.
On the contrary, he is a good writer, although
one-sided. The problem is with his conclusions, which
seem to range from Steiner and/or anthroposophy and/or
anthroposophists are racist, or some are or were, or
Steiner had an anti-semite period and a pro-Jewish
period, or some Italian fascist also called himself an
anthroposophist, therefore...what? See what I mean.
)
) People who study something should be mocked, they're
) poring over "musty"
) papers (probably starving in a dim cold garret
) somewhere sharing bread
) crusts with the rats). Wait a minute, last we heard
) he was in romantic Rome
) and some people were not too subtly fantasizing
) about *that*. So much is
) projected onto this guy for all the dastardly things
) he's supposed to have
) "done to" anthroposophy it's pretty funny. The
) reverse fantasy - Peter S.
) saving anthroposophy from itself - is not a whole
) lot more credible. At
) least Frank's taking a stand, even if it's a stupid
) one :)
But Diana, goddess mine, I'm sure that Peter will be
charmed and flattered by my comparing him to Faust,
while downing his third glass of biodynamic Chianti
and second helping of ecological macaroni.
Frank
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 11:02:09 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: appropriateness of ridicule
Barnaby wrote:
)I have to say I wonder why people write "Well, you're entitled to your
)opinion." What is the point of saying something so obvious?
He's trying not to ridicule you :) They're left to this sort of meaningless
polite wafflegab when there is nothing of substance left to say, but they're
concerned to come across personally as noble and sensitive and spiritual.
Yup, more ridicule,
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 08:25:10 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: In Praise of Peter Staudenmaier
Tom says of Rudolf Steiner College:
)By the time I arrived there in 1980, the place had already been renamed
)as Rudolf Steiner College. Carl's original vision of Two Horsemen of the
)Threefold Apocalypse had been quietly co-opted because Waldorf Teacher
)Education had quickly become the one and only Horseman of the America
)work, which in turn, was now designated to run the race to bring about
)the Threefold Social Order in the 3rd millennium.
Stop right there. How refreshing and rare it is, to hear an anthroposophist
acknowledge that the mission of Waldorf is to spread anthroposophy.
Thank you.
(I'll continue reading after I catch my breath . . .)
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 17:43:46 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: In Praise of Peter Staudenmaier
Diana Winters wrote:
)
) Tom says of Rudolf Steiner College:
)
) )By the time I arrived there in 1980, the place had already been renamed
) )as Rudolf Steiner College. Carl's original vision of Two Horsemen of the
) )
) )Threefold Apocalypse had been quietly co-opted because Waldorf Teacher
) )Education had quickly become the one and only Horseman of the America
) )work, which in turn, was now designated to run the race to bring about
) )the Threefold Social Order in the 3rd millennium.
)
) Stop right there. How refreshing and rare it is, to hear an
) anthroposophist
) acknowledge that the mission of Waldorf is to spread anthroposophy.
)
) Thank you.
)
) (I'll continue reading after I catch my breath . . .)
) Diana
)
yes, Yes, YES... Oh, YES - it was good for me too (G)...
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 12:45:03 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: In Praise of Peter Staudenmaier
Tom wrote:
)However, it was what Carl recounted about his own experiences in Germany
)after Steiner had died, just before Adolf Hitler came to power, that I
)remember most vividly, and Peter S., you will then understand why I
)believe that Carl Stegmann would formulate such a ringing endorsement of
)your recent research about that particular decade in German history.
)
)Carl told me that he was pastor of a Christian Community Church in
)Mannheim in the early 1930s when Adolf Hitler was rising to power,
)publicly visible but not yet Chancellor. Carl stated that many in his
)congregation and many anthroposophists he knew outside his Church ---
)and he meant the majority of them --- saw Adolf Hitler, at that time,
)not as a Messianic figure, but rather as a MICHAELIC figure!
The "majority" part sounds like overstatement to me. I think Frank's more
modest report in this regard is more plausible. But yes, there was no
shortage of anthroposophists (in Germany and elsewhere) who looked
positively on the rise of Hitler's movement. This was true for the Christian
Community, it was true for the Waldorf movement, it was true for the
biodynamic movement, and so forth.
This basic point was one I tried to make in my exchanges with Harlan
Gilbert, who never seemed to grasp it. (Harlan has, by the way, dropped our
correspondence entirely.) It was one of the chief reasons I wrote the post
Tom is replying to. It remains unclear to me why people as different as,
say, Charlie and Baandje have such conspicuous difficulty recognizing and
making sense of these historical circumstances.
)At the end of this conversation, I remember how dismayed Carl looked
)when he said: “If anthroposophists in Germany, who should have known
)better, were deceived by Hitler, how much more will people in the world
)be deceived by Ahriman when he incarnates as a human being in the 3rd
)Millennium?”
Should-have-known arguments are always tricky, and perhaps better avoided in
such cases. The more interesting question, to my mind, is why so many
anthroposophists *today* still don't know better.
On that note, Frank wrote:
)I would like to agree with and simultaneously rebut
)what the Holy Father writes. In the seventies when I
)lived in Zurich, an elderly eminent anthroposophist
)invited me to visit him in Stuttgart. He held an
)important position in the school movement and was
)universally respected. He told me basically what
)Stegman told Tom about anthroposophists having
)confused Hitler with some kind of Michaelic messenger.
)He spoke, however, of “some” not “most” as Tom wrote
)in his linked essay – and didn’t mention the Christian
)Community. He even knew an anthro who had Hitler’s and
)Steiner’s pictures hanging alongside each other in his
)home. I was, of course, startled.
Why were you startled?
)The gentleman
)pondered, as did Stegman, how anthroposophists, who
)should have known better, could have joined the rest
)of the German majority who were also duped by Hitler.
Or were un-duped, and straightforwardly agreed with lots of what Hitler said
and did.
)But back to Peter,
)who repeatedly depicts anthroposophy and Steiner as
)racist (but perhaps not so racist, not always, but
)nevertheless…) it’s difficult sometimes to interpret
)exactly what he’s trying to say.
I'm always glad to clarify what I mean. All you have to do is ask. What part
of my argument do you find difficult to interpret?
)But then he feeds this stuff to the WC fundies, to be
)used in turn by them to unjustly discredit Waldorf
)education in the U.S. This is, imo, dirty pool.
Could be. I don't play pool and don't know what counts as dirty. In history,
which may perhaps be rather unlike pool, what I wrote in the post Tom is
referring to does not count as dirty. Perhaps you'd like to read it:
http://lists.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1720488077&sort=d&start=32474
)They
)may call it “getting the truth” out, but they have no
)more idea of the truth than Peter S. does, pouring
)over his musty papers and lectures like an unredeemed
)Faust. I doubt anyone does who didn’t live in Germany
)during the Third Reich.
It sounds like you don't much care for history, whether dirty or otherwise.
The notion that only people who lived through a particular historical period
in a particular place can distinguish true from untrue claims about that
period and place is simply goofy. But if you hold this position, then how
would you be able to discern whether what I have written about the period is
truthful in the first place? I take it this conundrum did not occur to you
before.
And on that note, Baandje wrote:
)Good grief: no wonder some Steiner people don’t have the common
)sense to simply admit the guy was as bigoted as every other individual
)of that time period.
I don't know why this claim keeps getting recycled here, but it isn't true.
Lots of individuals in Steiner's day firmly rejected the racial views he
espoused. I named a dozen of them just in the most recent exchange. There is
no sense in ignoring this fact.
More on Diana's and Frank's recent contributions in a moment,
Peter Staudenmaier
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 12:41:47 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Joel and Peter S. on epistemology
Hi Joel,
)Not sure I refused, but your memory could be better than mine.
I suppose that's one way of putting it. I reminded you of this at the
beginning of our present exchange, not really all that long ago, and gave
you seventeen links to help further refresh your memory. That post is here:
lists.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1720450322&sort=d&start=32219
(It's the second post in the thread "Peter S's efforts at the question of
anthroposophy and race")
)How about now, then? I consider Steiner's thoughts on epistemology to be
)laid out in three books.
Yes, those are the same three books we were supposed to discuss five years
ago.
)Do you have anything to add before we begin?
Sure. I have lots to say about those books, but I've mostly said it already.
Since you have evidently forgotten all of this, it might make sense to start
by repeating what I wrote to you years ago on each of these topics. Here is
a brief sample.
On Steiner's epistemology in general:
Much of Steiner's early philosophical work explores epistemological issues
primarily through reviewing and commenting on the work of other
philosophers. His basic framework was the existing tradition of German
Idealism, within which he staked out a series of particular stances on
contested questions about knowledge and how it is attained.
Steiner's argument gives a central role to what he called the
"spiritual organization" of the human being, which structures an
individual's knowledge of the external world. He first divides cognition
into two basic functions, perception and thought, and emphasizes that the
objects themselves do not determine how people perceive them. After pointing
to the necessary role of the will in all acts of knowing, he then makes a
further distinction between perception and intuition, and says that objects
present themselves to our perception, whereas the concepts with which we
grasp those objects are the product of intuition. But we need both -- sense
impressions and concepts, perception and intuition -- to achieve the full
reality, to have actual knowledge. In the final analysis, says the early
Steiner, it is thinking that connects us to each other and to the universe
as a whole.
This isn't a particularly novel approach to epistemology, but it isn't
particularly objectionable either. I find much of Steiner's early
philosophical work diligent and clearly argued, although I reject many of
its premises and don't find his epistemology especially insightful, much
less innovative. But it is considerably better than his later work, after
his theosophical turn, which is fundamentally different from his early work
not only in style and tone but in content. The early Steiner developed an
approach to knowledge grounded in people's everyday experience of the world
around them and of their own internal perception of that world. The point of
his approach was to help us better understand how our thinking processes
relate to the external world. The early Steiner never mentions, alludes to,
assumes the existence of, or otherwise entertains the notion of any "higher
worlds", much less higher worlds that determine what goes on in the mundane
world around us.
On Steiner and Goethe:
Many anthroposophists like to see Steiner as a sort of inheritor of Goethe.
This notion is frequently based on taking Steiner's own claims in this
regard at face value rather than paying attention to the actual
epistemological stances each figure invoked and practiced. Goethe described
himself as "an empiricist and realist" and he was extremely skeptical toward
subjectivist approaches to knowledge. He ridiculed the notion of "thinking
about thinking", in his own words, as a waste of time. While I don't endorse
that dismissal myself, it is plainly at odds with Steiner's early
epistemology.
Steiner's 1886 book A Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's World
Conception tells us a good deal about the young Steiner's thinking, but not
much about Goethe. One of the oddest aspects of the book is how little it
has to do with Goethe's actual views. The key word here is "implicit";
Steiner evidently felt that he had discovered a philosophical standpoint in
Goethe's works that Goethe himself never explicitly espoused. But Steiner
rarely even quotes Goethe in this book, and much of what he describes are
his own early philosophical speculations, which in my estimation have little
in common with Goethe (even on the more limited topic of knowledge of the
natural world, Steiner's presentation has more to do with German Romantic
nature philosophy than with Goethe's research).
This point is sometimes made in the secondary literature on Goethe's methods
of science; see, for example, R.H. Stephenson's book Goethe's Conception of
Knowledge and Science (Edinburgh 1995), pp. 29-30, which argues that
Steiner's epistemology is "much closer to Schelling than to Goethe." (For
those who read German, I also recommend Alfred Schmidt's 1984 book Goethes
herrlich leuchtende Natur.)
I would go so far as to say that Steiner's focus on self-reflective thought
was something Goethe himself explicitly rejected, and that Goethe's own
amateur scientific achievements would have been
impossible had he actually followed the methods Steiner imputes to him. In
other words, while there may be something that could legitimately be called
"Goethean science", it isn't what many anthroposophists make it out to be.
This points to a problem running through much of Steiner's early
philosophical work. Steiner's reading of Goethe (and to a lesser extent
Schiller) in A Theory of Knowledge, for example, is classically eisegetical;
that is, he reads into Goethe an epistemological framework that isn't there
in Goethe's writings. I think he does somewhat better in Truth and Science;
he mostly gets Kant's
epistemology right, though he draws faulty conclusions from this (for
instance, Steiner's contention, proposed in contrast to Fichte's
syntheticism, that the ego determines its own operations, is quite wrong).
As for the Philosophy of Freedom, I find the pretensions to "natural science
methods" misguided, and his notions of the destiny of the cosmos and the
destiny of humanity and so forth strike me as watered-down versions of the
prevailing philosophical fads in late nineteenth century Germany.
On Philosophy of Freedom in particular:
Anthroposophists have trouble pointing out the passages in Philosophy of
Freedom that have anything to do with anthroposophical doctrine -- anything
at all about astral bodies, archangels, cosmic evolution, clairvoyance,
higher worlds, successive incarnations, and so forth. There are no such
passages. Steiner himself acknowledges as much in his Preface to the revised
1918 edition of the book. In that Preface Steiner writes that "in one sense
this book occupies a position completely independent of my writings on
actual spiritual scientific matters", and anticipates that readers may be
"astonished at not finding in this book any reference to that region of the
world of spiritual experience described in my later writings".
In any case, several of the central positions Steiner adopts in PoF are
severely problematic (though some of them also have a long lineage of very
capable and respected philosophers behind them). To begin with: According to
standard anthroposophist readings of the text, Steiner posits a sort of
free-floating realm of ideas out there somewhere in the universe from which
all human intuitions are drawn. This makes little sense. A much more
reasonable starting point is to acknowledge that our ideas are formed within
social contexts, and that these ideas are thus intersubjective in nature. In
contrast to several of Steiner's central conclusions about the nature of
thinking, many people readily recognize that thought certainly exists
outside of their own minds, simply because it exists within lots of other
people's minds. In recognizing the intersubjective nature of thinking, there
is no need to point toward some separate realm of ideas that supplies all of
our mental material.
Beyond such epistemological matters, there are a number of troubling ethical
claims in PoF; here's a line that several anthroposophists are fond of: "An
ethical misunderstanding, a clash, is impossible among ethically free human
beings".
This claim is incompatible with meaningful debate, and shows exactly why
Steiner's notion of "freedom" strikes some people as deeply unfree. The view
of ethics that this passage posits is remarkably primitive; it assumes that
people who disagree on ethical matters are simply confused, and denies the
reality of responsible ethical choices that conflict with one another. If
such disagreements were, as Steiner suggests here, merely illusory, there
would be very little need for ethical debate in the first place; the only
point would be for all of us to somehow realize that we actually already
agree.
I think Steiner has it backwards. Working through our "ethical
misunderstandings" and "clashes", via open debate and moral reasoning, is a
necessary part of becoming and remaining ethically free human beings. We
stop being free ethical subjects when we pretend that such clashes are a bad
thing that ought to be avoided.
There's lots more to be said on each of these topics. I look forward to
reading Joel's and anybody else's thoughts on the matter.
Peter Staudenmaier
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 13:04:05 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: In Praise of Peter Staudenmaier
Frank wrote:
)How and why
)Germans (most of whom voted for Hitler)
In what election do you think most Germans voted for Hitler?
)acted and
)reacted and their motives during the Third Reich (I've
)personally spoken to many) can only be fathomed by
)them.
So much for history. Maybe you'd prefer to stick with pool?
)No. I didn't say they shouldn't publish their
)findings.
)Rather feeding the hungry vultures with pieces of
)rotting meat to satisfy their insatiable appetites for
)scandal. Hope that's clearer.
It isn't clearer to me. There was nothing scandalous in my post about
Waldorf schools in Nazi Germany. If you think otherwise, could you give an
example?
)On the contrary, he is a good writer, although
)one-sided. The problem is with his conclusions, which
)seem to range from Steiner and/or anthroposophy and/or
)anthroposophists are racist, or some are or were, or
)Steiner had an anti-semite period and a pro-Jewish
)period, or some Italian fascist also called himself an
)anthroposophist, therefore...what? See what I mean.
I'm afraid I don't see what you mean. I have indeed reached each of the
conclusions you mention. Do you find this confusing in some way? Also, why
the skittishness around Scaligero? He wasn't just some guy who happened to
call himself an anthroposophist. He was by far the best-known Italian
anthroposophist of the twentieth century. Are you unaware of that? If so,
can I ask why?
Diana wrote:
)People who study something should be mocked, they're poring over "musty"
)papers (probably starving in a dim cold garret somewhere sharing bread
)crusts with the rats).
Archives, for what it's worth, are sometimes very nice places to work,
particularly in Germany. But the post that started this was based on easily
available current publications, not on any musty papers. Frank could read
them without much effort.
)Wait a minute, last we heard he was in romantic Rome
)and some people were not too subtly fantasizing about *that*.
I missed that part. I did indeed send several posts from romantic Rome, and
I just got back from Italy this evening, but I wasn't able to read many
posts during my trip and I don't know what this refers to.
)So much is
)projected onto this guy for all the dastardly things he's supposed to have
)"done to" anthroposophy it's pretty funny. The reverse fantasy - Peter S.
)saving anthroposophy from itself - is not a whole lot more credible.
I think Diana is right about the general set of anthroposophist projections
concerning me and my work, most of which are simply distractions from
already contentious and complex topics. But I do always welcome critique and
commentary on my writings about Steiner and anthroposophy. Greetings to all
from musty Berlin,
Peter Staudenmaier
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:05:58 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: In Praise of Peter Staudenmaier
Tom:
)At the end of this conversation, I remember how dismayed Carl looked
How dismayed did Carl look, Tom? Pass me that vomit bag again.
)when he said: "If anthroposophists in Germany, who should have known
)better, were deceived by Hitler, how much more will people in the world
)be deceived by Ahriman when he incarnates as a human being in the 3rd
)Millennium?"
Peter S.:
)Should-have-known arguments are always tricky, and perhaps better avoided
)in such cases. The more interesting question, to my mind, is why so many
)anthroposophists *today* still don't know better.
"Should have known" is an interesting new tack.
"Should have known" arguments are empty as well as self-serving. It's
saying, Hey everybody knows we're USUALLY morally superior to most people
and how about if we take this opportunity to remind you of this right at the
time you've caught us proving ourselves no better than anyone else. (Not to
mention we hoped for decades nobody would notice.)
The general theory that religious people are USUALLY morally superior to
other people has no credence at all. There's no evidence this is true of
anthroposophists or those of any other faith. There's no reason
anthroposophists "should have known" anything about Hitler that other people
didn't know and this is NOT an improvement over whining that you couldn't
have known.
And the fantasies about Ahriman don't do much to assure us you'd sniff out a
problem next time either.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 14:39:53 -0700
From: Walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Joel and Peter S. on epistemology
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)Beyond such epistemological matters, there are a number of troubling
)ethical claims in PoF; here's a line that several anthroposophists are fond
)of: "An ethical misunderstanding, a clash, is impossible among ethically
)free human beings".
) This claim is incompatible with meaningful debate, and shows exactly why
) Steiner's notion of "freedom" strikes some people as deeply unfree. The
) view
) of ethics that this passage posits is remarkably primitive; it assumes
) that
) people who disagree on ethical matters are simply confused, and denies the
) reality of responsible ethical choices that conflict with one another. If
) such disagreements were, as Steiner suggests here, merely illusory, there
) would be very little need for ethical debate in the first place; the only
) point would be for all of us to somehow realize that we actually already
) agree.
)
) I think Steiner has it backwards. Working through our "ethical
) misunderstandings" and "clashes", via open debate and moral reasoning, is
) a necessary part of becoming and remaining ethically free human beings. We
) stop being free ethical subjects when we pretend that such clashes are a
) bad thing that ought to be avoided.
Absolutely. I've tried to make this point on this list before because I
think it's important. During my Waldorf years I tried to be respectful of
Anthroposophists but constantly felt a need to ask questions and seek
clarity. It did not take long to realize that certain questions were not
welcome - really not welcome. Even sharing a different perspective or
feeling did not go over well in some circles. I kept hearing about "freedom"
but it was not the "freedom" I had come to undertand pre-Waldorf. How "free"
are children who are not allowed to use black crayons or draw with pencils,
made to line up here and line up there, forced into Eurythmy (if they
*really* dislike it), forced to chant/pray the same thing every day, etc?
How "free" are parents who are chastised for asking sincere questions during
meetings?
When Steiner says, "An ethical misunderstanding, a clash, is impossible
among ethically free human beings" I think he means, "An ethical
misunderstanding, a clash, is impossible among people who are able to cast
away the ability to think critically." REAL freedom comes from dealing with
and discussing ethical misunderstandings - from cartoons of prophets to
"Steiner says . . . ."
Frustration and anger are the result, imo, of not feeling free. Trapped not
only from avoiding the "clash" but from pretending there is no
misunderstanding in the first place.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 15:04:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: Frank Smith (eltrigal78 yahoo.com)
Subject: Man and Animal - part 1
In reference to the previous debate about the
difference between man and animal, the materialists
claiming that man is a somewhat advanced animal, I
contribute the following from lecure 2 of Steiner's
"Manifestations of Karma" - which indicates that they
are right - in a way.
"...Thus the animals have the astral body in common
with us, and are therefore able to feel pain. But from
what has now been said we see that they do not possess
the power to evolve through pain and through the
conquest of pain, for they have no individuality. For
this reason, the animals are much more to be pitied
than us. We have to bear pain, but each pain is for us
a means to perfection; through overcoming it we rise
higher. We have left behind us the animal as something
that has the capacity to feel pain but does not yet
possess the power to raise itself above pain, and to
triumph by means of it. That is the fate of the
animals. They manifest to us our own former
organisation when we were capable of feeling pain, but
could not yet, through overcoming the pain, transform
it into something beneficial for humanity. Thus in the
course of our earthly evolution we have left our worst
to the animals, and they stand around us as tokens of
how we ourselves came to our perfection. We must learn
to consider such facts, not as theories, but rather
with a cosmic world feeling. When we look upon the
animals we should feel: ‘You animals are outside. When
you suffer, you suffer something of which we reap the
benefit. We humans, however, have the power to
overcome suffering while you must endure it. Having
received suffering we have passed it on to you, and
are taking to ourselves the power to overcome it.’
If we develop this cosmic feeling out of the theory,
we then experience a great and all-embracing feeling
of sympathy for the animal kingdom. Hence when this
universal feeling sprang from the primeval wisdom of
humanity, when mankind still possessed the remembrance
of the original knowledge which told each one by a dim
clairvoyant vision how things once were, there was
preserved with it sympathy for the animal kingdom
also, and this to a high degree. This sympathy will
come again when people accustom themselves to take up
Spiritual Science, and when they again see how the
karma of humanity is bound up with the world karma. In
the so-called dark ages when materialistic thought
held sway, one could not have the right perception of
this connection. At that time one observed only what
was side by side in space, without taking into
consideration the fact that whatever is side by side
in space has a common origin, and has only separated
in the course of evolution. It was natural that one
should cease to feel the connection between man and
animal; and in those parts of the earth where it has
been the mission to hide the spiritual knowledge of
this connection, replacing it by a conscious concern
with outward physical space, man has paid in a strange
fashion his debt to the animals. He has eaten them..."
Frank Thomas Smith
http://SouthernCrossReview.org
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 15:06:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Frank Smith (eltrigal78 yahoo.com)
Subject: Man and Animal - part 2
"..These things show us how world conceptions are
connected with the human world of perception and
feeling. The latter are the consequences of the former
and as conceptions and ideas change, the perceptions
and feelings of humanity also change. Man could not do
otherwise than evolve. It is due to this that he had
to push other beings into the abyss so that he could
rise higher himself. He could not give them an
individuality which compensates karmically for what
the animals have to suffer; he could only give them
pain, without being able to give them the karmic
compensation. But what he could not give them before,
he will give them when he has come to the freedom and
selflessness of his individuality. Then he will
consciously apprehend the karmic law in this realm and
will say ‘It is to the animals that I owe what I have
now become. As the animals have fallen from an
individual existence to a shadow existence I cannot
repay to them what they have sacrificed for me, but I
must make this good, so far as is possible, by the
treatment I extend to them.’ Therefore with the
progress of evolution there will come again, through
the consciousness of karma, a better relationship
between man and the animal kingdom than there is now,
especially in the west. There will come a treatment of
the animals whereby man will again uplift those he has
pushed down.."
Frank Thomas Smith
http://SouthernCrossReview.org
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 16:58:00 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: In Praise of Peter Staudenmaier
)I missed that part. I did indeed send several posts from romantic Rome, and
)I just got back from Italy this evening, but I wasn't able to read many
)posts during my trip and I don't know what this refers to.
You didn't miss much, I wouldn't worry about it.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 15:08:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: Frank Smith (eltrigal78 yahoo.com)
Subject: Man and Animal - part 3
"..Thus we see that there is a certain relationship
between karma and the animal kingdom, although we
cannot, if we wish to avoid the confusion of thought,
compare what the animal experiences as its fate with
human karma. But if we consider the whole Earth
evolution, we shall see that we can indeed speak of a
relation between the karma of humanity and the animal kingdom."
Frank Thomas Smith
http://SouthernCrossReview.org
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 22:27:55 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Man and Animal - part 3
Thanks Frank,
But I'd venture a guess that you might be the only one here who perhaps
imagines we haven't each already read this. Does this stuff reinforce
anything for you? Or are you just trying to "avoid the confusion of
thought"?
Pete
Frank Smith wrote:
)
) "..Thus we see that there is a certain relationship
) between karma and the animal kingdom, although we
) cannot, if we wish to avoid the confusion of thought,
) compare what the animal experiences as its fate with
) human karma. But if we consider the whole Earth
) evolution, we shall see that we can indeed speak of a
) relation between the karma of humanity and the animal kingdom."
)
) Frank Thomas Smith
) http://SouthernCrossReview.org
)
) __________________________________________________
) Do You Yahoo!?
) Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
) http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 15:28:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mike Helsher (mhelsher yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Joel and Peter S. on epistemology
--- Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
)
) On Philosophy of Freedom in particular:
)
) Anthroposophists have trouble pointing out the
) passages in Philosophy of
) Freedom that have anything to do with
) anthroposophical doctrine -- anything
) at all about astral bodies, archangels, cosmic
) evolution, clairvoyance,
) higher worlds, successive incarnations, and so
) forth. There are no such
) passages. Steiner himself acknowledges as much in
) his Preface to the revised
) 1918 edition of the book. In that Preface Steiner
) writes that "in one sense
) this book occupies a position completely independent
) of my writings on
) actual spiritual scientific matters", and
) anticipates that readers may be
) "astonished at not finding in this book any
) reference to that region of the
) world of spiritual experience described in my later
) writings".
there are also repeated mentions throughout his work
that point to the POF as a "Philosophical foundation"
for all of his latter works. There are many many
workshops to attend every summer all around the world
that are studying this idea. I was involved in a
rather intense month of study on the subject myself.
the book that I have has been re-named "intuitive
thinking as a spiritual path".
)
) In any case, several of the central positions
) Steiner adopts in PoF are
) severely problematic (though some of them also have
) a long lineage of very
) capable and respected philosophers behind them). To
) begin with: According to
) standard anthroposophist readings of the text,
) Steiner posits a sort of
) free-floating realm of ideas out there somewhere in
) the universe from which
) all human intuitions are drawn. This makes little
) sense. A much more
) reasonable starting point is to acknowledge that our
) ideas are formed within
) social contexts, and that these ideas are thus
) intersubjective in nature. In
) contrast to several of Steiner's central conclusions
) about the nature of
) thinking, many people readily recognize that thought
) certainly exists
) outside of their own minds, simply because it exists
) within lots of other
) people's minds. In recognizing the intersubjective
) nature of thinking, there
) is no need to point toward some separate realm of
) ideas that supplies all of
) our mental material.
I think that requires a kind of
dogmatic belief in the external world - material- as
separate from our "inter subjective nature of
thinking".
Joel could much better describe this than I, but if it
weren't for the percepts, we wouldn't have anything to
think about. The process, the actual thinking, is what
unites precept with concept. So in one way we live in
a duality: when we look at an object, and become
curious and start to wonder, there is a unity
happening in the thinking process. when we blurt out
the concept -"tree" we step back into the duality. The
symbol of the lemniscate in motion is one that I like
to use as a representation: there are two ends but
they are united in the center. One. But also two.
So as I understand it, there is no "world of ideas"
existing "out there" if I really think about it.
)
) Beyond such epistemological matters, there are a
) number of troubling ethical
) claims in PoF; here's a line that several
) anthroposophists are fond of: "An
) ethical misunderstanding, a clash, is impossible
) among ethically free human
) beings".
)
) This claim is incompatible with meaningful debate,
) and shows exactly why
) Steiner's notion of "freedom" strikes some people as
) deeply unfree. The view
) of ethics that this passage posits is remarkably
) primitive; it assumes that
) people who disagree on ethical matters are simply
) confused, and denies the
) reality of responsible ethical choices that conflict
) with one another. If
) such disagreements were, as Steiner suggests here,
) merely illusory, there
) would be very little need for ethical debate in the
) first place; the only
) point would be for all of us to somehow realize that
) we actually already
) agree.
He makes a good case for working through our personal
"characterological dispositions" in the beginning of
the book. And all the material considered before that
one statement is essential to understanding it. By
itself it just as you say (much like your suggestions
of Steiner's racism). But taking that quote out of
context, is intellectually dishonest, I think. He is
alluding to an IDEAL that I have at times experienced
in many groups, where there were many heated
disagreements, chairs thrown across the room, and
people were allowed to put all their personal ideas
and frustrations out on the table. Sometimes for weeks
and months on end. more often than not the
controversial issue would be voted unanimous.
There's an order to nature and the natural world. If
Steiner Posits anything, he says that there is an
order contained also in the pure thinking -
uninhibited by personal paradigm, from which he
logically derives his description of monism.
Its been a while since I read the material. I think
I'll give it a re-read.
)
) I think Steiner has it backwards. Working through
) our "ethical
) misunderstandings" and "clashes", via open debate
) and moral reasoning, is a
) necessary part of becoming and remaining ethically
) free human beings. We
) stop being free ethical subjects when we pretend
) that such clashes are a bad
) thing that ought to be avoided.
I totally agree with that statement. I just simply
disagree that that is what Steiner is saying. He
certainly talks alot about a process, and most human
processes have an Ideal in mind...sometimes.
Mike
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 15:34:03 -0700
From: Joel Wendt (campaign ipwebdev.com)
Subject: Re: Joel and Peter S. on epistemology
Dear Peter,
I don't find the below very helpful at all, except in the sense that
it gives me a broad view of some of your attitudes in this regard. I
accept your memory of past exchanges, however, although I don't in fact
remember them except in the vaguest fashion. I hope this is not a
problem for you.
Since we are to be in the present, what you have written below I
find not at all useful for the purposes of discussion - essentially too
many sentences, thoughts and conclusions. For me, epistemology, in the
sense of Steiner, is something that one dines on a small piece at a
time. For example, I find a good starting point the observation about
thought and experience (in Theory...) or percept and concept (in
Philosophy...). The rest of the stuff (your conclusions as to whether
this work was innovative and the rest, seems to me to be entirely
besides the point, and I encourage you to leave aside indulging yourself
in such judgments and commentary.
We either discuss the meaning of these works point by fundamental
point, or we do not. Anything other than the former approach I have no
interest in. A philosophical house, if it is to have truth as its
mortar, and reality as its bricks, has to be built very carefully.
Otherwise, it is just another system of thoughts and beliefs.
warm regards,
joel
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
)
)
) Hi Joel,
)
)
)) Not sure I refused, but your memory could be better than mine.
)
)
) I suppose that's one way of putting it. I reminded you of this at the
) beginning of our present exchange, not really all that long ago, and
) gave you seventeen links to help further refresh your memory. That
) post is here:
)
) lists.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1720450322&sort=d&start=32219
)
)
) (It's the second post in the thread "Peter S's efforts at the question
) of anthroposophy and race")
)
)
)) How about now, then? I consider Steiner's thoughts on epistemology
)) to be laid out in three books.
)
)
) Yes, those are the same three books we were supposed to discuss five
) years ago.
)
)
)) Do you have anything to add before we begin?
)
)
) Sure. I have lots to say about those books, but I've mostly said it
) already. Since you have evidently forgotten all of this, it might make
) sense to start by repeating what I wrote to you years ago on each of
) these topics. Here is a brief sample.
)
)
) On Steiner's epistemology in general:
)
) Much of Steiner's early philosophical work explores epistemological
) issues primarily through reviewing and commenting on the work of other
) philosophers. His basic framework was the existing tradition of German
) Idealism, within which he staked out a series of particular stances on
) contested questions about knowledge and how it is attained.
)
) Steiner's argument gives a central role to what he called the
) "spiritual organization" of the human being, which structures an
) individual's knowledge of the external world. He first divides cognition
) into two basic functions, perception and thought, and emphasizes that the
) objects themselves do not determine how people perceive them. After
) pointing
) to the necessary role of the will in all acts of knowing, he then makes a
) further distinction between perception and intuition, and says that
) objects
) present themselves to our perception, whereas the concepts with which we
) grasp those objects are the product of intuition. But we need both --
) sense
) impressions and concepts, perception and intuition -- to achieve the full
) reality, to have actual knowledge. In the final analysis, says the early
) Steiner, it is thinking that connects us to each other and to the
) universe
) as a whole.
)
) This isn't a particularly novel approach to epistemology, but it isn't
) particularly objectionable either. I find much of Steiner's early
) philosophical work diligent and clearly argued, although I reject many
) of its premises and don't find his epistemology especially insightful,
) much less innovative. But it is considerably better than his later
) work, after his theosophical turn, which is fundamentally different
) from his early work not only in style and tone but in content. The
) early Steiner developed an
) approach to knowledge grounded in people's everyday experience of the
) world around them and of their own internal perception of that world.
) The point of his approach was to help us better understand how our
) thinking processes relate to the external world. The early Steiner
) never mentions, alludes to, assumes the existence of, or otherwise
) entertains the notion of any "higher worlds", much less higher worlds
) that determine what goes on in the mundane world around us.
)
)
) On Steiner and Goethe:
)
)
) Many anthroposophists like to see Steiner as a sort of inheritor of
) Goethe. This notion is frequently based on taking Steiner's own claims
) in this regard at face value rather than paying attention to the
) actual epistemological stances each figure invoked and practiced.
) Goethe described himself as "an empiricist and realist" and he was
) extremely skeptical toward subjectivist approaches to knowledge. He
) ridiculed the notion of "thinking about thinking", in his own words,
) as a waste of time. While I don't endorse that dismissal myself, it is
) plainly at odds with Steiner's early epistemology.
)
) Steiner's 1886 book A Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's World
) Conception tells us a good deal about the young Steiner's thinking,
) but not much about Goethe. One of the oddest aspects of the book is
) how little it has to do with Goethe's actual views. The key word here
) is "implicit"; Steiner evidently felt that he had discovered a
) philosophical standpoint in Goethe's works that Goethe himself never
) explicitly espoused. But Steiner rarely even quotes Goethe in this
) book, and much of what he describes are his own early philosophical
) speculations, which in my estimation have little in common with Goethe
) (even on the more limited topic of knowledge of the natural world,
) Steiner's presentation has more to do with German Romantic nature
) philosophy than with Goethe's research).
)
) This point is sometimes made in the secondary literature on Goethe's
) methods
) of science; see, for example, R.H. Stephenson's book Goethe's
) Conception of
) Knowledge and Science (Edinburgh 1995), pp. 29-30, which argues that
) Steiner's epistemology is "much closer to Schelling than to Goethe." (For
) those who read German, I also recommend Alfred Schmidt's 1984 book
) Goethes
) herrlich leuchtende Natur.)
)
) I would go so far as to say that Steiner's focus on self-reflective
) thought was something Goethe himself explicitly rejected, and that
) Goethe's own amateur scientific achievements would have been
) impossible had he actually followed the methods Steiner imputes to
) him. In other words, while there may be something that could
) legitimately be called "Goethean science", it isn't what many
) anthroposophists make it out to be.
)
) This points to a problem running through much of Steiner's early
) philosophical work. Steiner's reading of Goethe (and to a lesser
) extent Schiller) in A Theory of Knowledge, for example, is classically
) eisegetical; that is, he reads into Goethe an epistemological
) framework that isn't there in Goethe's writings. I think he does
) somewhat better in Truth and Science; he mostly gets Kant's
) epistemology right, though he draws faulty conclusions from this (for
) instance, Steiner's contention, proposed in contrast to Fichte's
) syntheticism, that the ego determines its own operations, is quite
) wrong). As for the Philosophy of Freedom, I find the pretensions to
) "natural science methods" misguided, and his notions of the destiny of
) the cosmos and the destiny of humanity and so forth strike me as
) watered-down versions of the prevailing philosophical fads in late
) nineteenth century Germany.
)
)
) On Philosophy of Freedom in particular:
)
) Anthroposophists have trouble pointing out the passages in Philosophy
) of Freedom that have anything to do with anthroposophical doctrine --
) anything at all about astral bodies, archangels, cosmic evolution,
) clairvoyance, higher worlds, successive incarnations, and so forth.
) There are no such passages. Steiner himself acknowledges as much in
) his Preface to the revised 1918 edition of the book. In that Preface
) Steiner writes that "in one sense this book occupies a position
) completely independent of my writings on actual spiritual scientific
) matters", and anticipates that readers may be "astonished at not
) finding in this book any reference to that region of the world of
) spiritual experience described in my later writings".
)
) In any case, several of the central positions Steiner adopts in PoF
) are severely problematic (though some of them also have a long lineage
) of very capable and respected philosophers behind them). To begin
) with: According to standard anthroposophist readings of the text,
) Steiner posits a sort of free-floating realm of ideas out there
) somewhere in the universe from which all human intuitions are drawn.
) This makes little sense. A much more reasonable starting point is to
) acknowledge that our ideas are formed within social contexts, and that
) these ideas are thus intersubjective in nature. In contrast to several
) of Steiner's central conclusions about the nature of thinking, many
) people readily recognize that thought certainly exists outside of
) their own minds, simply because it exists within lots of other
) people's minds. In recognizing the intersubjective nature of thinking,
) there is no need to point toward some separate realm of ideas that
) supplies all of our mental material.
)
) Beyond such epistemological matters, there are a number of troubling
) ethical claims in PoF; here's a line that several anthroposophists are
) fond of: "An ethical misunderstanding, a clash, is impossible among
) ethically free human beings".
)
) This claim is incompatible with meaningful debate, and shows exactly why
) Steiner's notion of "freedom" strikes some people as deeply unfree.
) The view
) of ethics that this passage posits is remarkably primitive; it assumes
) that
) people who disagree on ethical matters are simply confused, and denies
) the
) reality of responsible ethical choices that conflict with one another. If
) such disagreements were, as Steiner suggests here, merely illusory, there
) would be very little need for ethical debate in the first place; the only
) point would be for all of us to somehow realize that we actually already
) agree.
)
) I think Steiner has it backwards. Working through our "ethical
) misunderstandings" and "clashes", via open debate and moral reasoning,
) is a necessary part of becoming and remaining ethically free human
) beings. We stop being free ethical subjects when we pretend that such
) clashes are a bad thing that ought to be avoided.
)
)
) There's lots more to be said on each of these topics. I look forward
) to reading Joel's and anybody else's thoughts on the matter.
)
)
) Peter Staudenmaier
)
)
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
) basic. New threads are always welcome.
)
)
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 22:56:30 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: appropriateness of ridicule
baandje wrote:
)
)Peter: “Ridicule is not hate.”
)
)*
)
)And you’re simply repeating what I said: you’re entitled to your
)opinion. The other point I made is this: don’t act shocked when, because
)of attitudes such as yours, people correctly (my opinion) classify
)Waldorf Critics as a hate group.
Attitudes such as mine!!! I treat you and others here with respect. I treat
some of your more ridiculous opinons with the ridicule they deserve. What
you are suggesting is that satirical political comment should be seen as the
same as the activities of hate groups. This idiotic opinion of yours
deserves ridicule.
See you, peter
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 23:01:18 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: appropriateness of ridicule
Mike wrote:
)
)I think to make the conversation more interesting, and
)perhaps even more sophisticated, we should try find
)and use complicated acronyms. My favorite musician,
)Frank Zappa, once wrote something to the effect of how
)politicians us acronyms in a simplistic kind of a way,
)to create a state of what he calls the "acronymbus"
)which lulls votes from "acronymbicles".
)
Frank was indeed a great man. I recommend two tunes by him for careful
listening to all here. One is "Cosmic Debris" from his album "Apostrophe" (I
think) and "Son of Orange County" from "Live at the Roxy and elsewhere".
See you, peter
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 23:28:15 +0000
From: Thomas Mellett (Tombuoyed aol.com)
Subject: RE: In Praise of Peter Staudenmaier
Diana Winters wrote:
)
) Tom:
)
)
) )At the end of this conversation, I remember how dismayed Carl looked
)
)
) How dismayed did Carl look, Tom? Pass me that vomit bag again.
Hey, Diana, give the guy a break! He was 84 years old at the time. I'll
bet even you would look dismayed at 84.
On the other hand, with my naturally melancholic soul trapped in a
phlegmatic body frame, I'm really good at writing melodrama with lots of
food references, so maybe I did read into him my own dismay and then
milked it for all it was worth.
So please put down the bag. No need to purge --- unless you believe it
will shorten your stint in Purgatory. ;=}
) "Should have known" is an interesting new tack.
)
) "Should have known" arguments are empty as well as self-serving. It's
) saying, Hey everybody knows we're USUALLY morally superior to most
) people
) and how about if we take this opportunity to remind you of this right at
) the
) time you've caught us proving ourselves no better than anyone else. (Not
) to
) mention we hoped for decades nobody would notice.)
Wow, Diana, where were you 5 decades ago when I really needed you? You
shoulda been there, whispering the above into my ear, during my
formative years in Catholic school, when I was learning how a good
Catholic boy should behave by obeying all the nuns and priests who were
sent by God to guide me to heaven.
)
) The general theory that religious people are USUALLY morally superior to
) other people has no credence at all. There's no evidence this is true of
) anthroposophists or those of any other faith.
Wait a minute! Do you mean to say that my mother, those nuns and a few
priests could all possibly have been wrong? I mean, they all said that
only Catholics would go to heaven and that we were better than the
Protetants and Jews and all those unbaptized watusis and pygmies in
Africa and those Chinese, Japanese and Hindu heathens destined for hell
. . . (excet unbaptized babies who, upon death, would go to limbo.)
But I left the Catholic Church in college and then discovered
anthroposophy 7 years later during my agnostic phase. But wait, I'm
confused. I'm getting a foreboding feeling, Diana, please help me out,
I'm actually feeling dismay now.
I thought that the judge in the PLANS case ruled that anthroposophy was
not a religion, but a philosophy. Surely, I couldn't have mistaken a
philosophy for a religion --- unless, unless, unless --- I still deep
down inside I needed a religion, just to make Mommy proud of me in some
way. I did feel guilty about not becoming a priest for her. Hmmm. Food
for phlegmatic thought!
Oh my God, do you think I've spent the last 30 years of my life putting
all my faith into a religion that everyone else told me was a philosophy
or a science of the spirit?
Say it ain't so, Diana! But alas and alack! My dismay deepens as the
truth of your words slowly dawns on the horizon of my wretched, aching
soul.
You mean to say that just because someone is a Catholilc or an
anthroposophist that they are no more special in the eyes of God,
Goddess or Christ-Impulse than anybody else? Why, that smacks of , of
... democracy. But I was brought up on, on . . . hierarchy.
(You know I actually learned about the 9 hierarchies of angels from
Sister Mary Dolorita in the 4th Grade? Rudolf Steiner just ... filled in
the details. He was like a priest without the collar. He always dressed
in black, just like the priests did. Father Rudi I'd call him.)
Help me, Diana, what should a poor boy do? ('cept to play for a
rock'n'roll band?) Might you know a good 12 step program? What if
everything you Waldorf Critics say about us anthroposophists is true, no
matter what the judge said?
This feels like the part in the fairy tale when the spell is being
broken, the enchantment lifting. Is this what it means to wake up? Am I
Rip Van Winkle or Sleeping Ugly? What grade is this?
)
) And the fantasies about Ahriman don't do much to assure us you'd sniff
) out a
) problem next time either.
That does it! Is nothing sacred to you, woman? How dare you marginalize
the great Ahriman! Steiner you can ridicule! Waldorf you can mock, but
this devil will not be marginalized!!!
May I quote to you now the great author C.S. Lewis, one of the Inklings
with Uncle Owen Barfield, who wrote the Screwtape Letters about the
devil and said this:
"The devil's greatest triumph is to convince people he doesn't exist."
But the question is: which devil was he talking about? Huh? Diana?
Gotcha on that one!
Nanny Nanny Boo Boo!!!
Fa.., Fath.., ... uh, Tom
PS Now, out of the same mists of memory rises this Beatles song from my
teenage years. I dedicate it to you Ms. Diana:
"I . . .
shoulda known better with a girl like you,
that I would love everything that you do!
And I do!
Hey, hey, hey!
And I do!
whoa, whoa, I . . . .
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 00:15:42 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: appropriateness of ridicule
I suggested:
)
)Frank was indeed a great man. I recommend two tunes by him for careful
)listening to all here. One is "Cosmic Debris" from his album "Apostrophe"
)(I think) and "Son of Orange County" from "Live at the Roxy and elsewhere".
)
Sample lyrics for these two tunes (from memory)
"Look here brother, who you jivin' with that cosmik debris"
That's right. He spelled it with a "K".
"And in your dreams,
you can see yourself
as a prophet
saving the world.
The words from your lips.
I just can't believe
you are such a fool."
See you, Peter
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 17:44:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mike Helsher (mhelsher yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: In Praise of Peter Staudenmaier
--- Thomas Mellett (Tombuoyed aol.com) wrote:
)
) )
) ) And the fantasies about Ahriman don't do much to
) assure us you'd sniff
) ) out a
) ) problem next time either.
)
)
) That does it! Is nothing sacred to you, woman? How
) dare you marginalize
) the great Ahriman! Steiner you can ridicule!
) Waldorf you can mock, but
) this devil will not be marginalized!!!
Well, Frank is probably rattling lucifers cage in the
fine song "Titties and Beer" which you can give a
listen to at the bottom of this page:
http://www.freewebs.com/thefishercat/thestupidmajority.htm
Mike
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 20:19:13 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: In Praise of Peter Staudenmaier
Tom Mellett, you wrote,
)Do you mean to say that my mother, those nuns and a few
)priests could all possibly have been wrong? I mean, they all said that
)only Catholics would go to heaven
In my orthodox Catholic upbringing we believed that everyone who was
good would be saved. When we got older the sticky question came up of
whether they had had an opportunity to become Christian and rejected
it...
)and that we were better than the
)Protetants and Jews and all those unbaptized watusis and pygmies in
)Africa and those Chinese, Japanese and Hindu heathens destined for hell
). . . (excet unbaptized babies who, upon death, would go to limbo.)
Yes, we thought we were better than everybody else. We had the truth,
and better schools. That last was true.
)...I thought that the judge in the PLANS case ruled that anthroposophy was
)not a religion, but a philosophy.
Despite the attempted myth-making, the judge did not rule on that
issue. The judge ruled that PLANS had presented no case, and invited
a motion for dismissal from the schools.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 2271
Subject: Digest for waldorf-critics topica.com, issue 2272
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 03:47:47 -0700
-- Topica Digest --
RE: appropriateness of ridicule
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: Man and Animal - part 1
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: appropriateness of ridicule
By mhelsher yahoo.com
RE: appropriateness of ridicule
By feetapparel hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 06:55:20 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: appropriateness of ridicule
Mike wrote:
)Seems our correspondence has boiled down to simple I
)say "Yes" and you say "No" or you say "no" and I say
)"Yes" kind of a thing.
There's a simple reason for this. Like many of the defenders of
Anthroposophy here you make statements as though they are facts when
they
are just opinions, and seem to be surprised when they are denied.
A better suggestion than the one you made for moving ahead would be to
retuen to the point where you said we were nearly done after I agreed
that
much of our language is metaphoric.
See
http://lists.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1720544289&sort=d&start=33275
See you, Peter
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 07:06:21 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Man and Animal - part 1
Frank quoted from Steiner at length. The complete lectures are
available at
http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/ManfKarma/19100517p01.html
What struck me most about these lectures of Steiner's was his frequent
use
of the word "thus". Of course this is a translation from German and I
don't
know the German equivalent, but I have no reason to doubt the
translation.
What is most intersting is that in almost every case, the use of the
word
"thus" is absolutely unjustified. It is by no means clear that what
Steiner
wishes to claim follows from what he has said before actually does
follow.
His usage is a rhetorical device to make it sound as though he is
making an
argument when in fact he is doing nothing other than playing on the
anti
materialist prejudices of his audience.
See you, Peter
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 00:23:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mike Helsher (mhelsher yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: appropriateness of ridicule
Pete F wrote:
)
) A better suggestion than the one you made for moving
) ahead would be to
) retuen to the point where you said we were nearly
) done after I agreed that
) much of our language is metaphoric.
Oops, I completely missed that, I thought you were
saying that none of it was metaphoric...perhaps we
agree on more things than we would like too, you being
a Zappa fan and all.
Mike
)
) See
)
http://lists.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1720544289&sort=d&start=33275
)
) See you, Peter
)
)
)
==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like
) here, no matter how basic. New threads are always
) welcome.
)
)
)
)
)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 07:35:34 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: appropriateness of ridicule
Mike
Mike wrote:
)
)Oops, I completely missed that, I thought you were
)saying that none of it was metaphoric...perhaps we
)agree on more things than we would like too, you being
)a Zappa fan and all.
)
Almost certainly.
One of Frank Zappa's most obvious features was his irreverence. Nothing
was
sacred with the possible exception of the music itself.
See you, Peter
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 2272
Subject: Digest for waldorf-critics topica.com, issue 2273
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 03:49:00 -0700
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Man and Animal - part 1
By barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com
Re: Joel and Peter S. on epistemology
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Joel and Peter S. on epistemology
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
anthroposophy and race
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Joel and Peter S. on epistemology
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: anthroposophy and race
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: Joel and Peter S. on epistemology
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Joel and Peter S. on epistemology
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: Joel and Peter S. on epistemology
By pkcompany netzero.net
Re: Joel and Peter S. on epistemology
By campaign ipwebdev.com
Re: Joel and Peter S. on epistemology
By campaign ipwebdev.com
Re: Joel and Peter S. on epistemology
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: Joel and Peter S. on epistemology
By barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com
RE: Joel and Peter S. on epistemology
By mhelsher yahoo.com
Re: Joel and Peter S. on epistemology
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: Joel and Peter S. on epistemology
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Joel and Peter S. on epistemology
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Joel and Peter S. on epistemology
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Joel and Peter S. on epistemology
By diana.winters verizon.net
Appeal on school's lesson in Muslim culture is rejected
By dan dandugan.com
RE: Joel and Peter S. on epistemology
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: In Praise of Peter Staudenmaier
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Joel and Peter S. on epistemology
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: Appeal on school's lesson in Muslim culture is rejected
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: Appeal on school's lesson in Muslim culture is rejected
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: In Praise of Peter Staudenmaier
By eltrigal78 yahoo.com
Re: Joel and Peter S. on epistemology
By campaign ipwebdev.com
P of F
By eltrigal78 yahoo.com
Re: Appeal on school's lesson in Muslim culture is rejected
By eltrigal78 yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 10:56:39 +0000
From: Barnaby McEwan (barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Man and Animal - part 1
Frank Smith wrote:
)
) In reference to the previous debate about the
) difference between man and animal, the materialists
) claiming that man is a somewhat advanced animal, I
) contribute the following from lecure 2 of Steiner's
) "Manifestations of Karma" - which indicates that they
) are right - in a way.
This isn't a Waldorf faculty meeting: quoting The Leader doesn't make
the evidence against your arguments go away. You're still wrong, which
means that - gasp - Doktor Rudi was wrong too!
Steiner's fantasies about the "old Saturn evolution" should be kept out
of Waldorf science classes. Keep them for religious studies instead.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 06:44:58 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Joel and Peter S. on epistemology
Hi Joel,
tired of the topic already? And we've only just begun. You wrote:
) I don't find the below very helpful at all
Perhaps you are laboring under a misunderstanding. I didn't write the
post
to help you. I wrote it to show that I have tried again and again to
engage
you on the very topics you deem important, and that you have refused
again
and again to discuss them, as you are doing now. How come?
) Since we are to be in the present, what you have written below I
find
)not at all useful for the purposes of discussion - essentially too
many
)sentences, thoughts and conclusions.
Darn those pesky sentences, thoughts and conclusions. They get in the
way of
a good intuition.
)For me, epistemology, in the sense of Steiner, is something that one
dines
)on a small piece at a time.
Okay with me. Let's pick a small piece and start dining. I recommend
the
piece about how Steiner's epistemology is an instance of 'Goethean
science',
as you hold, although the piece about how Steiner's pre-1900
philosophical
works form the foundation of his theosophical and anthroposophical
teachings
looks quite tasty as well.
)For example, I find a good starting point the observation about
thought and
)experience (in Theory...) or percept and concept (in Philosophy...).
Those are good pieces too. As for the first question, I think a line
worth
discussing from A Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's World
Conception
is the following:
"The basic error of many scientific endeavours, especially those of the
present day, consists precisely of the fact that they believe they
present
pure experience, whereas in fact they only gather up the concepts again
that
they themselves have inserted into it."
I think that line contains two important errors, one about the status
of
scientific endeavors at the time Steiner wrote, and the other about the
status of Steiner's own proffered alternative approach to thinking.
What do
you think?
As for the second question, I think the relationship Steiner posits
between
percept and concept in PoF is banal. Here is a representative passage:
"Thinking, by its very nature, goes beyond what is observed. We must
now
pass from thinking to the being that thinks; for it is through the
thinker
that thinking is combined with observation. Human consciousness is the
stage
upon which concept and observation meet and become linked to one
another. In
saying this we have in fact characterized this (human) consciousness.
It is
the mediator between thinking and observation. In as far as we observe
a
thing it appears to us as given; in as far as we think, we appear to
ourselves as being active. We regard the thing as object and ourselves
as
thinking subject. Because we direct our thinking upon our observation,
we
have consciousness of objects; because we direct it upon ourselves, we
have
consciousness of ourselves, or self-consciousness. Human consciousness
must
of necessity be at the same time self-consciousness because it is a
consciousness which thinks. For when thinking contemplates its own
activity,
it makes its own essential being, as subject, into a thing, as object."
I think this the standard fare of German Idealism, not some new
espistemological approach. Even Hegel, with whom Steiner otherwise
vigorously disagrees in the cited passage, would happily endorse this
sort
of thing. What do you think?
)The rest of the stuff (your conclusions as to whether this work was
)innovative and the rest, seems to me to be entirely besides the point,
and
)I encourage you to leave aside indulging yourself in such judgments
and
)commentary.
No thanks. That kind of judgement and commentary is exactly what is
called
for from readers who want to take Steiner's philosophical texts
seriously.
Or any texts, for that matter.
) We either discuss the meaning of these works point by fundamental
)point, or we do not.
I vote yes. How about you?
Looking forward to a reply,
Peter Staudenmaier
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 12:30:25 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: Joel and Peter S. on epistemology
Joel: “We either discuss the meaning of these works point by
fundamental
point, or we do not. Anything other than the former approach I have no
interest in. A philosophical house, if it is to have truth as its
mortar, and reality as its bricks, has to be built very carefully.
Otherwise, it is just another system of thoughts and beliefs.”
*
One “singular truth” doesn’t exist, Joel. Doesn’t matter if you debate
via hate and ridicule, or thoughtfully and intelligently – brick by
brick as you put it. The end outcome will always be the same: one
particular, individual perspective and understanding.
Any way you slice it, Anthroposophy is simply another system of belief.
And I’m referring to the “Steinerized tenets” of the philosophy, and
not
the process of spiritual investigation and experiential wisdom itself.
To quote Steiner from a link Peter provided in the Man and Animal
thread: “These differences between man and animal can only be
apprehended by one who makes use of the facts which are revealed to him
both by his external senses and by his speculative thought.”
Another reason there’s no headway to be made here: people are simply
not
inclined to take part in the sort of speculative thought and
Goethean-like discussion forms that are required for individual
spiritual insight and enlightenment. And in case you haven’t noticed,
that’s about as far from the entire point of this discussion forum as
one could possibly get. This is Waldorf “Critics”. Goodness, they have
entire threads devoted to ecstatically praising their ridiculing ways!
Just rereading your comment above: you’re the pig who wanted to build
his house of bricks, while everyone else here is content with sticks
and
straw, LOL.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 06:32:20 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: anthroposophy and race
Hello critics and un-critics,
In the wake of the recent exchanges on race and spirit, I think it
worth
remarking that the defenders of Steiner's racial teachings have once
again
dropped every line of argument they initiated. Perhaps a recap of the
theme
is in order.
What critical observers of anthroposophical race thinking say is that a
specific series of claims about racial difference are central to
Steiner's
account of human and cosmic evolution in both its physical and its
spiritual
aspects, and that many of these claims are racist. The kind of racism
involved here is a kind that has existed for several centuries, and is
hardly a discovery of the historically recent phenomenon known as
'political
correctness'. Its foundational idea is that some racial groups are
higher
than others and more advanced than others. Steiner espoused this idea
in his
anthroposophical writings and lectures, and made it an important
element in
his overall teachings about karma, reincarnation, and spiritual
progress. A
notable range of his original followers accepted this idea, endorsed
it,
elaborated and expanded it in their own works. The idea is still
sitting
there today in the middle of anthroposophy's worldview, unmodified and
unrepudiated, indeed largely unrecognized. This is why the topic recurs
again and again in public discussions of anthroposophy and its various
manifestations.
I welcome any comments, critical and otherwise, from admirers or
skeptics of
Steiner's achievements.
Peter Staudenmaier
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 06:38:39 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Joel and Peter S. on epis