return to WCA Archive Index
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: "How is this not religious?"
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Re:To agree and aggress, please do not digress on this thread
By eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk
Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
By eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk
Re: Krishnamurti
By eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk
Re: "How is this not religious?"
By eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk
RE: "How is this not religious?"
By Diana.Winters verizon.net
RE: "How is this not religious?"
By Diana.Winters verizon.net
Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
By eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk
RE: "How is this not religious?"
By Diana.Winters verizon.net
RE: "How is this not religious?"
By Diana.Winters verizon.net
RE: "How is this not religious?"
By Diana.Winters verizon.net
RE: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
By pkcompany netzero.net
Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: "How is this not religious?"
By pkcompany netzero.net
Anthro-inspired Reading Problems?
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: "How is this not religious?"
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: "How is this not religious?"
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: "How is this not religious?"
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: "How is this not religious?"
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 10:11:38 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
Hi all,
I just sent off a bunch of messages on this topic, and I now see that Diana
has once again done a fine job of getting to the point better than I had.
For what it's worth, her post accurately describes my basic view of the
question. A couple of especially noteworthy points:
)The difference of opinion you are having - let me try again - is over
)whether BECAUSE STEINER SAYS it's anthroposophical, it is therefore
)anthroposophical. You can't see this, because once somebody sets a
)Steiner passage in front of your face, for you, the truth is now
)revealed. Anyone arguing appears deeply unreasonable. But Peter looks at
)the same passage and says, "I wonder what's the story behind this."
I thikn the story behind this, in simplified form, is that Steiner in the
1890s tried out all sorts of different philosophies and worldviews, and
didn't settle on theosophy\anthroposophy until the turn of the century.
)I don't know if it makes Peter uncomfortable, but what is at issue is
)whether Steiner's to be taken seriously when he claims that he was
)deliberately in POF not revealing things he later chose to reveal. To an
)objective reader there are 2 possible ways to interpret this: 1) That's
)what he was doing; or 2) That's what he later wants to tell people he
)was doing, because he (quite understandably) wants his own body of work
)to appear internally consistent. I think it's very common for someone
)late in life to reassess things they did much earlier and try to
)understand how it may all fit together.
Very much so. It is entirely possible that the later Steiner genuinely
believed that his earlier works were perfectly compatible with his later
works. This simply has nothing to do with whether the belief itself was
accurate.
Greetings to all,
Peter Staudenmaier
_________________________________________________________________
Share your latest news with your friends with the Windows Live Spaces
friends module.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mk
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 10:01:34 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
Hi Baandje,
)Great point about Steiner the esotericist and Christian Initiate,
)Jean-Marc. And in all fairness, it’s not incompetence on Peter’s part.
)Peter would neither understand that idea nor recognize it as a valid
)point, given he’s not actually interested in the philosophy and/or
)things of an esoteric nature.
I am intensely interested in esotericism. My most recent article tries hard,
among other things, to get historians to take esotericism more seriously.
)The other something that comes into play with this topic is the Critics
)are attempting to expose Steiner as a liar and charlatan.
My position is not that Steiner lied about PoF after 1900. He seems to have
believed what he said.
)So you see,
)someone here could and no doubt will argue that it doesn’t matter what
)Steiner said about PoF afterwards
Obviously that doesn't matter, if you're trying to figure out what he was
thinking in 1894. If you're trying to figure out what he was thinking in
1905, on the other hand, then what he said and wrote in 1905 matters a great
deal.
Cheers,
Peter Staudenmaier
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Shopping has everything on your holiday list. Get expert picks by style,
age, and price. Try it!
http://shopping.msn.com/content/shp/?ctId=8000,ptnrid=176,ptnrdata=200601&tcode=wlmtagline
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 12:34:40 -0800
From: Walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: "How is this not religious?"
baandje wrote:
) Now I'd do away with the Steiner verse altogether and have the kids recite
) Shelley, Byron and whoever.
Good idea. Do you think most Waldorf schools would have any problems with
this idea? Would you feel free to make this change and would it happen?
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 10:00:50 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
Hi Jean-Marc,
)Well, the most eloquent passage in this post of yours is definitely
)--- the one you have very cautiously deleted :-)
The quote you provide is from 1905. We do not disagree that Steiner was an
esotericist in 1905.
)Hey man, Steiner's silence speaks volumes!
)Now why did you pretend not to hear what Steiner himself had to say?
In 1905? It's irrelevant to our dispute, which is about whether Steiner was
an esotericist in 1894.
)"Now I've tried to describe the gradual higher development of Man,
)the purification of Man from soul to spirit, in a book I wrote some years
)ago: the *Philosophy of Freedom*. There you find what I have just [here]
)described expounded in the concepts of western philosophy. There you
)find the development of the soul from Kama to Manas. There I have named
)Ahamkara the I [Ego - das Ich], Manas the higher thinking, pure thinking,
)and Buddhi - in order not to indicate the origin yet (sic!)- moral
)imagination
)[moralische Phantasie]. These are merely different expressions referring to
)one and the same thing." [Berlin, February 1905]
)
)Now do you remember what your unsubstantiated dogmatic claims are?
That Steiner was not an esotericist in 1894, and that he was an esotericist
in 1905.
)"But Philosophy of Freedom isn't one of the borderline cases.
)There is nothing anthroposophical about it, not even superficially. Steiner
)was emphatically not an esotericist when he wrote it, and the book offers
)no support for occult thinking or practice."
Yes indeed. Could you say what it is about the book that you consider occult
or esoteric?
)Steiner is *emphatically* telling you that the concepts [pure thinking,
)moral
)imagination] in his *Philosophy of Freedom* and the ones [Manas, Buddhi]
)in his later works - refer to the very same things!
Yes, that's what he tells us after 1900. Not before.
)And, of course, Steiner's deliberate intention *not to indicate the origin
)yet*
)demonstrates that he was emphatically an esotericist and Christian Initiate
)--- when he wrote his *Philosophy of Freedom*...:-)
Sorry, that kind of thng makes no sense at all to a historian. Things that
Steiner wrote in 1905 do not demonstrate anything about what he thought in
1894, or the other way around.
)Is this what you meant by *creative dialogue* (sic!) and *true speech*?
Yes, very much so. Part of true speech and meaningful dialogue, even
creative dialogue, is paying attention to the details of the texts we're
discussing.
)Gagging your opponent?...
Do you mean you or Steiner? "Steiner" is not my opponent on this question,
unless you mean only the post-1900 Steiner.
)Is this a standard procedure among academics and researchers in America?
Yes, of course. If you want to make sense of a particular text, it helps to
keep in mind when it was written and published.
)Are you *embarrassed*?
)Well, I guess it is a little *embarrassing* to be confronted with your
)opponent,
)especially when his words - more than a century old! - clearly demonstrate
)that
)you are seriously lacking in competence - at least as far as PoF is
)concerned!
If you have a quote from Steiner from 1894 that says anything remotely
similar to the passage from 1905, I urge you to share it with us. If you do
not have any such quotes, may I ask how you concluded that Steiner was
emphatically an esotericist in 1894?
Cheers,
Peter Staudenmaier
_________________________________________________________________
Get FREE company branded e-mail accounts and business Web site from
Microsoft Office Live
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 01:10:05 -0000
From: "eurythmy" (eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Re:To agree and aggress, please do not digress on this thread
2006-11-30
Dear Peter,
Peter, I appreciate you swift answer. However in case my post was too long I
will only refer you to my first sentence:
My debate with Pete was about that about a point of logic, NOT the validity
of a statement or its ethical value.
**************
Hi Franky,
)(I think that argument would reinforce mine: if there was no messiah in the
) )first place, then he cannot be missed, and there is no question that the
)usefulness in this case of Anthroposophy can be outlived.
If you are trying to say that the Jews really did "miss the messiah" because
you believe Christ was in fact the messiah, I'm afraid I don't see how that
would be a point of logic. It is a point of faith.
[Franky inserts: Dear Peter, that is not my comment it is the inevitable
conclusion of Pete. My debate with Pete was about that about a point of
logic, NOT the validity of a statement or its ethical value. That Pete, may
have something to say about his faith does not concern me in this post on
agree or disagree,, in any case aggress. Here you do it again: I speak about
logic you move the goal post on faith. To say 'but not a question of logic
but a question of faith'. Implying eh! Reader: Franky does not see the
obvious!
Once more no ethic here, I am talking on how you (mis)use or play with logic
and throw mud. When I say misuse take no offence, yo may be playful
underneath your serious factual and adjectival tone.]
*************
)In doing so PETER IS SHOWING THAT STEINER WAS REALLY RIGHT and ahead of the
)opinion of the Theosophists. Is Peter testing how mud sticks to Franky? Or
) )is Peter doing something else?
I do indeed think that Steiner was right that Krishnamurti was not the
messiah, if that is what you are getting at.
[Franky inserts: I have no interest when I make this point about your
opinion on Krishnamurti, I am only interested in your logic, and the
question of mud sticking. See my first sentence: My debate with you was
about that about a point of logic, NOT the validity of a statement or its
ethical value.
************
)Peter keeps does not stick to the facts relevant to the point of logic.
At this point I'm afraid I don't even know what you think this point of
logic is. Do you mean that I misunderstood the original exchange between you
and Pete?
[Franky inserts: Yes you did it was not about the content, it was about the
logical way to link the argument. And the somehow comical results, and the
adding of negative connotations.
)The reader is taken away from the logical argument and loaded words appear
)one after the other: etheric realm, aggravated divergence, Anthroposophy
)versus mainstream Theosophy.
Those aren't loaded words. Did you think I was saying that the theosophists
were right and Steiner was wrong? If so, could I ask how I gave you that
impression?
[Franky: I should have been clearer: what do you think of the connotation
between non-mainstream Anthroposophy versus main stream Theosophy. The
mainstream one always look more respectable]
********
)Then comes another argument, which has nothing to do at all with the logic
)of Pete about Krishnamurti, the messiah, and the usefulness of a cultural
)stream.
Theosophical and anthroposophical racial and ethnic doctrines have quite a
bit to do with the notion of the usefulness of a cultural stream,
particularly if that stream happens to be Jewish.
[Franky inserts: see my first sentence. I quite agree with the logic you
have from the word Theosophical until the words cultural stream. I may
disagree on the content. Then you add the incision: 'particularly if hat
stream happens to be Jewish'. That has nothing to do with the logic, it is
an added judgment! Then to take that ethical point on a purely logical path:
Are the Jews a special stream? Why? In which way is it? Are other stream
less deserving when it is question of racial and ethnical doctrines? Or if
not less, how different? Don't they also eat like Jews? (To paraphrase the
Merchant of Venice.)
Why do you stray from the 'logic' and brought in 'racial, ethnic, doctrine,
and Jewish' o: I would rather think that you only brought this word Jewish,
only in order to show the reader that you never hesitate to bring it again
and again, so what will the reader think if I do not repeat that word again
and again: that I care less for them?, that you care more, or simply that
you are bringing it again and again whether it is relevant or not. I would
not wish your future answer makes me to think that you started to state you
own racial and ethnical doctrine putting apart the Jews from all other
races.
*******
)But your aside has all to do with the neutral words of my logic point to
)Pete. We have a completely different tone, and I do not discern a tongue in
)cheek in yours. It is all about racial and ethnic doctrines (very bad
)connotations), exacerbated by the (horrible) World War I, and now you
)brings something new, worse than 'racial and ethnic doctrine': the
)underlying nationalist sentiments!
In my view, Steiner's nationalism in WWI was not worse than his racial
doctrines.
[Franky inserts: I should not have used worse with that grammar, I only
meant you are adding another bad series of connotation. Two bad do not make
a worse]
***************
)PETER, I DO NOT BELIEVE YOU WANTED TO IMPLY THAT STEINER, IN AFFIRMING THAT
)KRISHNAMURTI WAS NOT THE MESSIAH, PREPARED THE ROAD TO NAZISM?
No, I did not want to imply that, and I didn't imply that in the previous
post. I don't think that Steiner's overall cultural influence was that
powerful, and his antisemitic doctrines in particular were significantly
different from those of the Nazis. Though in 1934 Karutz did explicitly
endorse Nazi racial policy, while quoting Steiner. But we could have a more
thorough discussion of the similarities and differences between
anthroposophical racial and ethnic doctrines and Nazi racial and ethnic
doctrines if you're interested.
[Franky inserts: Thanks for you first sentence.
*****************
)Steiner declares that Krishnamurti was not the messiah,)
)Krishnamurti declares the same afterwards)
)Conclusion: Steiner is wrong.
No, that was not my argument. Steiner was not wrong about Krishnamurti not
being the messiah. If you mean the part about Steiner's claim that Christ
would return in the etheric realm, yes, I think that claim is wrong, but not
especially important. The important thing that Steiner was wrong about is
that the Jews had somehow "missed" the messiah.
[Franky inserts: When you accentuate the afterwards, your readers reminisce
of many of your posts where you express that Steiner after the facts brings
too much of his own interpretation of his previous work.]
***********
)Dear Peter, why oh why do you accentuate the timing of Steiner death?
Because it occurred before Krishnamurti renounced his messiah status.
[Franky inserts: see one of the above]
************
)More precisely, in logic, if there is any timing, it cannot come from the
)dead man, but from Krishnamurti
Huh?
[Franky inserts: if he is dead he is dead and cannot do any thing.
Krishnamurti being alive can .]
********************
)Personally I am not inclined to think he waited for Steiner death to
)repudiate his messiah status.
Nor am I. I'm afraid I have no idea what you are talking about at this
point.
[Franky inserts: see one of the above]
[Full Franky post: Dear Peter, why oh why do you accentuate the timing of
Steiner death?
More precisely, in logic, if there is any timing, it cannot come from the
dead man, but from Krishnamurti Personally I am not inclined to think he
waited for Steiner death to repudiate his messiah status.
Not that, for whatever reason, Steiner organised to die, before Krishnamurti
made his statement]
************
)In mainly of your recent posts you make a point of writing about how
)Steiner looks back in time to, and comments, his own work.
Yes, that is one of the elements in the PoF discussion.
******************
)Your conclusions, and often your tone, are disapproving to say the least.
I am not particularly disapproving of most of PoF. I am dissaproving of a
lot of what Steiner said and wrote about Jews.
[Franky inserts: I speak of you disapproving The Philosophy of Freedom: I
would expect your first sentence. Many thanks for clarifying my
understanding.. But why do you bring in the Jews again, in relation this
time with The Philosophy of Freedom. What does it has to do with it?]
**************
)What ever Steiner says of his previous work, you cannot see a shred of
)evidence of it.
Merely because he said it? That is indeed not evidence in itself, if the
question at issue is about an earlier point in his life. What you need is
some other evidence that can corroborate what he later said.
)Indeed you even refuse to examine it
On the contrary, I would be delighted to examine such evidence, if any of
you would actually present some.
)STEINER CONFIRMS HIS WORK, BUTAFTERWARDS, SO STEINER IS WRONG: it seems
)like work by two different authors: nothing in common.
No, my claim is definitely not that Steiner's pre-1900 and post-1900 works
have nothing in common. My claim is that there is nothing specifically
anthroposophical or esoteric about the pre-1900 works.
[See my next post ]
******************
)This time does your argument can be summed up::
KRISHNAMURTI CONFIRMS STEINER, BUT AFTER STEINER, SO STEINER IS WRONG.
Wrong about Krishnamurti? No, I really didn't say that and do not think it.
My understanding of the exchange between you and Pete was that Pete was
saying that declaring that Jews have outlived their usefulness is
antisemitic. I think this is indeed antisemitic. You don't?
[Franky inserts: see above. For anti-Semitism I will post later]]
Peter Staudenmaier
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 01:37:51 -0000
From: "eurythmy" (eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
2006-11-30
Dear Pete, Dear Peter, and all,
Pete and Peter thanks for your answer on the first point. It is helpful to
narrow questions down. In that sense your remarks that Steiner did not
prepare the road to Nazism are welcome. Any other to join in?
Dear Pete, you choose to answer only one side of the question on Steiner and
Goethe.
Peter you said: 'No, my claim is definitely not that Steiner's pre-1900 and
post-1900 works have nothing in common. My claim is that there is nothing
specifically anthroposophical or esoteric about the pre-1900 works'.
Franky: Dear Peter, first what do these two phases have in common? Could
there be a metamorphoses?
Kind Regards,
Franky
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pete Karaiskos" (pkcompany netzero.net)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 8:06 PM
Subject: RE: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
) eurythmy wrote:
)) 2006-11-29
)) Dear Peter, Dear Jean-Marc, and all,
))) Do I hear a bell?
)) Is it time to change gear? And keep being positive and uplifting?
)) )) On the whole debate to see if Steiner was a revisionist of his own
)) )) statements.
)) )) 1-Is Steiner disloyal to his own Philosophy and to Goethe, and does he
)) )) deviously re-invents the meaning of his previous work in the light of
)) )) is Anthroposophical work.? Is Steiner a devious chameleon who
)) )) prepared Nazism, genocide, and all the ills of sectarian cults?
))
)) 2-Does Steiner work follows a metamorphosis, as Goethe sees a law of
)) metamorphosis in the plant development from leaves, to sepal etc.
))
)) Kind Regards,
)) Franky
))
)
) Why is it so hard to believe or accept that he changed his mind - or
) expanded his "knowledge"? And when did the "prepared Nazism" part enter
) this? Did I miss something? Did someone besides you, Franky, state
) that Steiner prepared Nazism?
)
) Pete
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 01:14:16 -0000
From: "eurythmy" (eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Krishnamurti
2006-11-30
Dear Peter,
Peter, I appreciate you swift answer. However in case my post was too long I will only refer you to my first sentence:
My debate with Pete was about that about a point of logic, NOT the validity of a statement or its ethical value.
Consequently my post is in Re:To agree and aggress, please do not digress on this thread
Kind Regards,
Franky
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 4:01 PM
Subject: Re: Krishnamurti
)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 21:36:42 -0000
From: "eurythmy" (eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk)
Subject: Re: "How is this not religious?"
2006-11-30
Dear Pete, and all,
Thank you for one anecdotal evidence.
To keep with the thread of religion.
You may know of the bull pagan ritual where a man does a summersault over
the back of a bull.
When with their straight aces, the British teach children the nursery rhyme
of 'The cow jump over the moon' is it a reference to a pagan cult or is it
an attack on materialist science?
There are tons of those Mother Goose around.
Your take on religion with the lover and fiddle. Was it 'ritual' killing
followed by a 'cult' of the dead?
Kind Regards,
Franky.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pete Karaiskos" (pkcompany netzero.net)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 7:14 PM
Subject: RE: "How is this not religious?"
baandje wrote:
)
) What a delightful children's song - we must all die. That's one
) sensitive and discerning teacher. And mentioning God is entirely
) religious, I agree. I removed the word "God" from my class morning verse
)
) and substituted "creator spirit". Now I'd do away with the Steiner verse
)
) altogether and have the kids recite Shelley, Byron and whoever.
Here's one a teacher at Highland Hall had taught 10 year olds to sing:
It was early one morning in the month of May
Oh the wind and the rain
Two lovers went walking on a hot summer's day
A crying the dreadful wind and rain
He said to the lady "won't you marry me"
Oh the wind and the rain
"And my little wife you'll always be"
A crying the dreadful wind and rain
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 02:50:39 +0000
From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: "How is this not religious?"
Sorry, perhaps I was not clear. By "the Waldorf teachers there" I did
not mean writing in that thread. I meant at this mother's school.
(Deborah and Rhonwyn are not Waldorf teachers.)
Still I'm not convinced you read the thread - the original poster
describes in one of the first few posts that all the other teachers at
the school circled the wagons and told her the song was appropriate for
kindergarten. No one else had any problem at all with it - they
completely stone walled her.
Diana
baandje wrote:
)
) Diana Winters wrote:
) )
) ) Apparently the Waldorf teachers there disagree with you.
)
) ? You'll have to quote them, because that's not what I read:
)
) Deborah: “This song is not waldorf and should not be in a waldorf
) kindergarten. Talk about death is not appropriate for kindergarteners,
) not even in the context of moving on to first grade. Talk about Jesus is
)
) not part of the waldorf kindergarten curriculum and is inappropriate.”
)
) Rhonwyn: “I agree Deborah.”
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 02:54:43 +0000
From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: "How is this not religious?"
Cute. But why not come right out with it, Franky. Your reply is very
clever but I'd like to hear you say whether you think this is a good
song to sing with 3- to 6-year-olds.
Baandje's form of denial "It's not a Waldorf song" is at least an
acknowledgment that something is wrong with singing this with
kindergarteners.
Diana
eurythmy wrote:
)Dear Diana, Dear Val,and all,
)And this one for advocating animal cruelty.
)Three blind mice...see how they run, (then there is a knife!!!!!)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 02:07:04 -0000
From: "eurythmy" (eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
2006-11-30
Dear Peter, Dear Diana and all,
.
Peter wrote: "Very much so. It is entirely possible that the later Steiner
genuinely believed that his earlier works were perfectly compatible with
his later works. This simply has nothing to do with whether the belief
itself was accurate."
'It is entirely possible that the later Steiner genuinely believed that his
earlier works were perfectly compatible with his later works'
Do you have any text which tend to show that he was rather genuine, or
rather disingenuous? What text could clarify your words:' it is entirely
possible'?
Is that belief of continuity accurate?
Peter wrote: "No, my claim is definitely not that Steiner's pre-1900 and
post-1900 works have nothing in common."
We seem to be locked in this debate.
Some of us tend to look at what is not common, and rarely show what is
common. Could they share the common part.
For the others vice versa?
Kind Regards.
Franky
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 03:00:39 +0000
From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: "How is this not religious?"
baandje wrote:
)I went over that thread again. Only one post out of the 40 or so )that
)in any way can be taken as supporting the song, and even then )the short
)comment is actually supporting “spiritual science” in )Waldorf. Everyone
)else talks about how creepy and inappropriate the )song is, and how it
)doesn’t belong in a kindergarten, and how this )sort of stuff is hardly
)an aberration in Waldorf schools.
Presumably you mean to say that it *is* an aberration, but whatever.
Yes, baandje - all or most of those moms agreed that the song was not
appropriate. Waldorf parents tend to be attentive, sensitive parents and
could see this is wrong from a mile away, and would do a double take if
their preschool or kindergarten-age kid came home from school singing
"We all must die, all except Susie . . ." and on questioning revealed
that the *teacher* had taught them this song!
The TEACHERS AT THE SCHOOL did not see anything wrong with it, however.
Did you miss the fact that this is a family who left the school? Not
entirely or specifically over that incident, but if you actually read
the thread you'd see that this family had seen quite an accumulation of
this sort of thing before finally having enough.
)Seems like a very positive, constructive and insightful discussion
))regarding some of the problems with Waldorf education.
On the part of some of the *parents* in the thread, yeah. Too bad the
schools aren't listening. Too bad the schools stonewall someone like
her, rather than responding. And too bad Deborah and Linda and Rhonwyn
are over there singing la-la-la
stuff-like-this-never-happens-how-very-strange.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 03:02:19 +0000
From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: "How is this not religious?"
Oh, let's see. That one must be archetypes? Or it's some clever new way
to "preserve childhood."
Pete Karaiskos wrote:
)Then he knocked her down and he kicked her around
)Oh the wind and the rain
)Then he knocked her down and he kicked her around
)A crying the dreadful wind and rain
)He hit her in the head with a battering ram
)Oh the wind and the rain
)He hit her in the head with a battering ram
)A crying the dreadful wind and rain
)He threw her in the river to drown
)Oh the wind and the rain
)He threw her in the river to drown
)A crying the dreadful wind and rain
)He watched her as she floated down
)Oh the wind and the rain
)He watched her as she floated down
)A crying the dreadful wind and rain
)She floated on down to the miller's millstream
)Oh the wind and the rain
)He watched her as she floated down
)A crying the dreadful wind and rain
)The miller fished her out with a long fishing pole
)Oh the wind and the rain
)The miller fished her out with a long fishing pole
)A crying the dreadful wind and rain
)He made fiddle pegs of her long finger bones
)Oh the wind and the rain
)He made fiddle pegs of her long finger bones
)A crying the dreadful wind and rain
)He made a fiddle bow of her long curly hair
)Oh the wind and the rain
)He made a fiddle bow of her long curly hair
)A crying the dreadful wind and rain
)The only tune that fiddle would play was
)Oh the wind and the rain
)The only tune that fiddle would play was
)A crying the dreadful wind and rain
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 03:09:49 +0000
From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: "How is this not religious?"
eurythmy wrote:
)When with their straight aces, the British teach children the )nursery
)rhyme of 'The cow jump over the moon' is it a reference to a )pagan cult
)or is it an attack on materialist science?
Who cares? The cow jumping over the moon is not a frightening or morbid
image, it's merely whimsical, and it's fine for young children.
Are you saying that's somehow similar to telling children stories of
abuse, murder and dismemberment, or lining them up to chant "We all must
die . . . except for . . . " and singling out those who must die and
those who must not?
The mother writing in the Mothering thread apparently concluded that the
teacher meant to convey that those who accepted Jesus would not die,
because there was some general Jesus-talk in the classroom, too. The
Deborah/Linda/Rhonwyn trio immediately asserted that talk of Jesus was
not normal and "not Waldorf" as baandje says, too. I personally suspect
it wasn't intended to convey that it was important to accept Jesus. I
would suspect - cover your ears, baandje - it must have an "occult," or
"esoteric" if you prefer, significance, and the intended symbolism is
probably just one more example of something the teacher is reluctant to
share with parents who "wouldn't understand."
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 03:18:41 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
eurythmy wrote:
)
) 2006-11-30
)
) Dear Pete, Dear Peter, and all,
)
)
)
) Pete and Peter thanks for your answer on the first point. It is helpful
) to
) narrow questions down. In that sense your remarks that Steiner did not
) prepare the road to Nazism are welcome. Any other to join in?
)
Just to be clear here, I did not make any remarks that said Steiner did
not prepare the road to Nazism. As far as I know, the subject has not
come up in our conversations.
) Dear Pete, you choose to answer only one side of the question on Steiner
) and
) Goethe.
I'm sorry, I didn't understand that the question was directed at me.
I've already said I don't have enough familiarity of PoF to contribute
substantively to the discussion. It would appear, however, that the
phrasing of your question "disloyal to his own Philosophy" and
"deviously re-invents" is looking for a statement along those lines. I
don't think I have given one. Personally, and again, my knowledge of
PoF is lacking, I think he wrote PoF, and later developed a philosophy
that wasn't in opposition to the beliefs he held when he wrote PoF. His
philosophy and beliefs changed, that is, expanded beyond what he wrote
in PoF. I don't think it was disloyal to move beyond what he once
thought. I also don't think he deviously re-invented the meaning of his
previous work. I think connecting things was something Steiner liked to
do - almost obsessively, and it seems quite natural and in character
that he tried to connect his previous work to Anthroposophy later in
life. I guess you could call in metamorphasis, but then you have to
convince me that a caterpillar and a moth represent the same thing -
from the point of view of utility. We know there is a connection
between the two, but are they not different things?
Pete
) Peter you said: 'No, my claim is definitely not that Steiner's pre-1900
) and
) post-1900 works have nothing in common. My claim is that there is
) nothing
) specifically anthroposophical or esoteric about the pre-1900 works'.
)
) Franky: Dear Peter, first what do these two phases have in common? Could
)
) there be a metamorphoses?
)
)
)
) Kind Regards,
)
) Franky
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) ----- Original Message -----
)
) From: "Pete Karaiskos" (pkcompany netzero.net)
)
) To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
)
) Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 8:06 PM
)
) Subject: RE: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
)
)
)
) ) eurythmy wrote:
) )) 2006-11-29
) )) Dear Peter, Dear Jean-Marc, and all,
) ))) Do I hear a bell?
) )) Is it time to change gear? And keep being positive and uplifting?
) )) )) On the whole debate to see if Steiner was a revisionist of his own
) )) )) statements.
) )) )) 1-Is Steiner disloyal to his own Philosophy and to Goethe, and does he
) )) )) deviously re-invents the meaning of his previous work in the light of
) )) )) is Anthroposophical work.? Is Steiner a devious chameleon who
) )) )) prepared Nazism, genocide, and all the ills of sectarian cults?
) ))
) )) 2-Does Steiner work follows a metamorphosis, as Goethe sees a law of
) )) metamorphosis in the plant development from leaves, to sepal etc.
) ))
) )) Kind Regards,
) )) Franky
) ))
) )
) ) Why is it so hard to believe or accept that he changed his mind - or
) ) expanded his "knowledge"? And when did the "prepared Nazism" part enter
) ) this? Did I miss something? Did someone besides you, Franky, state
) ) that Steiner prepared Nazism?
) )
) ) Pete
) )
) )
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 19:20:38 -0800
From: Walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
Peter wrote: "Very much so. It is entirely possible that the later Steiner
) genuinely believed that his earlier works were perfectly compatible with
) his later works. This simply has nothing to do with whether the belief
) itself was accurate."
Franky replied:
) Do you have any text which tend to show that he was rather genuine, or
) rather disingenuous? What text could clarify your words:' it is entirely
) possible'?
Good Grief. Peter is *agreeing* with you, Franky. If you believe Steiner
genuinely believed his earlier works were compatible with his later works,
Peter says "it is entirely possible." As for "text" and "clarify" you have
yet to provide any text that will clarify Steiner's
esoteric/occult/Anthroposophic beliefs before the turn of the century. If
*you* believe Steiner was secretly hiding his true soon-to-be-Anthro beliefs
between the lines in PoF, you will need to provide some evidence. Wishful
thinking does not work in the real world. "Oh - he was thinking about
thinking . . . " And that's Anthroposophy?! Why not think in terms of
Steiner-the-philosopher (pre-1900) becoming Steiner-the-Occultist
(post-1900)?
) We seem to be locked in this debate.
I have no idea why you insist on debating without using a shred of practical
evidence. It makes no sense. Why is this such an important point?
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 03:24:01 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: "How is this not religious?"
eurythmy wrote:
)
) 2006-11-30
)
) Dear Pete, and all,
)
)
)
) Thank you for one anecdotal evidence.
)
)
)
) To keep with the thread of religion.
)
) You may know of the bull pagan ritual where a man does a summersault
) over
) the back of a bull.
)
) When with their straight aces, the British teach children the nursery
) rhyme
) of 'The cow jump over the moon' is it a reference to a pagan cult or is
) it
) an attack on materialist science?
Cows jumping over the moon, dishes and spoons running off together,
little dogs laughing... these are nice images for young children.
Bashing in a woman's head, drowning her, dismembering her and using
parts of her body to make musical instruments... well, I'm thinking
there is NOTHING of value there that justifies such nonsense being sung
to children.
)
) There are tons of those Mother Goose around.
This isn't Mother Goose.
)
) Your take on religion with the lover and fiddle. Was it 'ritual' killing
)
) followed by a 'cult' of the dead?
)
It was not for the ears of 10 year olds, who only receive the images,
not the religious significance.
Pete
)
)
)
)
) ----- Original Message -----
)
) From: "Pete Karaiskos" (pkcompany netzero.net)
)
) To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
)
) Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 7:14 PM
)
) Subject: RE: "How is this not religious?"
)
)
)
)
)
) baandje wrote:
) )
) ) What a delightful children's song - we must all die. That's one
) ) sensitive and discerning teacher. And mentioning God is entirely
) ) religious, I agree. I removed the word "God" from my class morning verse
) )
) ) and substituted "creator spirit". Now I'd do away with the Steiner verse
) )
) ) altogether and have the kids recite Shelley, Byron and whoever.
)
) Here's one a teacher at Highland Hall had taught 10 year olds to sing:
)
) It was early one morning in the month of May
) Oh the wind and the rain
) Two lovers went walking on a hot summer's day
) A crying the dreadful wind and rain
)
) He said to the lady "won't you marry me"
) Oh the wind and the rain
) "And my little wife you'll always be"
) A crying the dreadful wind and rain
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 23:30:34 -0800
From: Walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Anthro-inspired Reading Problems?
I noticed someone quoting me over at the Anthroposophy Tomorrow list:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/29789
and I - again - find it odd that so many Anthro-inspired people have a
problem reading *what is actually written.* Where does this affliction come
from?
Apologies for cross-posting but this is interesting and as the AT folks
obviously read this list, perhaps they will see their mistake(s) and learn
something. Perhaps. Here:
) Walden:
) "One more time . . . what do YOU think of spiritually justified
) genocide and anti-Semitism?"
) Uncle Taz commenteth:
) The charge of anti-Semitism isn't juicy enough for the Hole Dwellers.
) Now they're accusing Steiner and the Anthroposophical Movement of mass
) murder.
JoAnn replies:
"I'm sorry, and this surprises you because???
Really, these folks are so caught up in their fight club mentality that they
have
reached the point where there is no accusation too inflamatory to be hurled,
no
line
they will not cross. Like Judy Miller (formerly of the NY Times), they must
be
"proved fucking right" even when preponderance of the evidence says
otherwise.
Musing our world is what we will it to be..."
Now, as has been stated here before, "justifying" an action does not mean
"instigating" that action. This is a no brainer but here we have at least 2
Anthro-inspired people not able to understand the distinction. For the
record, I do not believe that Steiner and the Anthroposophical Movement have
EVER instigated or participated in "mass murder."
Uncle Taz and JoAnn, please learn to read *what is written* before writing
such stupid things about people.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 11:22:19 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: "How is this not religious?"
Diana Winters wrote:
)
) Sorry, perhaps I was not clear. By "the Waldorf teachers there" I did
) not mean writing in that thread. I meant at this mother's school.
) (Deborah and Rhonwyn are not Waldorf teachers.)
)
) Still I'm not convinced you read the thread - the original poster
) describes in one of the first few posts that all the other teachers at
) the school circled the wagons and told her the song was appropriate for
) kindergarten. No one else had any problem at all with it - they
) completely stone walled her.
Okay, got it. So colleagues defended the kindergarten teacher come hell
or high water... that's a pretty typical scenario in some schools and
internet forums ;)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 11:29:54 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: "How is this not religious?"
Diana Winters wrote:
)
) Cute. But why not come right out with it, Franky. Your reply is very
) clever but I'd like to hear you say whether you think this is a good
) song to sing with 3- to 6-year-olds.
)
) Baandje's form of denial "It's not a Waldorf song" is at least an
) acknowledgment that something is wrong with singing this with
) kindergarteners.
??? The song is inappropriate. What else would you have me say or agree
with? I don’t get what you're going on about here. In your original
post, your issue was with the “patronizing, infantilizing, smug replies
they receive from the dedicated defenders of the faith.” (Linda, etc.) I
pointed out that everyone on the thread was in agreement that that song
was completely wrong for a Waldorf class of young children. Is that your
issue with my reply?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 11:36:25 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: "How is this not religious?"
Diana Winters wrote:
)
)
) baandje wrote:
)
) )Seems like a very positive, constructive and insightful discussion
) ))regarding some of the problems with Waldorf education.
)
) On the part of some of the *parents* in the thread, yeah. Too bad the
) schools aren't listening. Too bad the schools stonewall someone like
) her, rather than responding. And too bad Deborah and Linda and Rhonwyn
) are over there singing la-la-la
) stuff-like-this-never-happens-how-very-strange.
I don’t know… People identifying and thoughtfully discussing issues in
Waldorf schools, and having a positive, constructive dialogue on the
subject where everyone’s views are appreciated and respected… Sounds
like progress to me.
Parents CAN have a Waldorf experience where a lot of this goofy stuff
doesn’t ever happen in their school. You realize that, right?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 11:43:22 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: "How is this not religious?"
Diana Winters wrote:
)
) The mother writing in the Mothering thread apparently concluded that the
)
) teacher meant to convey that those who accepted Jesus would not die,
) because there was some general Jesus-talk in the classroom, too. The
) Deborah/Linda/Rhonwyn trio immediately asserted that talk of Jesus was
) not normal and "not Waldorf" as baandje says, too. I personally suspect
) it wasn't intended to convey that it was important to accept Jesus. I
) would suspect - cover your ears, baandje - it must have an "occult," or
) "esoteric" if you prefer, significance, and the intended symbolism is
) probably just one more example of something the teacher is reluctant to
) share with parents who "wouldn't understand."
Waldorf teachers don’t talk about Jesus. You seem to be wanting to
create an issue over something that doesn’t happen in Waldorf
classrooms. There will always be the odd kooky teacher in some school
somewhere who does something stupid and un-Waldorf. The
Deborah/Linda/Rhonwyn trio are entirely correct here.
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 2366
-- Topica Digest --
Re: "How is this not religious?"
By eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk
Re: "How is this not religious?"
By eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk
Re: Goetheanism (Was RE: The Philosophy of Freedom ~ Rudolf Steiner)
By charlie morrison5.fsnet.co.uk
RE: "How is this not religious?"
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: "How is this not religious?"
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
Re: "How is this not religious?"
By eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk
RE: "How is this not religious?"
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
Re: "How is this not religious?"
By eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk
RE: "How is this not religious?"
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
By eltrigal78 yahoo.com
RE: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
By eltrigal78 yahoo.com
RE: "How is this not religious?"
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: "How is this not religious?"
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
By pkcompany netzero.net
Re: Goetheanism (Was RE: The Philosophy of Freedom ~ Rudolf Steiner)
By eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk
Re: "How is this not religious?"
By flower_in_the_moonlight yahoo.com
RE: "How is this not religious?"
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: "How is this not religious?"
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: "How is this not religious?"
By pkcompany netzero.net
Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Goetheanism (Was RE: The Philosophy of Freedom ~ Rudolf Steiner)
By eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk
Re: "How is this not religious?"
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
By eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk
Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
By eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk
RE: Goetheanism (Was RE: The Philosophy of Freedom ~ Rudolf Steiner)
By pkcompany netzero.net
Re: "How is this not religious?"
By eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk
Re: Goetheanism (Was RE: The Philosophy of Freedom ~ Rudolf Steiner)
By eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk
Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
By jmnguyen wanadoo.fr
RE: "How is this not religious?"
By pkcompany netzero.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 09:48:29 -0000
From: "eurythmy" (eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk)
Subject: Re: "How is this not religious?"
2006-11-30
Dear Baandje, and all,
Baandje wrote,
Okay... Now what about the words 'God's children' in a kindergarten song, or
5 year-olds singing 'We're going to die'? Any thoughts on that?
Franky:
Are you challenging me?
There are many similar songs in many cultures which use or not the word 'die'.
In USA you may have heard the English one: 'Ring a Round of Roses.. They al
fall down' and the children fall down - they all crouch. They are all young
children songs: under school age. Children cannot get tired of them.
Interpretations I met:
Joy of dancing and joy of the contrast. In all cases the is an action in a
round, then every one stop the dance.
There is usually the picture of a stone, a wall, a mineral element when the
immobility comes in. Fall down as a stone falls down under the action of
gravity.
Falling teeth?
Life lesson on fall?
Birth song: before birth you move in the womb, or for some in the spiritual
world, then you are immobile in a cot?
So death to that moving life, and birth to an earthly life of gravity?
So I will ask my self these questions seeing some one who introduces the
song to children, in what ever situation: home etc.
Have you experience it in a life situation where the children delight in it
AND are graceful as they move and stop?
Have you only read it in a book, or was it given to you in a curriculum
without any explanations?
Do you have imagination and creativity? Do you try to be 'good' and have
feelings of self satisfaction (sentimentalist)?
Can you respect the mobility of the dance and not have a fixed mind that
takes things and words literally?
Can you observe how the children move it?
Have you some tact?
Then I will observe what happened before and what happens after. Is there
life in the sequence or is it abstract?
Then I will make my mind.
If I found the act of dancing that type of song, I will consider which other
version from other cultures than the dominant one can be introduce as well -
or instead. The movement of the children as well as the type of sequence
will play a part in my choice. I might suggest the teacher/parent look at
the possibility to do something else before or after. I will also ask myself
and the other adult what are suitable words, which will not be
misinterpreted by -or offend - the culture pf the place.
Paramount to all: is the adult tactful? Is the adult able to observe,
recollect, and live room for appreciation, insight, innovation?
I was not present in the particular instance, and I dislike blanket
statements.
I will pursue in my next post.
Kind Regards,
Franky
----- Original Message -----
From: "baandje" (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 6:12 PM
Subject: RE: "How is this not religious?"
eurythmy wrote:
)
) Dear Diana, Dear Val,and all,
)
) And this one for advocating animal cruelty.
) Three blind mice...see how they run, (then there is a knife!!!!!)
) Even with clairvoyant rats it would not be fair to use it.
)
) or ba, ba, black sheep....
) should; one sing: ba, ba anthrosheep.....
) Are Dan, Pete, Peter,and Walden getting together to have a barbershop
) quartet on that one?
Okay... Now what about the words 'God's children' in a kindergarten
song, or 5 year-olds singing 'We're going to die'? Any thoughts on that?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 11:52:56 -0000
From: "eurythmy" (eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk)
Subject: Re: "How is this not religious?"
2006-12-01
Dear all,
It seems that the case is closed at that school. Is there you any hope to
reopen the case?
The crux of the matter, the beef in the sandwich, is the isolation of the
example produced for examination. One use of nursery song has been pointed
out. Then another example for 10 years.
Are the writers in the waldorf critics list interested in critical opinions
with no concerns about veracity? See foot note below.
Or do they want to test the veracity of facts and then build an informed
opinion, without pre-empting that it would be critical or not?
"Isolated facts breed superstition and magic not science." P. J. Smith
I am surprised how few isolated facts are considered. It is food for debate
or gossip, may be for thought, in any case it is useless for any academic,
research, intellect or ethical purposes.
Before going into any ethical judgment about a school system it is necessary
to collect a corpus.
Kind Regards,
Franky
Foot note:
PLANS website "PLANS tries to make available all the critical opinions about
Waldorf that we can find. The authors are responsible for the contents of
the following articles. PLANS does not necessarily agree with or vouch for
the veracity of everything posted in this section."
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 11:45:33 -0000
From: "Charlie Morrison" (charlie morrison5.fsnet.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Goetheanism (Was RE: The Philosophy of Freedom ~ Rudolf Steiner)
Hi Peter,
In reply to one of Keith's posts you said:
...it would make sense for those who think PoF was a radical departure from the philosophical canon of late 19th
century Germany to familiarize themselves with at least a few of the standard works from that time and place. I also think the same advice is in order for those who believe that a focus on thinking itself is a distinguishing mark of anthroposophical approaches to knowledge; of the many ways to dispel this erroneous impression, one of the easiest may be to simply read what other philosophers have had to say on the topic. Since thinking has been among the primary themes of a huge variety of philosophical traditions the world over for thousands of years now,..
Charlie M:
Can you tell us who thinks PoF was a radical departure from the philosophical canon of late 19th century Germany? I, for one, don't see why the P of F can't be part of 19th century German philosophy and be anthroposophical.
And who are those who believe that a focus on thinking itself is a distinguishing mark of anthroposophical approaches to knowledge? Certainly not me. Descarte among others (I believe you mentioned a few) focused on thinking.
You say there are many ways to dispel this erroneous impression. What's the point if nobody holds this impression. Wouldn't it be better to argue against the points we are actually making instead of against positions that you yourself have made up.
Slainte,
Charlie.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 12:37:28 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: "How is this not religious?"
Pete Karaiskos wrote:
)
) Cows jumping over the moon, dishes and spoons running off together,
) little dogs laughing... these are nice images for young children.
) Bashing in a woman's head, drowning her, dismembering her and using
) parts of her body to make musical instruments... well, I'm thinking
) there is NOTHING of value there that justifies such nonsense being sung
) to children.
Some teachers will choose poems based on it’s so-called esoteric and
pedogogical value, regardless of how ugly the imagery. For me, if it
wasn’t beautiful, it wasn’t appropriate. Beautiful words are spiritual,
and healing and pedagogically appropriate.
A lot of Anthroposophists on the other hand believe the beauty and only
real spiritual value of a thing depends entirely on how Anthroposophical
it is, period. That’s obviously what happened here. The teacher chose
“ugly” over “beautiful” because she felt it was “spiritually and
pedagogically appropriate”. One has to understand that not all Waldorf
teachers are people who should actually be in a classroom teaching
children. Educating and working with adults maybe, but not children.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 12:52:06 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: "How is this not religious?"
eurythmy wrote:
)
) 2006-11-30
)
) Dear Baandje, and all,
)
)
)
) Baandje wrote,
)
) Okay... Now what about the words 'God's children' in a kindergarten
) song, or
) 5 year-olds singing 'We're going to die'? Any thoughts on that?
)
) Franky:
)
) Are you challenging me?
)
) So I will ask my self these questions seeing some one who introduces the
)
) song to children, in what ever situation: home etc.
)
) Have you experience it in a life situation where the children delight in
) it
) AND are graceful as they move and stop?
)
) Have you only read it in a book, or was it given to you in a curriculum
) without any explanations?
)
) Do you have imagination and creativity? Do you try to be 'good' and have
)
) feelings of self satisfaction (sentimentalist)?
)
) Can you respect the mobility of the dance and not have a fixed mind that
)
) takes things and words literally?
)
) Can you observe how the children move it?
)
) Have you some tact?
)
)
)
) Then I will observe what happened before and what happens after. Is
) there
) life in the sequence or is it abstract?
)
)
)
) Then I will make my mind.
I hear what you’re saying, and at one time I was just as thoughtful and
tactful when it came to defending my Anthroposophical “spiritual”
perspective on life, and human actions and interactions.
A decade removed from it, I now like to go directly to the heart of
issues. My question to you is do you think it’s okay to sing songs about
kids dying, in kindergarten. I gather from your response you’re saying
it is okay under some circumstances. Me, I completely disagree with
that. I also asked if you if it’s okay to sing a song where children are
describing themselves as “God’s children”. My answer to that would be,
in Sunday School only, not in a public school.
There’s a huge difference between “challenging you”, and asking you a
straight question, hoping for a straight answer.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 12:14:06 -0000
From: "eurythmy" (eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk)
Subject: Re: "How is this not religious?"
Water Water Wallflower
1.
Water, water wallflower, growing up so high,
We are all maidens, we must all die.
Except ----, she's the youngest of them all;
She can dance, she can sing,
And she can dance the wedding ring [or "Hieland fling"]
Fie! fie! fie for shame!
Turn your back to the wall again.
2.
Water, water, wallflowers,
Growing up so high:
We are all young maidens,
And we shall all die
--Excepting Maggie Stuart,
She's the youngest of us all:
She can dance, and she can sing,
And she can knock us all!
Fie! fie! for shame again!
She'll turn her back to the wall again.
3.
Water, water, wall-flowers,
Growing up so high,
We are all ladies,
And we must all die.
But the youngest of us all,
Turn their faces to the wall.
[So on, to the oldest.]
Water, water, wall-flowers,
Growing up so high,
We are all ladies,
And we must all die.
But the oldest of us all,
Turn their faces to the wall.
[So on, to the youngest.]
4.
Water, water wallflower, growing up so high,
We are all maidens, and we must all die,
Excepting ----, the youngest of us all,
She can dance and she can sing, and she can knock us all
down.
Fie, fie, fie, for shame,
Turn your back to the wall again.
5.
Water, water wallflowers, growing up so high,
We are all maidens, we must all die,
Except Maggie Brown, she's the youngest of us all,
She can dance, and she can sing, and hold the candle.
(Or, While we go through the ring.)
Fie, fie, fie, for shame,
Turn your back to the wall again.
6.
Water, water, welsey,
Soaring up so high,
We are all maidens,
But we must all die,
Especially Annie Anderson,
She's the fairest flower,
She shall dance, she shall sing,
In a lady's bower.
Turn your back to the well again.
7.
Water, water, well-flower,
Growing up so high;
We are all maidens,
And we must all die;
Excepting Mary Wilson,
For she's the fairest flower;
She can dance, and she can sing,
And she can lick the sugar.
Fie, fie, fie, fie, fie, fie, shame!
Turn your back to the wall again.
________________________________________________________
(1) Gomme II.335, no. xx, from Galloway; other versions:
p. 336, no. xxv [Cullen & Nairn, evidently]: differ is
"She must kick,/ And she must fling,/ And she must turn
the sofa". no. xxvi (p.337, Cullen & Nairn) has "She can
hop, and she can skip,/ She can turn the sofa"; xxvii
(Aberdeen), "She can skip, she can dance,/ She can ding
us all o'er". no. xxviii (Nairn) has "Green, green
grovers, growing up so high,/ We are all maidens,/ And
we must all die;/ Except ----, the youngest of us all,/
She can dance, she can sing,/ She can dance the Hieland
fling;/ Fie! fie! fie, for shame!/ Turn your back to us
again." Number xxix (from Dyke): "Water, water, well
stones,/ Growing up so high,/ We are all maidens,/ And
we must all die./ Except ----,/ She's the youngest of us
all,/ She can dance, she can sing,/ She can dance the
`Hielan' Fling,'/ Oh fie, fie, for shame,/ Turn your
back to us again." Gomme notes "Another version from
Forfarshire gives `Green, green grivers,' and `Pull the
cradle string' for `Dance the Hielan' Fling,' and one
from Nairn is `Tu
connected with death (of the betrothed of the youngest
maiden?), which accounts for the turning the face to the
wall. The shame may derive from the enforced spinsterhood of
the bereaved maiden.
(2) Nicholson Golspie (1897), 174 (tune, 205); a ring
game: "you skip round hand in hand to air of rhyme". At
mention of the girl's name, she has to turn her back to
the wall.
(3) Greig FSNE clii.2.
(4) Montgomerie SNR (1946), 64 (no. 68), from Ford CR 75
(who has "wildflower" in line 1); Ford notes:
Forming a ring, all join hands and dance, or move
slowly round, singing [the first part above]. Here
all clap hands, with the exception of the one named,
who stands looking abashed, while the others sing
[the second part]. At the command, she who has been
named turns, so that she faces outwards now, with her
back to the centre of the ring; though she still
clasps hands with those on either side, and continues
in the movement, singing with the others. When all
in like manner have been chapped out, and are facing
the open, the game is finished.
This text also in MacColl, Streets of Song, no. 21; "Hide-
and-go-seek game, learned in Glasgow as a child." Cf.
also "Up and down the street". Kerr Guild of Play, 7
(no. 8), with music ("Water, water Wallfowers"), with var.
"children" in line 3.
(5) Maclagan GDA (1901), 84, with music, from Argyll.
"The one named turns about, and the process is continued
with the others."
(6) Maclagan, 86. Referring to "Sweet Mary", "Round
Apples", etc., and his version no. (5) above, he says:
"All these are simply circular dances of a primitive
sort, accompanied by the voice, and none of them seem to
indicate any connection with any special ceremony. [An
opinion with which Lady Gomme might not agree.] But in
Perthshire, about the middle of this century [i.e. c.
1850], the following rhyme, part of which, at any rate,
appears in one of those given above, was habitually sung
when several girls reached the well to draw water at the
same time. They formed a ring, and, after the first had
drawn the water, sang [the above]. This the collector
remembers quite well from childhood, and though it is in
English, all the children who sang it spoke Gaelic
habitually." The Opies (Singing Game, 1985, 246)
connect this with former well-worship.
(7) Rymour Club Misc. I (1906-11), 70, from Edinburgh;
with tune. Ritchie Golden City (1965), 59 [and music,
p. 177], is close, with 6 For she's the fondest lover,
etc. The leader stands with her back to the wall, and
turns when told. The others scatter or hide while she
counts an agreed number.
Fraser (1975) has a Ballater version with "She can hop and
she can skip/ And she can turn her mangle-stick", whereas in
Burghead: "She acn dance and she can sing,/ And she can do
the Highland Fling,/ Fly, fly, fly for shame,/ Turn your back
and look again!"
See also Willa Muir Living With Ballads (1965), 19, with
tune, from N.-E. Scotland, c. 1901;
second part runs "All except (So-and so)./ She is young and
she is pretty,/ She is the girl of the golden city," which is
a borrowing from "The Wind, the Wind," q.v. Opies (1985),
244 ff., with tune from Worcs. The connection of the opening
words with the old Scots lament, as in the song "Waly waly up
the bank", is rather tenuous; cf. the Somerset version in
Gomme & Sharp V (1912), 4, "Wallfowers", beginning "Wally,
wally, wally flow'r."
A fragmentary version in Those Dusty Bluebells (1965), 24
[Wallflowers, wallflowers, etc.].
MS
APR99
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 13:24:21 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: "How is this not religious?"
Walden wrote:
)
) baandje wrote:
) ) Now I'd do away with the Steiner verse altogether and have the kids
) ) recite
) ) Shelley, Byron and whoever.
)
) Good idea. Do you think most Waldorf schools would have any problems
) with
) this idea? Would you feel free to make this change and would it happen?
IMO? Not a decision for other teachers to make. That would be a decision
for myself, the parents of the class, and perhaps even the students,
depending on their age.
And the change it would make is the reciting of poetry would bring LIFE
to the activity, and the kids would be LEARNING something as well.
The last Waldorf school I worked at (in Cali, where I had taken over a
grade seven class), the kids all called the teachers by their first
names. I thought that was kind of cool, but I actually felt
uncomfortable with it seeing I’d always been “Mr. Baandje”. So in my
first parent meeting a week into the school year, I explained to
everyone how I felt, and asked the parents what they thought of all of
that. Surprisingly, almost every parent stated they didn’t really like
it that the kids called teachers by their first names, and that it was
something that had evolved over a past several years. So we all agreed
that I would be Mr. Baandje to their kids. The next day I sat down with
the class, and explained what the parents and I had talked about and
decided. And they were perfectly okay with it.
Although within a couple of months they all had cute little nicknames
for me, and nobody called my Mr. Baandje. But that’s called love and
respect, so it’s okay.
THAT’S my idea of Waldorf teaching and “spiritual” community
development.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 12:32:04 -0000
From: "eurythmy" (eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk)
Subject: Re: "How is this not religious?"
2006-12-01
Dear all,
)From the same thread in mothering.com
LindaCl:
"Does Waldorf uses red and green for decoration AT CHRISTMASS TIME?
Is this a fact worth adding to the corpus of facts for our discussion?
Kind Regards,
Franky
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 13:42:58 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: "How is this not religious?"
We must die… For shame… Knocking us down…
Sorry, the imagery in this song is so wrong for young children. I’m not
sure I’d even use it for older kids. And my question is this: Why the
NEGATIVE imagery? Do you not see how much in Anthroposophy is founded on
this negative view of life and life realities? In so many ways,
Anthroposophy is hell and damnation bible thumping, only of the esoteric
variety.
On chooses songs song that speak, not the death of childhood, but of the
new birth into the next beautiful stage of life…
---
You must wake and call me early, call me early, mother dear;
To-morrow ’ill be the happiest time of all the glad New-year;
Of all the glad New-year, mother, the maddest merriest day,
For I’m to be Queen o’ the May, mother, I’m to be Queen o’ the May.
All the valley, mother, ’ill be fresh and green and still,
And the cowslip and the crowfoot are over all the hill,
And the rivulet in the flowery dale ’ill merrily glance and play,
For I’m to be Queen o’ the May, mother, I’m to be Queen o’ the May.
)From “The May Queen” – Byron
eurythmy wrote:
)
) Water Water Wallflower
) 1.
) Water, water wallflower, growing up so high,
) We are all maidens, we must all die.
) Except ----, she's the youngest of them all;
) She can dance, she can sing,
) And she can dance the wedding ring [or "Hieland fling"]
) Fie! fie! fie for shame!
) Turn your back to the wall again.
)
) 2.
) Water, water, wallflowers,
) Growing up so high:
) We are all young maidens,
) And we shall all die
) --Excepting Maggie Stuart,
) She's the youngest of us all:
) She can dance, and she can sing,
) And she can knock us all!
) Fie! fie! for shame again!
) She'll turn her back to the wall again.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 13:57:44 +0000
From: Frank Smith (eltrigal78 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
)
)
)
) Very much so. It is entirely possible that the later Steiner genuinely
) believed that his earlier works were perfectly compatible with his later
)
) works. This simply has nothing to do with whether the belief itself was
) accurate.
)
Oops - now we've gone from text examination to telepathy. What's next?
Channeling? No good, if we channeled Steiner, he's say what he already
said which, according to Peter, is untrue even though he might think so.
How about exorcism?
Frank
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 14:04:02 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
Frank got me laughing out loud! Weel said. And I just KNEW this topic
was really about proving that Steiner was lyin... er, was inaccurate as
far as what he thought and believed (???)
Frank Smith wrote:
)
)
) Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
) )
) )
) )
) )
) ) Very much so. It is entirely possible that the later Steiner genuinely
) ) believed that his earlier works were perfectly compatible with his later
) )
) )
) ) works. This simply has nothing to do with whether the belief itself was
) ) accurate.
) )
)
) Oops - now we've gone from text examination to telepathy. What's next?
) Channeling? No good, if we channeled Steiner, he's say what he already
) said which, according to Peter, is untrue even though he might think so.
)
) How about exorcism?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 14:07:35 +0000
From: Frank Smith (eltrigal78 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
Pete Karaiskos wrote:
)
) I'm sorry, I didn't understand that the question was directed at me.
) I've already said I don't have enough familiarity of PoF to contribute
) substantively to the discussion. It would appear, however, that the
) phrasing of your question "disloyal to his own Philosophy" and
) "deviously re-invents" is looking for a statement along those lines. I
) don't think I have given one. Personally, and again, my knowledge of
) PoF is lacking, I think he wrote PoF, and later developed a philosophy
) that wasn't in opposition to the beliefs he held when he wrote PoF. His
)
) philosophy and beliefs changed, that is, expanded beyond what he wrote
) in PoF. I don't think it was disloyal to move beyond what he once
) thought. I also don't think he deviously re-invented the meaning of his
)
) previous work. I think connecting things was something Steiner liked to
)
) do - almost obsessively, and it seems quite natural and in character
) that he tried to connect his previous work to Anthroposophy later in
) life. I guess you could call in metamorphasis, but then you have to
) convince me that a caterpillar and a moth represent the same thing -
) from the point of view of utility. We know there is a connection
) between the two, but are they not different things?
Well, Pete, until you've read the book, I suggest:
http://southerncrossreview.org/48/coffee.jpg
Frank
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 15:36:33 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: "How is this not religious?"
baandje wrote:
)
) Pete Karaiskos wrote:
) )
) ) Cows jumping over the moon, dishes and spoons running off together,
) ) little dogs laughing... these are nice images for young children.
) ) Bashing in a woman's head, drowning her, dismembering her and using
) ) parts of her body to make musical instruments... well, I'm thinking
) ) there is NOTHING of value there that justifies such nonsense being sung
) ) to children.
)
) Some teachers will choose poems based on it’s so-called esoteric and
) pedogogical value, regardless of how ugly the imagery. For me, if it
) wasn’t beautiful, it wasn’t appropriate. Beautiful words are spiritual,
)
) and healing and pedagogically appropriate.
)
) A lot of Anthroposophists on the other hand believe the beauty and only
) real spiritual value of a thing depends entirely on how Anthroposophical
)
) it is, period. That’s obviously what happened here. The teacher chose
) “ugly” over “beautiful” because she felt it was “spiritually and
) pedagogically appropriate”. One has to understand that not all Waldorf
) teachers are people who should actually be in a classroom teaching
) children. Educating and working with adults maybe, but not children.
Yes, I agree not all Waldorf teachers belong in a classroom. And
instead of circling the wagons, the should be forming a phalanx while
escorting those oddball teachers to the door. If Waldorf schools
practiced teacher-eugenics once in a while, the overall quality of
Waldorf would benefit greatly and we wouldn't be having these
discussions.
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 15:38:35 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: "How is this not religious?"
baandje wrote:
)
)
) eurythmy wrote:
) )
) ) 2006-11-30
) )
) ) Dear Baandje, and all,
) )
) )
) )
) ) Baandje wrote,
) )
) ) Okay... Now what about the words 'God's children' in a kindergarten
) ) song, or
) ) 5 year-olds singing 'We're going to die'? Any thoughts on that?
) )
) ) Franky:
) )
) ) Are you challenging me?
) )
) ) So I will ask my self these questions seeing some one who introduces the
) )
) )
) ) song to children, in what ever situation: home etc.
) )
) ) Have you experience it in a life situation where the children delight in
) )
) ) it
) ) AND are graceful as they move and stop?
) )
) ) Have you only read it in a book, or was it given to you in a curriculum
) ) without any explanations?
) )
) ) Do you have imagination and creativity? Do you try to be 'good' and have
) )
) )
) ) feelings of self satisfaction (sentimentalist)?
) )
) ) Can you respect the mobility of the dance and not have a fixed mind that
) )
) )
) ) takes things and words literally?
) )
) ) Can you observe how the children move it?
) )
) ) Have you some tact?
) )
) )
) )
) ) Then I will observe what happened before and what happens after. Is
) ) there
) ) life in the sequence or is it abstract?
) )
) )
) )
) ) Then I will make my mind.
)
) I hear what you’re saying, and at one time I was just as thoughtful and
) tactful when it came to defending my Anthroposophical “spiritual”
) perspective on life, and human actions and interactions.
)
) A decade removed from it, I now like to go directly to the heart of
) issues. My question to you is do you think it’s okay to sing songs about
)
) kids dying, in kindergarten. I gather from your response you’re saying
) it is okay under some circumstances. Me, I completely disagree with
) that. I also asked if you if it’s okay to sing a song where children are
)
) describing themselves as “God’s children”. My answer to that would be,
) in Sunday School only, not in a public school.
)
) There’s a huge difference between “challenging you”, and asking you a
) straight question, hoping for a straight answer.
And while I get Franky's point (I think) about the Ring a ring of roses
song (that is is a hold-over of a song describing the victims of the
black plague - at least I think that's what he was getting at) - I don't
hear any horrible images IN the song itself.
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 15:46:08 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
Frank Smith wrote:
)
)
) Pete Karaiskos wrote:
) )
) ) I'm sorry, I didn't understand that the question was directed at me.
) ) I've already said I don't have enough familiarity of PoF to contribute
) ) substantively to the discussion. It would appear, however, that the
) ) phrasing of your question "disloyal to his own Philosophy" and
) ) "deviously re-invents" is looking for a statement along those lines. I
) ) don't think I have given one. Personally, and again, my knowledge of
) ) PoF is lacking, I think he wrote PoF, and later developed a philosophy
) ) that wasn't in opposition to the beliefs he held when he wrote PoF. His
) )
) )
) ) philosophy and beliefs changed, that is, expanded beyond what he wrote
) ) in PoF. I don't think it was disloyal to move beyond what he once
) ) thought. I also don't think he deviously re-invented the meaning of his
) )
) )
) ) previous work. I think connecting things was something Steiner liked to
) )
) )
) ) do - almost obsessively, and it seems quite natural and in character
) ) that he tried to connect his previous work to Anthroposophy later in
) ) life. I guess you could call in metamorphasis, but then you have to
) ) convince me that a caterpillar and a moth represent the same thing -
) ) from the point of view of utility. We know there is a connection
) ) between the two, but are they not different things?
)
) Well, Pete, until you've read the book, I suggest:
)
) http://southerncrossreview.org/48/coffee.jpg
)
) Frank
Frank, I hope you know better than to try to intimidate me. I don't
need to read the book to say what I've been saying. If you've read the
book and can dispute what I've said, I'd encourage you to do so.
Otherwise, I suggest [http://southerncrossreview.org/48/coffee.jpg].
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 16:33:36 -0000
From: "eurythmy" (eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Goetheanism (Was RE: The Philosophy of Freedom ~ Rudolf Steiner)
2006-12-01
Dear Charlie, Dear Peter, and all
The Philosophers that focussed on thinking.
Charlie:
And who are those who believe that a focus on thinking itself is a
distinguishing mark of anthroposophical approaches to knowledge? Certainly
not me. Descarte among others (I believe you mentioned a few) focused on
thinking.
You say there are many ways to dispel this erroneous impression. What's the
point if nobody holds this impression. Wouldn't it be better to argue
against the points we are actually making instead of against positions that
you yourself have made up.
Franky:
First a few considerations on how we express our knowledge of the world
through language and through philosophy.
Discussing grammar one can look at the definitions of the rules or at the
live examples of language; similarly in philosophy: the rules in the
treatise or the examples.
Many philosophers are contented in looking only at the rules. These are so
self evident to them that few examples are given, especially when
philosophers are part of the prevalent current of thoughts.
Sartre chooses to illustrate his philosophy in many 'fiction' (novels),
drama plays, and biographical studies, and this choice can also be seen in
Steiner with the 'fictions' or lectures, Mystery Dramas, and karma lectures.
Steiner early on considered the act of philosophy as an artistic act; later
on he creates, or in his own terms welcomes, the art of eurythmy as a
philosophical activity.
The act of reading the philosophic book is not expected to result in mere,
or deep, understanding., but to result in a new version of the book, written
by the reader.
In language there are different levels: the level of the written or spoken
facts of language, the level of grammar, the meta-grammar, which cohere and
informs the other tow levels; in the same fashion in Philosophy, which is
the grammar of life, there is also third level which informs and cohere the
two others - when Steiner compares this activity of the third level to an
organism building activity he may refer to the idea of organism and its
metamorphic attribute in Goethe, to Goethe's Faust (the dog circling) in
choosing the 'dog' as a pendant image describing the organism activity of
his book.
The linguistic and philosophic activities, as exoteric activities, are not
opposed to the esoteric language activity of knowledge: the esoteric
instances are translated in recognisable language in the philosophy, the
Dramas, the theosophical and anthroposophical lectures, while the grammar or
laws of the spiritual world are informing their sequential arrangement, the
overall cohesion is no longer in the hands of the gods, in Steine'sr
terminology the Trinity or triadic gods of many esoteric religious streams,
but in the way esoteric exercises are taken up or not by individual human
beings: they are the meta-grammar in the lecture, book etc.
Dear Charlie, Dear Peter, and all:
Philosophers that focus on thinking. The different types of thinking
activity they describe.
A practical approach:
Why not take of the early encyclopaedist Bayle, contemporary of Descartes. I
find him a very good example of gradual change in thinking. As I it is san
encyclopaedia it is easier to follow the different ways of thinking as
expressed in articles, versus as expressed in a philosophic description. In
many articles Bayle does not even try to put to the test many concepts, he
takes them as self-evident merely passes on already know information, in a
manner at times of the lists of Allegories. Next to conforming to the a
priory of the time he is one of the first free-thinkers and illustrates this
in many articles. He does not question the fact that these two different
attitudes coexist in him, neither do his readers. There was no contradiction
for him. The a priory notions were for him as full of life as his
free-thinker examination. When a thought from the prevalent wisdom, or
received-knowledge came to Bayle and Bayle found it pale, he shook it in all
directions as a free-thinker does and with a vengeance, until the concept
had life again in his views, until Bayle felt alive when he was thinking
about it, or read his article about it..
Cogito ergo sum, describes the same, therefore I am. And different
philosophers had different level and ways of feeling alive in oneself.
Then cones a philosopher that thinks that some of his thoughts are as alive
than what he perceives in the external world: be it a plant.
Another one thinks that some of his thoughts are more alive than his own
chambermaid. It sounds like the chambermaid is a pale version of the old
Allegories.
Steiner describes the same: and through the chapters is interested to detail
many levels of reality, and in which configuration of mind, or philosophy,
one is for each level.
Steiner differs from other philosophers in the minor point that he describes
some levels of reality which were not touch upon before him as
philosophically describable.
Steiner also differs in that he is no so much interested in showing his way,
rather in showing the many approaches what relates them to or against each
other. He goes from the infant crying for milk to Descartes etc. In doing so
Steiner shows that his interest in philosophy is that the philosophical
activity is a tool to situate one's own view point in relation to others. He
expect the reader to bring full attention to the different view points, so
that the reader is well oriented and can find his own way to what ever he
does not grasp yet.
The more typical Steiner attitude is expressed in the wording of the
subtitle of the book. "Some results of introspective observation following
the methods of natural science" the reader is asked to observe the soul: the
way the soul observation of the writer, and (and/or when that eludes the
reader) to observe his own soul as a reader. In the same way as natural
scientist would repeat in his own laboratory the observations.
Kind Regards,
Franky
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 06:19:26 -0800 (PST)
From: flower moonlight (flower_in_the_moonlight yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: "How is this not religious?"
Wallflower: from the crucifer or mustard family
Franky (eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk) wrote:
Water Water Wallflower
1.
Water, water wallflower, growing up so high,
We are all maidens, we must all die.
Except ----, she's the youngest of them all;
She can dance, she can sing,
And she can dance the wedding ring [or "Hieland fling"]
Fie! fie! fie for shame!
Turn your back to the wall again.
---------------------------------
Access over 1 million songs - Yahoo! Music Unlimited.
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 18:20:41 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: "How is this not religious?"
Pete Karaiskos wrote:
)
) Yes, I agree not all Waldorf teachers belong in a classroom. And
) instead of circling the wagons, the should be forming a phalanx while
) escorting those oddball teachers to the door. If Waldorf schools
) practiced teacher-eugenics once in a while, the overall quality of
) Waldorf would benefit greatly and we wouldn't be having these
) discussions.
“Circling the wagons” according to who? The woman who started the thread
wrote: “There were three teachers involved as there were three
kindergarten classes... I asked a couple of other teachers in the
nursery that I was friendly with and they did not react with shock but
did express that they would not use that particular song.”
That sound like teachers circling the wagons, or teachers being honest
and upfront, and suggesting the song was in fact rather questionable?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 18:26:43 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: "How is this not religious?"
flower moonlight wrote:
)
flowery moonlight messages are coming in blank again...
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 20:58:53 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: "How is this not religious?"
baandje wrote:
)
) Pete Karaiskos wrote:
) )
) ) Yes, I agree not all Waldorf teachers belong in a classroom. And
) ) instead of circling the wagons, the should be forming a phalanx while
) ) escorting those oddball teachers to the door. If Waldorf schools
) ) practiced teacher-eugenics once in a while, the overall quality of
) ) Waldorf would benefit greatly and we wouldn't be having these
) ) discussions.
)
) “Circling the wagons” according to who? The woman who started the thread
)
) wrote: “There were three teachers involved as there were three
) kindergarten classes... I asked a couple of other teachers in the
) nursery that I was friendly with and they did not react with shock but
) did express that they would not use that particular song.”
)
) That sound like teachers circling the wagons, or teachers being honest
) and upfront, and suggesting the song was in fact rather questionable?
Sorry, Baandje - I was speaking generally, not about this particular
case. Generally, when there's an oddball teacher, teachers circle the
wagons in support. Sorry for the confusion - my bad.
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 10:27:19 -0800
From: Walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
) Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)) Very much so. It is entirely possible that the later Steiner genuinely
)) believed that his earlier works were perfectly compatible with his later
)) works. This simply has nothing to do with whether the belief itself was
)) accurate.
Frank replied:
) Oops - now we've gone from text examination to telepathy. What's next?
) Channeling? No good, if we channeled Steiner, he's say what he already
) said which, according to Peter, is untrue even though he might think so.
) How about exorcism?
It seems obvious there is a misunderstanding here.
Frank et al - perhaps an analogy will help:
As a young boy, little Johnny Smith was always light on his toes, dancing
and pirouetting many hours each day. One day his parents enrolled him in a
local ballet school and the boy quickly became an excellent student,
eventually performing with his company to sold out venues around the
country. In his early twenties, his passion for ballet had piqued and after
writing a book about ballet he surprised his peers when he developed an
interest in the sport of baseball. Although Johnny still enjoyed the ballet
and spoke occasionally of various foot movements, etc. his newfound love of
baseball consumed his waking life. And was a pretty darn good baseball
player! He played pro for a few years and then wrote a book about baseball.
And people bought the book. It was better received than his ballet book. He
wrote another baseball book and another and another and when his playing
days were over, he lectured on baseball - the game, the history, the culture
. . .
One reviewer wrote: "When you flip through the pages of a Johnny Smith
baseball book you can taste the mustard on a hotdog. You can feel the
crackerjack between your teeth and the wind at your face as you round third
base . . . ."
His was a very unique, very deep look at the game of baseball. It was more
than a "game" and Johnny's faithful followers hung on every word as he was a
prolific speaker and a good writer. Johnny Smith was a fascinating,
insightful, charismatic man. As time passed and Johnny continued to spread
his baseball views, he would occasionally mention his ballet days and his
book about ballet. He would link ballet to baseball to show the beauty of
"movement" in the human condition and when he spoke in terms of his early
ballet book actually being about baseball, many of his fans immediately saw
the connection. Others did not.
One less than enthusiastic critic compared Johnny's linkage of ballet to
baseball to that of an ice fisherman likening his sport to hockey because
both activities involve ice. But Johnny's followers loved the man and his
ideas and they saw the connection and they would not be deterred. Johnny
Smith's early ballet years were all about baseball. It was obvious! But not
to everyone.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 22:10:54 -0000
From: "eurythmy" (eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Goetheanism (Was RE: The Philosophy of Freedom ~ Rudolf Steiner)
2006-11-30
Dear all,
On the theme of Goethean continuity, chameleon, and metamorphosis, I forward
and article from the forth-coming edition of The Southern Welsh Review, by
Franky Theodory. Smithy:
Kind Regards
Franky
Note from the editor: FTS is a free thinker know on his report on economic
and cultural consequences of the terrorist attack that blew up beyond
repairs the Channel Tunnel and the adoption of the Euro currency by the
Welsh Assembly.
It all started with that Rowan Stone novel where characters lives in Wales
and describes the custom of the Welsh. A few years later the author gives
lectures and write books and plays about characters in another continent
Europe, which use another language but the customs are the same, the story
material is the same, there are many sequels. Soon after, the author gives
the keys of the characters of his novel: they are the people he now talks
of, it just happen they were in another country and he had given them
different names. He goes on to gives more sequels on his new characters as
they explore different parts of Europe. In later year he re-prints the first
novel, polishing some more Welsh details and appendix referring it to his
future work. Through out his work on the inhabitants of Europe, the author
makes occasional references to the way the people of Wales speak and act.
The literature experts accept the keys.
After the death of the author another expert, historian of literature,
England (Chelsea, London), declares that there is no proof that the writer
had the keys in mind when he wrote the novel. He did not find a draft of
the key in his unpublished manuscripts. In the archives corresponding to the
first period our researcher cannot find a plane/boat ticket or a receipt
proving the author had travelled abroad,.
Further more he points out that the names for the characters are too
different choice of names in his later work, one young bachelor has become a
spinster, and there are more main characters in the later work. All
corresponding middle age character found them selves in Europe with plenty
of children, which they did not have in Wales. Nearly all the children go to
circus school. Their careers are followed in the sequels. Circus life
becomes a fashion and many teach freelance trapeze, summersault etc. High
human pyramids classes are offered in Open University Evening Classes. All
members of a team who manage a 9-tier pyramid obtain the coveted First Class
Degree. We follow other off spring careers. All first-borns become
scientist, the second artists, dancers, and the third: social activists,
farmers, craft people. Most families have 1, 2 or 3 triplets, there are no
twins, and if a single child is born, it only happens in the last three
novels, it comes in to the oldest parents and always as a 10th child. There
are special national festivities to celebrate the 'single parents'. For our
researcher life in Europe has definitely nothing to do with Wales. These
people are really different.
Our puzzled researcher has relative in Wales and is able to understand the
language. His university participates in an European Erasmus Project and he
is offered a year at Cardiff University. One day while he was lifting weight
at the local gymnasium he struggles and his instructors, tell him that he
believe he can do it, he should believe it himself. The gym instructor tells
him the technical term of this first rule of body building is 'self belief'.
The next morning, in seeing day-light, our instructor thinks-in-a flash:
that the author may have genuinely believed his sincerity in revising his
views on the book, in saying that it was a book with keys: that it was the
same story in different places Wales and Europe.
He sent an article to his university, which broadcasted the news as far as
it could. Few people in Wales and else where ever heard about it. But the
good people of Wales who have relatives in Europe and especially all those
who expatriated in Europe and enjoyed a well earned retirement, are in
stitches about he English gentleman. A hot polemic ensues in our researcher
local pub, The Dungeon and Tower. The Welsh send pictures of Europe, but his
laptop uses an old personalised Macintosh version, which make it unsuitable.
The English gentleman, as all his friends do, refuses to buy a PC and will
not be seen near in an internet café: it is definitely the wrong crowd.
At the Euro-Tomorrow internet café a Goggle search it is made in order to
find a fix-it to the problem. But they are curious folks there. After a few
weeks of unsuccessful trial it was found that the researcher belongs to a
respectable and ancient club: "The High Flyers and Main Stream Club". All
the Welsh ROFL, roll over the floor laughing at the Mission statement of the
club. Club members never cross the ocean as do not find it becoming to leave
terra ferma, the solid earth, and never take boats or planes. In the Solid
Committee High Court the criteria of truth are so stringent that only face
to face testimony are received: no phone, no mobile, no web-cam. Members of
its Select Committee do not jump and never allow their children to go to
circus school with all the juggling, and lions going through hoops. In this
custom, members manifest their vow of complete allegiance to truth: no
juggling with it, no jumping hoops. Its motto is Augusta Veritas, Automatic
World Wide Welsh translation: The Truth of Augustus the clown.
Preview: next issue a eurythmy duo "what became of them?"
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 09:44:19 -0800
From: Walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: "How is this not religious?"
Baandje wrote that he would not have the children recite the standard
Waldorf prayer/verse each day but would ask that they recite Shelley, Byron
and whoever.
I asked if Waldorf schools would have a problem with this change.
Baandje replied:
)IMO? Not a decision for other teachers to make. That would be a decision
)for myself, the parents of the class, and perhaps even the students,
)depending on their age.
I agree and I really like the idea of the students being involved in the
decision. I'm curious about this because it *is* an issue I've seen in more
than one Waldorf school. So, I hear how *you* feel about it, baandje but I'd
like to know -based on your experience in Waldorf schools - how practical
this changing of the morning verse might be in Waldorf schools? Can you see
it being discussed by other teachers? Would the college of teachers have
concerns? Etc.
)And the change it would make is the reciting of poetry would bring LIFE to
)the activity, and the kids would be LEARNING something as well.
)The last Waldorf school I worked at (in Cali, where I had taken over a
)grade seven class), the kids all called the teachers by their first
)names. I thought that was kind of cool, but I actually felt
)uncomfortable with it seeing I'd always been "Mr. Baandje".
Off topic I suppose but I wonder what lies at the root of this discomfort?
Personally, I think the "Mr." thing is outdated and disrespectful but that's
just me.
)So in my first parent meeting a week into the school year, I explained to
)everyone how I felt, and asked the parents what they thought of all of
)that. Surprisingly, almost every parent stated they didn't really like
)it that the kids called teachers by their first names, and that it was
)something that had evolved over a past several years. So we all agreed
)that I would be Mr. Baandje to their kids. The next day I sat down with
)the class, and explained what the parents and I had talked about and
)decided. And they were perfectly okay with it.
More off topic but . . . as you told the kids a decision had already been
made *for them,* I wonder how okay it felt?
)Although within a couple of months they all had cute little nicknames
)for me, and nobody called my Mr. Baandje. But that's called love and
)respect, so it's okay.
Good stuff. So maybe the "Mr." thing was not really okay and this was their
way of expressing themselves. Seriously. Kids often have their needs met in
subtle, often humourous (cute) ways. Sounds like you *all* found a
compromise that worked for everyone.
)THAT'S my idea of Waldorf teaching and "spiritual" community development.
Not sure what "spiritual" has to do with it but involving all members of a
community in community decisions is a good thing. IMO.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 01:34:55 -0000
From: "eurythmy" (eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
2006-12-01
Dear Walden and all,
Thanks for a bed time story.
Ballet and ice, jumping to the hoop .with the earth in one's hand and
scoring. I smell the mustard. Was the ice hockey champion fishing for
compliments: he will get my admiration for his endurance too. The earth is
flat on a map, very useful they are.
I'll try one too?
Kind Regards,
Franky
----- Original Message -----
From: "Walden" (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 02:03:53 -0000
From: "eurythmy" (eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
2006-12-01
Dear Pete, Dear Peter, Dear Walden, Dear Frank, and all
Walden, thanks for your story, here another one:
Dear Pete, and all
Pete: I guess you could call in metamorphasis, but then you have to convince
me that a caterpillar and a moth represent the same thing - from the point
of view of utility. We know there is a connection between the two, but are
they not different things?
Franky: Pete, I suppose that when wrote 'Are they not different things? You
primarily referred to the Caterpillar and the moth.
They are in many ways different I agree whole heartedly. .
Let us put them side by side. It is difficult in real life as moths tend to
like darkness, and fly towards the light. So shall we agree with a
caterpillar and a butterfly, at least in my case I find it easier? Well not
so easy until I see the caterpillar becoming a cocoon, and from the cocoon,
the butterfly, eventually I observe the eggs.
Relatively easy if you use the silkworm variety, you can feed it. As it take
some time you can also cultivate the plant for feeding the silk worm or
another plant for a different variety. I still have no luck they are like
different things, at least two or three of them with a beginning and an end.
I try again, always the caterpillar feeds from leaf to leaf, always the
cocoon hide with its endless thread, always the butterfly goes and often
lands from flower to flower. One day I notice also that the plant is like
different things, some times I look mainly at the flowers, some time I can't
as there is no flowers yet and I see the leaves more immediately.
Well there are not two plants: it is the same standing in front of me. There
are not one animal but three, or two as the cocoon does not move.
I am day dreaming, musing, not being scientific. I should get a grip. I
observe the plant more carefully and look at tiny leaves around the bud of
the flower, and the next week open underneath, that's a third thing! Quite
still like the cocoon
I insists retrace my steps: counting is the starting point of my experiment.
There are the eggs after all, they are four things And four again for the
plant with the seeds. (Grin) So hum! What should I call it? Caterpillar,
cocoon, or butterfly or egg? Egg of caterpillar, cocoon from a caterpillar
and for a butterfly, Butterfly that produces eggs. I am going round and
round the garden! But without words, I can call them '4 IN 1'. And the plant
I call it '1 in 4'.
)From here what about the Philosophy of Freedom, the Anthroposophy. What
relation? Could they be different, yet belonging? I am musing, I should get
a grip. What if there were four things to consider? Or three to start with?
My sanity! Where to start looking? Where not to look? Is there something
like a cocoon in Steiner's life, something still! Or are they 4 stages of
his work? One thing for certain these are not scientific questions.
A pause. By the way: with you I started with 2 as a though, caterpillar and
moth, and found 4 in real life.
I also found 2 different way at looking at 4: '4 in 1' and '1 in 4' I like
maths, and do not understand numerology. I will ask a mathematician if there
are other way of looking at 4 and 1. May be there are 4 ways. Over the fence
I see my neighbour and his kids dying a silk scarf with plant dyes Kind
Regards
Franky
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pete Karaiskos" (pkcompany netzero.net)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 3:46 PM
Subject: RE: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
)
)
) Frank Smith wrote:
))
))
)) Pete Karaiskos wrote:
)) )
)) ) I'm sorry, I didn't understand that the question was directed at me.
)) ) I've already said I don't have enough familiarity of PoF to contribute
)) ) substantively to the discussion. It would appear, however, that the
)) ) phrasing of your question "disloyal to his own Philosophy" and
)) ) "deviously re-invents" is looking for a statement along those lines. I
)) ) don't think I have given one. Personally, and again, my knowledge of
)) ) PoF is lacking, I think he wrote PoF, and later developed a philosophy
)) ) that wasn't in opposition to the beliefs he held when he wrote PoF.
)) ) His
)) )
)) )
)) ) philosophy and beliefs changed, that is, expanded beyond what he wrote
)) ) in PoF. I don't think it was disloyal to move beyond what he once
)) ) thought. I also don't think he deviously re-invented the meaning of
)) ) his
)) )
)) )
)) ) previous work. I think connecting things was something Steiner liked
)) ) to
)) )
)) )
)) ) do - almost obsessively, and it seems quite natural and in character
)) ) that he tried to connect his previous work to Anthroposophy later in
)) ) life. I guess you could call in metamorphasis, but then you have to
)) ) convince me that a caterpillar and a moth represent the same thing -
)) ) from the point of view of utility. We know there is a connection
)) ) between the two, but are they not different things?
))
)) Well, Pete, until you've read the book, I suggest:
))
)) http://southerncrossreview.org/48/coffee.jpg
))
)) Frank
)
) Frank, I hope you know better than to try to intimidate me. I don't
) need to read the book to say what I've been saying. If you've read the
) book and can dispute what I've said, I'd encourage you to do so.
) Otherwise, I suggest [http://southerncrossreview.org/48/coffee.jpg].
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 02:22:31 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Goetheanism (Was RE: The Philosophy of Freedom ~ Rudolf Steiner)
eurythmy wrote:
)
) 2006-11-30
)
) Dear all,
)
)
)
) On the theme of Goethean continuity, chameleon, and metamorphosis, I
) forward
) and article from the forth-coming edition of The Southern Welsh Review,
) by
) Franky Theodory. Smithy:
)
)
)
) Kind Regards
)
) Franky
Yeah, I figured as much... LOL!
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 23:52:54 -0000
From: "eurythmy" (eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk)
Subject: Re: "How is this not religious?"
2006-12-01
Dear Pete, and all,
Hiding the religious meaning versus anti-cult exercises.
Peter: "And while I get Franky's point (I think) about the Ring a ring of
roses song (that is is a hold-over of a song describing the victims of the
black plague - at least I think that's what he was getting at) - I don't
hear any horrible images IN the song itself"
Franky:
I do not know of the plague thing, but thanks for 'defending' me. So let me
tease you.
Do you really mean that as long as the real meaning is hidden, you do not
mind what is said?
Hidden in words from a song, even in a leaflet? Words in a myth, in the
worst esoteric magic writing and practices?
One teaches triangles in geometry, and it happens that it is also the symbol
of the Holy Trinity, is also a symbol presented by Steiner for Christmas
trees, it is also present as a clear esoteric sign on the one dollar bill.
It is a lesson in what?
All facts of life have been read by some one or by another one as symbols
written in the 'book of nature'.
Steiner was approach one day by a young upper class lady who wanted to
'receive' an esoteric exercise from the 'master'. 'What about laying the
dinner table?' he answered.
Steiner was very worry of the danger of meditation exercises when practiced
badly, when the mind wanders around, and muses. Musing has nothing wrong in
itself, but bring it next to symbols, and meditation, or do it all day long,
it is not healthy. Steiner advocated six exercises to do in turn, as need
and spare time allows. The first one is to apply one's simple ordinary
thinking to an object of everyday life, the kind of object one would not
usually notice. To bring to that ordinary object all ordinary concepts that
can be associated with it, not to suddenly think of something else. For a
few minutes only. Nothing 'esoteric' in that. It may well be that the
tendencies to find the esoteric appealing might disappear. In my view it is
an anti-esoteric exercise. Full list in all good bookshops and web search
engines. I recommend it to all anti-cult syllabus.
Kind Regards,
Franky
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pete Karaiskos" (pkcompany netzero.net)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 3:38 PM
Subject: RE: "How is this not religious?"
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 22:16:46 -0000
From: "eurythmy" (eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Goetheanism (Was RE: The Philosophy of Freedom ~ Rudolf Steiner)
----- Original Message -----
From: "eurythmy" (eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 10:10 PM
Subject: Re: Goetheanism (Was RE: The Philosophy of Freedom ~ Rudolf
Steiner)
) 2006-11-30
)
) Dear all,
)
)
)
) On the theme of Goethean continuity, chameleon, and metamorphosis, I
) forward and article from the forth-coming edition of The Southern Welsh
) Review, by Franky Theodory. Smithy:
)
)
)
) Kind Regards
)
) Franky
)
)
)
) Note from the editor: FTS is a free thinker know on his report on economic
) and cultural consequences of the terrorist attack that blew up beyond
) repairs the Channel Tunnel and the adoption of the Euro currency by the
) Welsh Assembly.
)
)
)
)
)
) It all started with that Rowan Stone novel where characters lives in Wales
) and describes the custom of the Welsh. A few years later the author gives
) lectures and write books and plays about characters in another continent
) Europe, which use another language but the customs are the same, the story
) material is the same, there are many sequels. Soon after, the author gives
) the keys of the characters of his novel: they are the people he now talks
) of, it just happen they were in another country and he had given them
) different names. He goes on to gives more sequels on his new characters as
) they explore different parts of Europe. In later year he re-prints the
) first novel, polishing some more Welsh details and appendix referring it
) to his future work. Through out his work on the inhabitants of Europe, the
) author makes occasional references to the way the people of Wales speak
) and act.
)
)
)
) The literature experts accept the keys.
)
)
)
) After the death of the author another expert, historian of literature,
) England (Chelsea, London), declares that there is no proof that the
) writer had the keys in mind when he wrote the novel. He did not find a
) draft of the key in his unpublished manuscripts. In the archives
) corresponding to the first period our researcher cannot find a plane/boat
) ticket or a receipt proving the author had travelled abroad,.
)
) Further more he points out that the names for the characters are too
) different choice of names in his later work, one young bachelor has become
) a spinster, and there are more main characters in the later work. All
) corresponding middle age character found them selves in Europe with plenty
) of children, which they did not have in Wales. Nearly all the children go
) to circus school. Their careers are followed in the sequels. Circus life
) becomes a fashion and many teach freelance trapeze, summersault etc. High
) human pyramids classes are offered in Open University Evening Classes. All
) members of a team who manage a 9-tier pyramid obtain the coveted First
) Class Degree. We follow other off spring careers. All first-borns become
) scientist, the second artists, dancers, and the third: social activists,
) farmers, craft people. Most families have 1, 2 or 3 triplets, there are no
) twins, and if a single child is born, it only happens in the last three
) novels, it comes in to the oldest parents and always as a 10th child.
) There are special national festivities to celebrate the 'single parents'.
) For our researcher life in Europe has definitely nothing to do with Wales.
) These people are really different.
)
)
)
) Our puzzled researcher has relative in Wales and is able to understand the
) language. His university participates in an European Erasmus Project and
) he is offered a year at Cardiff University. One day while he was lifting
) weight at the local gymnasium he struggles and his instructors, tell him
) that he believe he can do it, he should believe it himself. The gym
) instructor tells him the technical term of this first rule of body
) building is 'self belief'.
)
) The next morning, in seeing day-light, our instructor thinks-in-a flash:
) that the author may have genuinely believed his sincerity in revising his
) views on the book, in saying that it was a book with keys: that it was the
) same story in different places Wales and Europe.
)
) He sent an article to his university, which broadcasted the news as far as
) it could. Few people in Wales and else where ever heard about it. But the
) good people of Wales who have relatives in Europe and especially all those
) who expatriated in Europe and enjoyed a well earned retirement, are in
) stitches about he English gentleman. A hot polemic ensues in our
) researcher local pub, The Dungeon and Tower. The Welsh send pictures of
) Europe, but his laptop uses an old personalised Macintosh version, which
) make it unsuitable. The English gentleman, as all his friends do, refuses
) to buy a PC and will not be seen near in an internet café: it is
) definitely the wrong crowd.
)
)
)
) At the Euro-Tomorrow internet café a Goggle search it is made in order to
) find a fix-it to the problem. But they are curious folks there. After a
) few weeks of unsuccessful trial it was found that the researcher belongs
) to a respectable and ancient club: "The High Flyers and Main Stream Club".
) All the Welsh ROFL, roll over the floor laughing at the Mission statement
) of the club. Club members never cross the ocean as do not find it becoming
) to leave terra ferma, the solid earth, and never take boats or planes. In
) the Solid Committee High Court the criteria of truth are so stringent that
) only face to face testimony are received: no phone, no mobile, no web-cam.
) Members of its Select Committee do not jump and never allow their children
) to go to circus school with all the juggling, and lions going through
) hoops. In this custom, members manifest their vow of complete allegiance
) to truth: no juggling with it, no jumping hoops. Its motto is Augusta
) Veritas, Automatic World Wide Welsh translation: The Truth of Augustus
) the clown.
)
)
)
) Preview: next issue a eurythmy duo "what became of them?"
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 02:02:23 +0100
From: "Jean-Marc Nguyen" (jmnguyen wanadoo.fr)
Subject: Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
Hi Keith,
You wrote:
Playing the devil's advocate...:
So the "Philosophy of Freedom" is superior to the Gospels? Why is it
necessary to explain Christ's purpose in another text when it has
already been stated clearly in the Bible?
Jean-Marc writes:
In this particular instance, I'm quite sure that the word *superior* would
never have crossed my mind...
But then, I'm not the devil --- although I have my doubts at times :-)
With the Gospels alone, the Christ-human being relationship is basically
--- a matter of *faith*. [Christian believers]
With Rudolf Steiner's anthroposophical Spiritual Science, the Christ-human
being relationship becomes --- a matter of conscious *knowledge*.
Steiner's works do not change a iota in the Gospels.
Steiner's works do not elevate the Gospels --- Steiner's works elevate
mankind to a deeper understanding of Christ and the Gospels.
The Gospels are essentially narrative: the narration(s) of the Christ Event
--- a set of *Percepts*.
Steiner's Christology: the results of supersensible investigations given
in conceptual form --- a set of *Concepts*.
Please refer to PoF for further epistemological considerations :-)
The *Philosophy of Freedom* itself does not explain [or even name]
Christ or Buddhi; the book that will outlive all of Steiner's other works is
an instrument --- a spiritual *Organon* which leads the (active :-) reader
on the path to Christ and thus to Resurrection.
And I insist: the fact that *any human being* [even an atheist, as I said]
can walk this initiatory path makes the *Philosophy of Freedom*
--- a Christian book *par excellence*!
You wrote:
But then, there are many who do not believe that Idealism - Goethean or
otherwise, from which environment the POF emerged - has anything to do
with experiential perception of spiritual things.
Jean-Marc writes:
The importance of the cultural / philosophical / intellectual environment
should not be *overestimated*...
Didn't Copernicus' heliocentric system emerge from a totally antagonistic
[geocentric] environment?
Well, it gives me great delight to consider Rudolf Steiner's Spiritual Science
to be a revolutionary heliocentric [Sun /Christ-centered] spiritual conception!
Now, please think Galileo, Giordano Bruno, etc...
And please, pretty please --- think *Inquisition*!
Yep! Retrograde minds. Arrogant, pontificating, dogmatic and doctoral
ignorance. Creeping hostility. Tissues of lies. Heresy hunts. Sly and rigged
interrogations... Sophisticated (or not :-) spiritual torture.
Thinly veiled, bottomless and blind hatred.
Er...you know what I mean? :-)
Hey, maybe Anthros should award a *Little Torquemada* Prize
each year --- let's say on the 29th of September? :-)
Devilishly yours,
Jean-Marc
----- Original Message -----
From: Keith McLean
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 7:36 PM
Subject: RE: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
Hi Jean-Marc,
Jean-Marc Nguyen wrote:
)
)
) Hi Peter,
)
) Okay, let's put the Frisbees and the ducks aside for the time being.
) The bell rang! End of recess :-)
)
) You wrote [ Peter Staudenmaier - Nov 04, 2006 02:54 PST ]:
)
) "But Philosophy of Freedom isn't one of the borderline cases.
) There is nothing anthroposophical about it, not even superficially.
) Steiner
) was emphatically not an esotericist when he wrote it, and the book
) offers
) no support for occult thinking or practice. It is an entirely
) conventional
) philosophical treatise in the established idiom of late nineteenth
) century
) German Idealism."
)
) "All you have to do to show that PoF is also an anthroposophical text
) is find anything at all, anywhere in the book, even just a brief
) snippet,
) about higher worlds, the threshold of the spiritual realms,
) clairvoyance,
) etheric bodies, communication from the supersensible world, faculties of
)
) perception acquired outside of the body, the Akashic record, or any
) other
) of the ideas that are central to Steiner's later teachings."
)
) -------------------------------------------------------
)
) Jean-Marc writes:
)
) Well folks, Rudolf Steiner gave a lecture in Berlin in1905.
) In this *public* lecture, Steiner talked about the occult constitution
) and
) development of Man in very explicit [occult / esoteric/ theosophical /
) anthroposophical] terms, such as: Ahamkara (Ego consciousness),
) Manas (Spirit self), Buddhi (Life Spirit), Atma (Spirit man), etc...
)
) Then, at one point, Steiner carried on:
)
) "Now I've tried to describe the gradual higher development of Man,
) the purification of Man from soul to spirit, in a book I wrote some
) years
) ago: the *Philosophy of Freedom*. There you find what I have just [here]
) described expounded in the concepts of western philosophy. There you
) find the development of the soul from Kama to Manas. There I have named
) Ahamkara the I [Ego - das Ich], Manas the higher thinking, pure
) thinking,
) and Buddhi - in order not to indicate the origin yet (sic!)- moral
) imagination
) [moralische Phantasie]. These are merely different expressions referring
) to
) one and the same thing."
)
) Jean-Marc comments:
)
) Those who are aware that Buddhi [or Life spirit] is again just another
) term
) or expression for * Christ * [the inner mystical Christ]
) will perhaps realize why Rudolf Steiner once said that his *Philosophy
) of
) Freedom* would outlive all of his other works.
) Christ is not only present in PoF as the central subject matter [as
) moral
) imagination or Buddhi] - Christ is also present in PoF as a living
) impulse
) encouraging the reader to overcome death in his thoughts --- on the
) place
) of his skull [on Golgotha!]...
) In other words, the *Philosophy of Freedom* potentially gives any reader
)
) the opportunity to witness *the fulfilment of a promise* --- and to
) personally
) experience the encounter with the living Source of Redemption.
Playing the devil's advocate...:
So the "Philosophy of Freedom" is superior to the Gospels? Why is it
necessary to explain Christ's purpose in another text when it has
already been stated clearly in the Bible?
On the other hand, this suggests that the POF is classic Gnosticism. so
if so it has at least esoteric credibility. :)
But then, there are many who do not believe that Idealism - Goethean or
otherwise, from which environment the POF emerged - has anything to do
with experiential perception of spiritual things.
)
) But dumb search engines will go on groping around in the dark of
) course...
Yeah, for a while at least...you never know... :)
Regards,
Keith
)
) Cheers,
) Jean-Marc
) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
)
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])
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 06:54:33 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: "How is this not religious?"
eurythmy wrote:
)
) 2006-12-01
)
) Dear Pete, and all,
)
)
)
) Hiding the religious meaning versus anti-cult exercises.
)
)
)
)
)
) Peter: "And while I get Franky's point (I think) about the Ring a ring
) of
) roses song (that is is a hold-over of a song describing the victims of
) the
) black plague - at least I think that's what he was getting at) - I don't
)
) hear any horrible images IN the song itself"
)
)
)
) Franky:
)
) I do not know of the plague thing, but thanks for 'defending' me. So let
) me
) tease you.
)
) Do you really mean that as long as the real meaning is hidden, you do
) not
) mind what is said?
Given the choice of singing songs that openly talk about dismemberment
or songs that sound nice but have hidden meaning - I'll take the nice
sounding songs any day. But what's wrong with songs that sound nice and
are honest - have no hidden meaning? You know, songs that are actually
appropriate for children... Is there some reason why Waldorf can't
produce something that is exactly what it says it is - and that's
appropriate for children? What is it about Waldorf that causes the
people involved in it to desire so much to behave dishonestly, Franky?
)
) Hidden in words from a song, even in a leaflet? Words in a myth, in the
) worst esoteric magic writing and practices?
Why? What's the appeal in this?
) One teaches triangles in geometry, and it happens that it is also the
) symbol
) of the Holy Trinity, is also a symbol presented by Steiner for Christmas
)
) trees, it is also present as a clear esoteric sign on the one dollar
) bill.
) It is a lesson in what?
Gee, I don't know... nonsense? A triangle is a geometric shape - one of
many. And the shape on the dollar bill is a pyramid, not a triangle.
So you see, to suggest it is a triangle is nothing but nonsense, and
Anthroposophically speaking, it is much more than even a pyramid - it is
really half of an octahedron which has eight triangular sides that meet
in obtuse angles. What we see here when we look upon this from the
perspective of spiritual science is two-fold symmetry at the line of
reflection. So, you see, half the pyrmid is above and half below as to
represent heaven and earth with, of course, the all-seeing eye of God
floating above.
Now we have, at the line of reflection, not a triangle (although we
could, indeed, produce a tetrahedron if we extended the sides of the
octahedron and/or cut off the vertices of the tetrahedron) but a square
- in three dimensions and a cube in four. A cube is unique in that it
is the counterpart of three-dimensional space. Imagine that all the
space in the universe is structured by three axes that are perpendicualr
to each other. Inserting planes perpendicular to these three axes
always produces a cube. Now, to represent a cube in scientific
notation, we do not use a 4 to honor the square that is the geometric
shape that appears to us two-dimensionally, we use instead a 3 which
represents the three dimensions of the cube - and this, of course brings
us to the holy trinity and neatly ties scientific notation to faith -
Spiritual Science indeed.
) All facts of life have been read by some one or by another one as
) symbols
) written in the 'book of nature'.
Yes, one can find symbols everywhere. Once I saw Elvis in my mashed
potatoes.
) Steiner was approach one day by a young upper class lady who wanted to
) 'receive' an esoteric exercise from the 'master'. 'What about laying the
)
) dinner table?' he answered.
A woman approached Winston Churchill and said "If you were my husband,
I'd poison your soup." To which Churchill replied "Madam, if you were
my wife, I'd drink it."
) Steiner was very worry of the danger of meditation exercises when
) practiced
) badly, when the mind wanders around, and muses. Musing has nothing wrong
) in
) itself, but bring it next to symbols, and meditation, or do it all day
) long,
) it is not healthy. Steiner advocated six exercises to do in turn, as
) need
) and spare time allows. The first one is to apply one's simple ordinary
) thinking to an object of everyday life, the kind of object one would not
)
) usually notice.
Yes, I'm aware of these - indeed, I prepared a mechanics class once for
Waldorf students and started with the exercise of focusing attention on
a paperclip. When one things about it, there is nothing more simple
that performs its function more perfectly in the universe.
)To bring to that ordinary object all ordinary concepts that
) can be associated with it, not to suddenly think of something else. For
) a
) few minutes only. Nothing 'esoteric' in that. It may well be that the
) tendencies to find the esoteric appealing might disappear. In my view it
) is
) an anti-esoteric exercise. Full list in all good bookshops and web
) search
) engines. I recommend it to all anti-cult syllabus.
Yes, but in Waldorf teacher terms, the object of attention might vary -
I've seen some Waldorf teachers who seemed to focus a lot of attention
on the severed penis of Osirus. The appropriateness of the material
presented to the age of the children involved is essential in
educational environments.
Pete
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 2367
-- Topica Digest --
article on intentional communities in New Hampshire
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 14:39:39 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: article on intentional communities in New Hampshire
This article in New Hampshire magazine about intentional communities
includes the following about Anthropsophy:
(http://www.nh.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061201/NHM01/61201015/-1/NHM)
-Dan Dugan
*** quote from article below
Some communities are loosely defined, but still qualify as gatherings
of like-minded people. In Temple and Wilton, an informal community
has grown around the ideas of Rudolf Steiner, a scientist, teacher
and thinker of the early 20th century. Steiner developed