return to WCA Archive Index
-- Topica Digest --
"Defending Steiner" past and present
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Ur-language, was: anthroposophists discuss race
By Diana.Winters verizon.net
RE: Sharon
By Diana.Winters verizon.net
RE: Bad Little Kids
By Diana.Winters verizon.net
RE: Sources, Dictionaries, Encyclopedias
By eltrigal78 yahoo.com
RE: Sources, Dictionaries, Encyclopedias
By Diana.Winters verizon.net
RE: Rat IQ
By eltrigal78 yahoo.com
RE: Sources, Dictionaries, Encyclopedias
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Ur-language, was: anthroposophists discuss race
By iankilburn bellsouth.net
RE: Sharon
By iankilburn bellsouth.net
RE: Bad Little Kids
By iankilburn bellsouth.net
Wetzl Watch (sidelight)
By iankilburn bellsouth.net
RE: Sources, Dictionaries, Encyclopedias
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: Bad Little Kids
By cffrey mindspring.com
Re: Bad Little Kids
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
how to undermine Waldorf
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Sources, Dictionaries, Encyclopedias
By pstaud hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 06:46:06 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: "Defending Steiner" past and present
Hello all,
coming back to the discussion of the "Defending Steiner" website from a
couple weeks ago, I thought it might be helpful to take a look at some of
the other historical claims put forward at that site, for a fuller sense of
how anthroposophists today deal with their own history. The site can be
found here:
http://www.defendingsteiner.com/index.php
Much of the material at the site is written by anthroposophist Daniel
Hindes. Three years ago I made a very interesting attempt to engage in
discussion with Hindes on an anthroposophical email list named Anthroposophy
Tomorrow; the archives of that list are open to the public and can be
consulted here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/messages
On the various pages at the Defending Steiner site, including an extremely
lengthy reply to my article "Anthroposophy and Ecofascism", Hindes makes a
number of claims about both anthroposophy's past and its present, claims
that can be checked against the evidence. It may be worthwhile to examine
some of the more concrete of these claims, some of which are not of great
import in themselves, but nevertheless reveal significant patterns in
anthroposophical approaches to historical questions and to evidence and
argument in general.
In several instances I will have to summarize Hindes' statements on
particular topics, which are often enough scatterd across multiple pages at
the Defending Steiner site. In my experience, anthroposophists such as
Hindes frequently find this intolerable, and are likely to complain that I
have misconstrued or misrepresented their claims. I thus urge interested
readers to consult the site itself for fuller explanation of Hindes'
perspective.
While several of these historical details are, as I indicated, not
especially crucial to an overall assessment of anthroposophy's past or
present, they do sometimes make a difference in public discussion, and I
will try to point out a variety of instances in which other anthroposophists
have put forward the same claims as Hindes. It's also worth noting, again,
that much of what Hindes writes at the Defending Steiner site seems at first
glance plausible enough and appears to be well-founded and properly
referenced and so forth. For one very telling instance of how deceptive this
appearance can be, I recommend another look at my recent analysis of Hindes'
discussion of the theosophical and anthroposophical root race doctrine:
http://lists.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1720912118&sort=d&start=36961
In some cases, Hindes' claims have even managed to persuade readers like
Michael Winship, the historian of religion who is sympathetic to
anthroposophy and whose responses to my own work have in general been
refreshingly reasonable. I think this probably has to do with the somewhat
arcane nature of the topics that Hindes often addresses (consider, for
example, his notable preoccupation with the Thule Society, a focus that is
in line with the usual anthroposophical conspiracism), and it is typically
sufficient to provide a simple review of the evidence in order to dismantle
the conclusions trumpeted at the Defending Steiner site. What I will do,
then, in a series of subsequent posts, is point out specific historical
claims advanced at the site and examine them to see if they hold up, as
representative instances of anthroposophical attempts to present
anthroposophy's past with an eye toward present concerns. More to follow,
Peter Staudenmaier
_________________________________________________________________
5.5%* 30 year fixed mortgage rate. Good credit refinance. Up to 5 free
quotes - *Terms
https://www2.nextag.com/goto.jsp?product=100000035&url=%2fst.jsp&tm=y&search=mortgage_text_links_88_h2a5d&s=4056&p=5117&disc=y&vers=910
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 14:29:54 +0000
From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Ur-language, was: anthroposophists discuss race
Charlie:
)it shouldn't surprise you that what a dog does is far enough
)removed from what a human so as to put it in a completely different
)category.
)If you don't mind likening your inner life to that of a dog, that's
)your business.
Oh, boy! We get into some complex issues here sometimes, but this sure
isn't one. This takes me less than a second to be sure of what I want to
say . . .
I certainly have no problem likening my inner life to that of a dog.
This is just another instance of the unattractive anthroposophical
spiritual superiority thing.
Nope - no question we are more similar to animals in our inner life than
not, by far. Far and away our more compelling concerns, that take up
most of our time, energy, focus, striving (a favored anthroposophical
term) are identical to those of animals. No, I do not find this
unflattering.
Let's look at the heart of this issue, Charlie, and I'd like to hear
what you think. (I know I will most likely get a pouty reply that
suggests that even though you brought it up, you think I'm out to get
you now.)
The issue isn't about mental capacities, is it? It's about spiritual
superiority. Nobody would really dispute that we (humans) have superior
mental capacity to most other animals. Some animals are bigger, run
faster, have better eyesight, are stronger, etc. We have bigger brains,
we build houses and drive cars etc. But, anthroposophists don't think
intellect is important anyway. They consider the intellect the very
least among human capabilities. (The brain is like excrement etc.) (And
much of human culture not created by anthroposophists they look down
on.)
No, this is about spiritual superiority, and it's bunk. You and I are in
no way spiritually superior to other creatures, Charlie.
)For those of you who think that memory is a purely physiological
)condition like hunger or an annoying rectal itch, well...you can
)continue thinking that your mind is similar to that of my neighbor's
)chihuahua, Carlos.
I guess you think that will come across as a painful jab? I'm afraid it
tells more of your own mindset than Carlos's, and it's probably Carlos
to whom the comparison should be offensive. I bet Carlos does not sit
around thinking of trivial ways to demean *you* or tallying up the ways
in which he is superior to you.
By any criteria I could reckon, the important thing isn't the abilities
you possess innately but how you use them.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 14:32:52 +0000
From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Sharon
Roger Rawlings wrote:
)Does anyone know where Sharon Lombard is? I wish she were still )active
)on the list.
Yes, I do, funny you would ask. I might be able to get her to pop in.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 15:26:02 +0000
From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Bad Little Kids
Roger:
)been on the inside as a faculty member gives you great authority.
Well, not to hear Waldorfers tell it. Of course, I can only tell what I
heard in *one* Waldorf faculty and the retort from the Anthrodefense
League is always that if it was in some way unflattering, it was an
isolated instance, one crazy teacher etc. (Other times they just brush
it off saying I'm lying, or more charitably that I misunderstood.)
In my experience Waldorfers will often confidently assert to you that
"Such and such is Waldorf" "This is how it's done in Waldorf" "That's
the way it's always done" (or at least, "That's the way it SHOULD be
done") etc. - when they think you are receptive and sympathetic, or an
admirer of Rudolf Steiner. There is never a problem making
generalizations then, and assuring you that what they are saying is As
it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end,
Amen.
When you are critical, however, or if your child had a bad experience in
a Waldorf school, suddenly nothing you say actually reflects on Waldorf.
Not *really*. They are sorry to hear of your misfortune but it only
reflects some isolated, strange instance, an aberration, a teacher who
didn't really understand Steiner etc.
)Are there any postings from the past in which you give more such )inside
)dope? I'd love to read them.
Yes, but not organized under (say) "Inside dope from faculty meetings."
Give me an idea what you'd be interested in and I'll search around?
Diana
)
) Roger Rawlings
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 15:33:13 +0000
From: Frank Smith (eltrigal78 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Sources, Dictionaries, Encyclopedias
Peter Staudenmaier wrote - after blasting Charlie mercilessly:
)
) No need to please me; I'm not in your classroom, after all, sitting with
) the
) other cholerics or whatever it is I am. You're a teacher, Charlie. If
) you
) can't find the time to figure out even rudimentary information about
) fundamental aspects of your own teaching practice, maybe it's a good
) time to
) rethink that particular pedagogical choice?
Peter has done some self-analysis and arrived correctly at his
temperament, and also correctly observed that he is too old for Waldorf
school. Now, Dan, although we should have understanding for those with
extreme choleric temperaments, that should not exempt them from your ad
hominem rule. Por favor, I'm not suggesting that Peter be nuked (what
would you do without him), but a gentle (metaphoric) slap-on-the-wrist
might be appropriate.
Temperamentally,
Frank
http://SouthernCrossReview.org
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 15:39:16 +0000
From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Sources, Dictionaries, Encyclopedias
Frank Smith wrote:
)Peter Staudenmaier wrote - after blasting Charlie mercilessly:
)No need to please me; I'm not in your classroom, after all, sitting
))with the other cholerics or whatever it is I am. You're a teacher,
))Charlie. If you can't find the time to figure out even rudimentary
))information about fundamental aspects of your own teaching practice,
))maybe it's a good time to rethink that particular pedagogical choice?
)Peter has done some self-analysis and arrived correctly at his
)temperament, and also correctly observed that he is too old for )Waldorf
)school. Now, Dan, although we should have understanding for )those with
)extreme choleric temperaments, that should not exempt )them from your ad
)hominem rule. Por favor, I'm not suggesting that )Peter be nuked (what
)would you do without him), but a gentle
)(metaphoric) slap-on-the-wrist might be appropriate.
Boy, that's pretty sensitive, Frank, considering some of the things
you've said to critics in the past.
There's no ad hominem in what Peter wrote, nor grammatical errors.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 15:41:40 +0000
From: Frank Smith (eltrigal78 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Rat IQ
Pete Karaiskos wrote:
)
) In fact, I would suggest we owe part of our own brain development to
) survival instincts - having to outsmart animals... especially the ones
) that could eat us. Thank God rats are relatively small...
With all due respect (to rats) - I think they've come to the right
place.
Frank
http://SouthernCrossReview.org
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 11:12:46 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Sources, Dictionaries, Encyclopedias
Hi Frank,
)Peter Staudenmaier wrote - after blasting Charlie mercilessly:
I didn't blast Charlie mercilessly. What I did was deflate his pointless
blast from last week (where he thought that something or other Roger said
about the humors was "totally wrong"). It sounds to me like Charlie
misunderstood Roger's post all along, as well as Roger's subsequent posts,
Diana's posts, and so forth. I did, for what it's worth, reply to Charlie's
most recent phlegmatic pout, but my reply is evidently still wandering about
in the etheric realm, waiting for the proper moment to incarnate on this
email list. I'll try sending it again. And in the meantime, I'll post a
merciful recap of the issues Charlie's and my exchange raised, or failed to
raise, as the case may be.
You continue:
) )
) ) No need to please me; I'm not in your classroom, after all, sitting with
) ) the
) ) other cholerics or whatever it is I am. You're a teacher, Charlie. If
) ) you
) ) can't find the time to figure out even rudimentary information about
) ) fundamental aspects of your own teaching practice, maybe it's a good
) ) time to
) ) rethink that particular pedagogical choice?
)
)Peter has done some self-analysis and arrived correctly at his
)temperament, and also correctly observed that he is too old for Waldorf
)school. Now, Dan, although we should have understanding for those with
)extreme choleric temperaments, that should not exempt them from your ad
)hominem rule.
There is no ad hominem argument in the above passage. Really and truly. (As
an aside, is there some reason so many anthroposophists seem to consistently
misunderstand the concept of ad hominem argument? Val just posted a
perfectly readable explanation of it not too long ago. Maybe you could take
a look at it, Frank?)
To the extent that the above passage contains an argument from me, it is
that is irrelevant at best whether Charlie's responses on the subject of the
four humors are pleasing to me. I am hardly an authority on contemporary
Waldorf education in any case; on that topic, my role on this list is
usually to learn, not to teach (imagine that -- people can actually learn
from public discussion, and without thereby turning into uneducated boobs,
in Charlie's felicitous phrase). It seems to me that putting the matter in
terms of pleasing other listmates is an irresponsible trivialization of a
real issue that has real effects on real children in the real world. It is
not merely a passing theme on an email list.
That, I take it, is what you thought made my advice to Charlie ad hominem.
Perhaps I can allay your concerns by re-stating my original point:
Charlie is or was a teacher. He has been rather insistent and quite explicit
about his unwillingness to learn more about the methods he uses or used in
his Waldorf teaching, as far as the theory of the four humors goes. My own
background is in teaching young children, and whatever one makes of the four
humors idea, I think this sort of stubborn refusal to learn -- particularly
on a subject that is central to one's own pedagogical practice -- is a
misguided approach to teaching. To my mind, flaunting that kind of stubborn
refusal to learn isn't usually a good basis for creating a fruitful learning
environment in the classroom, and it would be a good thing for any teacher,
not just Charlie, to re-think their attitude once it becomes that
inflexible.
But I'd be more than happy to ignore all of that and return to the topic
I've been trying to get Charlie to discuss for a week now, about
specifically anthroposophical versions of the four humors idea and their
historical background. That is, of course, if Charlie's temperament will
allow this. Greetings to all,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Live Search Maps – find all the local information you need, right when you
need it. http://maps.live.com/?icid=hmtag2&FORM=MGAC01
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:38:45 +0000
From: Roger Rawlings (iankilburn bellsouth.net)
Subject: RE: Ur-language, was: anthroposophists discuss race
Diana Winters wrote:
)
)
) Nope - no question we are more similar to animals in our inner life than
)
) not, by far. Far and away our more compelling concerns, that take up
) most of our time, energy, focus, striving (a favored anthroposophical
) term) are identical to those of animals. No, I do not find this
) unflattering.
Right on. In fact (I've said before that I'm an animal lover) I would go
so far as to say that some other animals (remembering that we too are
animals) outshine us in important ways. My dogs love me more devotedly
than I'm capable of loving anything. They are far braver than I am. They
are more self-sacrificing than I am (I would die to defend my wife, but
my dogs would die to defend either of us, or each other, or our
cats—truly, my dogs love our cats and the love is reciprocated. One of
our cats goes for walks with the dogs. Another loves to wash the dogs.)
Think of almost anything that we humans pride ourselves on, with the
possible exception of intellect, and I believe you can find animals who
best us on those very qualities. (I once saw a fawn being born. My dogs
were with me. We stood a few feet away while the doe gave birth. She
then stood and faced us, and while her fawn slowly wobbled to its
feet—an amazing sight—she remained on guard, ready to fight a battle she
could not possibly have won if my dogs and I had attacked. But her noble
spirit sustained her, and my pals and I—who never had any intention of
attacking—backed away, to let the doe and fawn carry on their
spectacularly beautiful lives.)
Roger Rawlings
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:39:49 +0000
From: Roger Rawlings (iankilburn bellsouth.net)
Subject: RE: Sharon
Diana Winters wrote:
)
)
) Roger Rawlings wrote:
)
) )Does anyone know where Sharon Lombard is? I wish she were still )active
) )on the list.
)
) Yes, I do, funny you would ask. I might be able to get her to pop in.
)
) Diana
Yes, please. Her essay "Spotlight on Anthroposophy" is a gem. I'm sure
she has more to teach us all.
Roger Rawlings
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:44:48 +0000
From: Roger Rawlings (iankilburn bellsouth.net)
Subject: RE: Bad Little Kids
Diana Winters wrote:
) Give me an idea what you'd be interested in and I'll search around?
)
Thanks. Not that I intend to give you homework. I simply think that the
more we can expose about any aspect of waldorf, the better. So I'm
interested in anything at all you can relate. But there's no rush or
urgency. When something (anything at all) occurs to you, I'd love to
read it.
Roger Rawlings
P.S. Charlie: As I wrote previously, the same goes for you. No homework.
But anything you can tell us about what happens inside the walls would
be instructive, I'm sure.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:53:26 +0000
From: Roger Rawlings (iankilburn bellsouth.net)
Subject: Wetzl Watch (sidelight)
Jospeh Wetzl was evidently a minor historical figure. Perhaps
ahistorical is actually the right term. We may never learn much about
him (although I’ll keep trying, at least a bit—and as Peter has pointed
out to me, Wetzl's first name may originally have been spelled
"Josef"—which leads me to wonder how his last name may have been spelled
originally: Wetzel? Weitzel?). Perhaps we'll never know, and perhaps
it's not important.
Anyway, I was going to write an anaylsis of the book Wetzl translated.
Instead, however, I think it is more revealing to simply quote the
description given at http://waldorfbooks.com/anthro/life_after_life.htm.
As you’ll see, the Wetzl-translated book is quite consistent with Rudolf
Steiner’s teachings about communicating with the dead. Following the
description for Wetzl’s book are two for a couple of Steiner’s books on
this subject.
The Bridge over the River
After Death Communications of a Young Artist Who Died in World War I
Joseph Wetzl
Softbound
$15.95
This book contains amazing communications from a young musician named
Sigwart to his sister after his death in 1915. At first, she experienced
Sigwart's attempts to reach her as a kind of inner unrest. This
eventually led to the feeling that her brother was trying to contact
her. Gradually, as she lived with this feeling, she was able to achieve
conscious contact with her brother. In this state, she received many
remarkable messages, some of which are gathered here.
In the past decades, there have been many "communications" from the
other side. What distinguishes the messages in this book is not only the
inherent interest of what they have to say, but the fact that they were
authenticated by Rudolf Steiner. Sigwart's sister has described her
meeting with Rudolf Steiner: "For an hour and three quarters he
scrutinized page after page. . . . Many times he nodded and exclaimed
approvingly, 'Very well described! Well expressed! Characterized
exactly. . . .' I waited in vain for the negation of any messages. But
none came. As a parting word, Dr. Steiner said, 'Yes, these are
exceptionally clear, absolutely authentic communications from the
spiritual world. I see no reason for dissuading you from listening to
them further.'
The Bridge over the River is a profound and inspiring document.
Containing prayers, meditations, insights, advice, and a view of the
world born aloft by love, it will comfort, enlighten, and speak to
hearts of all persuasions.
Living with the Dead
Meditations for maintaining a connection to those who have died
Rudolf Steiner
Hardbound, dust jacket, pocket format
$19.95
In this collection of meditations for maintaining a connection to those
who have died, Rudolf Steiner offers hope and consolation to the
bereaved. He offers words of wisdom on death and its deeper, spiritual
meaning, and then provides verses that stress the continued links
between the living and the dead. He shows how our thoughts can help
those who have departed earthly life. Finally, he includes poems that
express something of what those who have died experience in their new
existence.
As a spiritual teacher Rudolf Steiner wrote many beautifully formed and
inspired verses. Often they were given in relation to specific
situations or in response to individual requests; sometimes they were
created for general use in assisting the process of meditation.
Regardless of their origins, they are uniformly powerful in their
ability to connect the meditant with spiritual archetypes and realities,
and are valuable tools for developing experience and knowledge of other
dimensions. Matthew Barton has delicately translated these meditations
into English, many for the first time, and arranged them thematically in
this outstanding new series.
Staying Connected
How to Continue Your Relationships with Those Who Have Died
Selected Talks and Meditations by
Rudolf Steiner
Edited and Introduced by Christopher Bamford
$19.95
"Working with the dead" - maintaining, continuing, and enhancing our
relationships with those who have died - was fundamental to Rudolf
Steiner, as it is to every spiritual tradition. So, too, is the idea
that human beings on both sides of the threshold constitute a single
community. This book provides concrete, practical instructions for those
who wish to engage consciously in the great work that the living and the
so-called dead can do together.
Steiner speaks directly from experience, formulating meditation
practices and verses that have worked for him. We learn of reading to
the dead and of using verbs (not nouns) to communicate with them. We
learn also about the importance of the sacred moments of falling asleep
and awaking and of the way in which our memories are like "art" to them.
Finally, we learn of the key soul moods to be cultivated: community with
the world, gratitude, and confidence in the current of life.
Gradually, we come to realize that the dead, and indeed the whole
spiritual world, care deeply about every aspect of earthly life. We
understand that the earth is the only place where death can be
experienced, as well as the only place where we can love and form
connections and relationships. We learn, too, how this love extends
beyond the physical world and how the living and the dead can help each
other.
I have personally used many of the practices discussed in this volume,
always with richly rewarding results. I unhesitatingly recommend this
book to anyone seeking to connect to people across the threshold of
death. [To be absolutely clear: These last remarks are by Bamford, not
yours truly.]
Roger Rawlings
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 01:20:36 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Sources, Dictionaries, Encyclopedias
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
)
)
) Hi Frank,
)
)
) )Peter Staudenmaier wrote - after blasting Charlie mercilessly:
)
)
) I didn't blast Charlie mercilessly. What I did was deflate his pointless
)
) blast from last week (where he thought that something or other Roger
) said
) about the humors was "totally wrong"). It sounds to me like Charlie
) misunderstood Roger's post all along, as well as Roger's subsequent
) posts,
) Diana's posts, and so forth. I did, for what it's worth, reply to
) Charlie's
) most recent phlegmatic pout, but my reply is evidently still wandering
) about
) in the etheric realm, waiting for the proper moment to incarnate on this
)
) email list.
Check my reply to this topic on 3/30.
I'll try sending it again. And in the meantime, I'll post a
) merciful recap of the issues Charlie's and my exchange raised, or failed
) to
) raise, as the case may be.
)
) You continue:
)
)
) ) )
) ) ) No need to please me; I'm not in your classroom, after all, sitting with
) ) ) the
) ) ) other cholerics or whatever it is I am. You're a teacher, Charlie. If
) ) ) you
) ) ) can't find the time to figure out even rudimentary information about
) ) ) fundamental aspects of your own teaching practice, maybe it's a good
) ) ) time to
) ) ) rethink that particular pedagogical choice?
) )
) )Peter has done some self-analysis and arrived correctly at his
) )temperament, and also correctly observed that he is too old for Waldorf
) )school. Now, Dan, although we should have understanding for those with
) )extreme choleric temperaments, that should not exempt them from your ad
) )hominem rule.
)
)
) There is no ad hominem argument in the above passage. Really and truly.
) (As
) an aside, is there some reason so many anthroposophists seem to
) consistently
) misunderstand the concept of ad hominem argument? Val just posted a
) perfectly readable explanation of it not too long ago. Maybe you could
) take
) a look at it, Frank?)
)
) To the extent that the above passage contains an argument from me, it is
)
) that is irrelevant at best whether Charlie's responses on the subject of
) the
) four humors are pleasing to me. I am hardly an authority on contemporary
)
) Waldorf education in any case; on that topic, my role on this list is
) usually to learn, not to teach (imagine that -- people can actually
) learn
) from public discussion, and without thereby turning into uneducated
) boobs,
) in Charlie's felicitous phrase). It seems to me that putting the matter
) in
) terms of pleasing other listmates is an irresponsible trivialization of
) a
) real issue that has real effects on real children in the real world. It
) is
) not merely a passing theme on an email list.
)
) That, I take it, is what you thought made my advice to Charlie ad
) hominem.
) Perhaps I can allay your concerns by re-stating my original point:
)
) Charlie is or was a teacher. He has been rather insistent and quite
) explicit
) about his unwillingness to learn more about the methods he uses or used
) in
) his Waldorf teaching, as far as the theory of the four humors goes. My
) own
) background is in teaching young children, and whatever one makes of the
) four
) humors idea, I think this sort of stubborn refusal to learn --
) particularly
) on a subject that is central to one's own pedagogical practice -- is a
) misguided approach to teaching. To my mind, flaunting that kind of
) stubborn
) refusal to learn isn't usually a good basis for creating a fruitful
) learning
) environment in the classroom, and it would be a good thing for any
) teacher,
) not just Charlie, to re-think their attitude once it becomes that
) inflexible.
What can I tell you?
I'm choleric!
)
) But I'd be more than happy to ignore all of that and return to the topic
)
) I've been trying to get Charlie to discuss for a week now, about
) specifically anthroposophical versions of the four humors idea and their
)
) historical background. That is, of course, if Charlie's temperament will
)
) allow this. Greetings to all,
)
)
) Peter S.
)
) _________________________________________________________________
) Live Search Maps – find all the local information you need, right when
) you
) need it. http://maps.live.com/?icid=hmtag2&FORM=MGAC01
)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 01:26:42 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Bad Little Kids
Roger Rawlings wrote:
)
)
) Diana Winters wrote:
)
) ) Give me an idea what you'd be interested in and I'll search around?
) )
)
) Thanks. Not that I intend to give you homework. I simply think that the
) more we can expose about any aspect of waldorf, the better. So I'm
) interested in anything at all you can relate. But there's no rush or
) urgency. When something (anything at all) occurs to you, I'd love to
) read it.
)
) Roger Rawlings
)
) P.S. Charlie: As I wrote previously, the same goes for you. No homework.
)
) But anything you can tell us about what happens inside the walls would
) be instructive, I'm sure.
I've been to a zillion faculty meetings; if there is something I can
clear up for you, I'll try.
Also...for better or worse, Waldorf schools can be as different as
fruits and nuts (har!); I would say that not much goes on in a faculty
meeting at a particular school that would cast a light on Waldorf as a
whole. So much is discussed that is peculiar to the school and what is
going on at the time.
c
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 20:09:05 -0700
From: Walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Bad Little Kids
Lemuria wrote:
) I've been to a zillion faculty meetings; if there is something I can
) clear up for you, I'll try.
) Also...for better or worse, Waldorf schools can be as different as
) fruits and nuts (har!); I would say that not much goes on in a faculty
) meeting at a particular school that would cast a light on Waldorf as a
) whole. So much is discussed that is peculiar to the school and what is
) going on at the time.
What day of the week are faculty meetings held? Why? Different days for
different schools or not? What is child study all about during these
meetings?
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 05:10:51 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: how to undermine Waldorf
In place of more merciless blasting, perhaps some reflections on the
Charlie's Humors episode would be in order.
If I read him right (always a chancey proposition), Charlie's last post to
me was apparently based on the premise that my posts to him were an attempt
to undermine Waldorf education. If anything, I am likely guilty of more or
less the opposite; in light of the experiences and efforts of many of the
other members of this list, I probably ought to do more than I do to shed
critical light on Waldorf as a whole. But this simply hasn't been my focus.
For better or worse, I don’t have a strong investment in whether Waldorf is
undermined or shored up or left to go on its merry way. I don’t really study
Waldorf as such, I study anthroposophy, and I am neither an especially good
source for information on Waldorf today (pretty much everybody else on this
list knows more about that than I do), nor do I carry a particular animus
toward Waldorf. On the basis of the recent exchange with Charlie, though,
I’d say that Waldorf is doing a fine job of undermining itself.
(It is worth noting, however, that Charlie's stated beliefs on the general
theme of critique may well have played an important role here. After all, he
believes that critique is tantamount to hatred, which is probably why he
managed to convince himself that I harbor a malevolent agenda toward him and
his kind, whoever his kind may be. It is also true that some of my recent
research has focused on the behavior of the Waldorf movement in Germany
during the Nazi era, and that once I get around to writing up that research,
it probably won't produce a particularly pretty picture. But the topic will
likely occupy at most one chapter in my dissertation, and perhaps an
article. And for what it's worth, the Waldorf movement in the Nazi era comes
out looking almost appealing in comparison with the biodynamic movement. But
I digress.)
So in the hopes of unruffling your feathers, Charlie, I'll try to recap our
exchange as I see it. I think what happened is more or less the following:
You thought you could play “gotcha” with a notably amiable former Waldorfian
whose posts are not only informative and thoughtful but very well sourced.
When you got caught with your pants down, you decided, oddly, that the rest
of us were playing “gotcha” with you. You then went on to announce that you
have no interest in learning about the very topic on which you previously
claimed special knowledge, and that you see no need to substantiate your
various and sundry claims in any case.
I'd say those posts of yours, here in a public forum, go a long way toward
undermining Waldorf. If we imagine a parent who is potentially interested in
Waldorf reading this list, she or he will be treated to the spectacle of a
Waldorf teacher trying to defend Waldorf by insisting rather irritably that
Waldorf teachers don’t need to explain, justify, or even learn much about
the methods they subjects their Waldorf pupils to, and that requests for
further information are unreasonable and nasty and brutish.
It's not really any of my business, but perhaps a more promising way to
improve rather than undermine Waldorf education would be to acknowledge
those instances in which even dedicated Waldorf teachers would do well to
learn more about their own preferred theories and practices, and to engage
once in a while with the legitimate points put forward by those whose
experience with Waldorf has been less than salutary.
Then again, I would say that, since I'm hopelessly sanguine, or choleric, or
something. Greetings to all,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Mortgage refinance is hot 1) Rates near 30-yr lows 2) Good credit get
intro-rate 4.625%*
https://www2.nextag.com/goto.jsp?product=100000035&url=%2fst.jsp&tm=y&search=mortgage_text_links_88_h2a5f&s=4056&p=5117&disc=y&vers=743
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 05:10:17 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Sources, Dictionaries, Encyclopedias
Hi Charlie,
)I made no such claim.
Okay. So you did not, in fact, mean that the the study of the temperaments
is among Steiner's greatest gifts to teachers when you wrote that the study
of the temperaments is among Steiner's greatest gifts to teachers. You're
still welcome to clarify at any point...
)The original spark was a claim that the attributes of the temperaments
)are always negative.
What Roger said is that none of the temperaments is desirable. By the way,
in the very same post he also said this:
"Mainly, [Steiner] just took concepts dreamed up by others (in this
case, ancient Greek physicians) and twisted them to his own purposes. If
the Greeks had said there are five humours, or six, or thirty-seven, I’m
sure Steiner would have gone along and come up with different
rationalizations for fitting them into his system."
Maybe you got Steiner mixed up with Galen?
) I noted that this is false
What is false? That Roger thinks none of the temperaments is desirable?
Maybe you got yourself mixed up with Roger? Or Roger mixed up with Steiner?
)and, according to what you just wrote
)above, my statement is true.
The fact that Steiner says complimentary things about the different
temperaments has nothing to do with either your statement or Roger's
statement. Really. Here's Roger's original post, and your original reply;
take another look:
http://lists.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1720916530&sort=d&start=36982
http://lists.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1720916871&sort=d&start=36982
)You decide so much stuff on your own.
I didn't decide anything, I simply asked you a question. If you are not in
fact trying to say that you think Steiner attached no negative connotations
at all to any of the temperaments, and if you are aware that Roger and
Steiner are different people and that you and Steiner are different people
and that you and Roger are different people, then perhaps you could try to
re-state whatever your initial claim was about. What exactly was "totally
wrong" in the first place, Charlie?
To make this slightly more worthwhile, and since you're for some reason
rather tight-lipped on the subject, maybe I can go out on a limb and
hypothesize that you thought Roger was saying that all anthroposophists
believe that the temperaments as such are all entirely undesirable and that
he furthermore claimed that Steiner never said complimentary things about
any of the various temperaments. Leaving aside the puzzling matter of why
you might have thought Roger said this, the really interesting question
would be: just what *did* Steiner say about the positive and negative
aspects of each temperament? Do you really have nothing at all to say on
that topic?
) ) No need to please me; I'm not in your classroom, after all, sitting with
) ) the
) ) other cholerics or whatever it is I am. You're a teacher, Charlie. If
) ) you
) ) can't find the time to figure out even rudimentary information about
) ) fundamental aspects of your own teaching practice, maybe it's a good
) ) time to
) ) rethink that particular pedagogical choice?
)
)Let's make a deal; you don't try to teach me how to support Waldorf
)education and I won't try to teach you how to undermine it.
Learning something about the inadequate theory you impose on your pupils (or
wish you could impose, apparently) will not undermine Waldorf education.
Abandoning the inadequate theory will not undermine Waldorf education.
Engaging in an actual discussion about Steiner's version of the theory will
not undermine Waldorf education. Really and truly. In fact -- you might want
to sit down for this -- it could very well improve Waldorf education.
Imagine that!
Yours for teaching,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Interest Rates near 39yr lows! $430,000 Mortgage for $1,399/mo - Calculate
new payment
http://www.lowermybills.com/lre/index.jsp?sourceid=lmb-9632-18466&moid=7581
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 2501
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Sources, Dictionaries, Encyclopedias
By Diana.Winters verizon.net
RE: Bad Little Kids
By Diana.Winters verizon.net
RE: Sources, Dictionaries, Encyclopedias
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Sources, Dictionaries, Encyclopedias
By Diana.Winters verizon.net
RE: Sources, Dictionaries, Encyclopedias
By Diana.Winters verizon.net
Human IQ
By iankilburn bellsouth.net
RE: Bad Little Kids
By iankilburn bellsouth.net
RE: Sources, Dictionaries, Encyclopedias
By iankilburn bellsouth.net
RE: Bad Little Kids
By iankilburn bellsouth.net
RE: Sources, Dictionaries, Encyclopedias
By eltrigal78 yahoo.com
RE: temperaments - was: Sources, Dictionaries, Encyclopedias
By eltrigal78 yahoo.com
RE: Ur-language, was: anthroposophists discuss race
By eltrigal78 yahoo.com
RE: Ur-language, was: anthroposophists discuss race
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: Ur-language, was: anthroposophists discuss race
By iankilburn bellsouth.net
how to undermine Waldorf
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Sources, Dictionaries, Encyclopedias
By iankilburn bellsouth.net
In the Room?
By iankilburn bellsouth.net
RE: Sources, Dictionaries, Encyclopedias
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: Sources, Dictionaries, Encyclopedias
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: Ur-language, was: anthroposophists discuss race
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: Bad Little Kids
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: Sources, Dictionaries, Encyclopedias
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: Roger's website
By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
RE: Ur-language, was: anthroposophists discuss race
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: Sources, Dictionaries, Encyclopedias
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: In the Room?
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: Human IQ
By Diana.Winters verizon.net
RE: Sources, Dictionaries, Encyclopedias
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: Human IQ
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: Sources, Dictionaries, Encyclopedias
By Diana.Winters verizon.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 12:50:07 +0000
From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Sources, Dictionaries, Encyclopedias
Charlie:
)The original spark was a claim that the attributes of the )temperaments
)are always negative.
Peter:
)What Roger said is that none of the temperaments is desirable.
Charlie:
)I noted that this is false
Peter:
)What is false? That Roger thinks none of the temperaments is )desirable?
)Maybe you got yourself mixed up with Roger? Or Roger )mixed up with
)Steiner?
Charlie:
)and, according to what you just wrote above, my statement is true.
Peter:
)The fact that Steiner says complimentary things about the different
)temperaments has nothing to do with either your statement or Roger's
)statement.
etc etc. I think the crux of this typical miscommunication is that
Charlie, like many anthroposophists, is quite simply working from what
"Steiner said." The default to what "Steiner said" remains one of the
biggest problems in Waldorf education today . . .
Charlie then understandably becomes quite irritated that he can't
apparently get other people to understand that Steiner didn't say the
temperaments are all negative. When other people assure him that we
aren't disputing that Steiner didn't say the temperaments are all
negative - and try to point out that that is NOT the point we are making
- it is simply lost on him. It comes to look more and more like we're
ganging up on him, playing tricks, refusing to acknowledge the obvious
etc., and also understandably, this appears to him to have no possible
motive other than "undermining Waldorf" or having a "malevolent agenda"
perhaps toward him personally.
We're simply working from a premise that he cannot work from, or refuses
to work from - that Steiner is not the arbiter of whether what Steiner
said always makes sense, or whether what Steiner said is always useful
and good - and not least, whether what Steiner said about his own claims
is always true and correct.
Critics simply don't make those assumptions about Steiner, and this
explains 90% of the misunderstandings here, IMO. It's similar to how
offended anthroposophists are to hear that some people think Steiner
said things that are racist - when Steiner himself insisted that all the
races have positive contributions to make, or that Steiner spoke
"against nationalism" or in favor of "unity," "brotherhood" etc.
And we went through the exact same sequence of misunderstandings
regarding whether PoF is an "anthroposophical" work. The
anthroposophists' argument was that Steiner said it was an
anthroposophical work - plain and simple. If you want to carry a
discussion about Steiner past such an assumption - that Steiner is a
good and true source on any claim, including the accuracy and usefulness
of his own claims, you won't find many anthroposophists willing to go
there.
This problem definitely afflicts Daniel Hindes's sparring with Peter
also - Hindes will simply assert, for instance, that Peter has "ignored"
a certain statement by Steiner that, in Hindes's view, ought to affect
Peter's interpretation. The problem is often that Peter isn't "ignoring"
it, "hiding," "denying" etc. but doesn't assign it the same relevance as
Hindes does, because he doesn't accept straightforwardly that if Steiner
said it, it's reliable and true.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 12:56:47 +0000
From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Bad Little Kids
Lemuria wrote:
)I would say that not much goes on in a faculty meeting at a )particular
)school that would cast a light on Waldorf as a whole. So )much is
)discussed that is peculiar to the school and what is going )on at the
)time.
Wow, that's wildly false, Charlie. I would say that virtually the
opposite is true. Ninety percent of what goes on in a Waldorf faculty
meeting is uniquely Waldorf and would not be recognizable in another
school, and there are often discussions that non-Waldorf teachers
couldn't make head or tail of. Of course, details of upcoming events are
discussed, but they're "peculiar to the school" only in the trivial
sense that the date and time of the Christmas fair for that particular
school in that particular time and town are "peculiar." Most of the
details of how events are organized organized (namely, according to
Steiner's indications), you will certainly not find in non-Waldorf
schools.
Furthermore it is standard for a portion of every Waldorf faculty
meeting to be devoted not to school business but to "Steiner study."
Since this happens every week, at virtually every Waldorf faculty
meeting that occurs (at least in private schools; charters in the US
have to omit this, or at least call it something else), it's completely
ludicrous to assert that "not much goes on" in a typical Waldorf faculty
meeting that would shed light on Waldorf as a whole - unless you'd like
people to believe that what "Steiner said" doesn't shed light on
Waldorf?
Likewise, "child study" is a routine feature of Waldorf faculty meetings
(obligatory, I was told), and while faculty in other schools surely also
discuss the children, you're surely aware that outside of Waldorf
schools, they're not doing "child study" according to Steiner's
temperaments, studying a worksheet that details the differences between
children with large heads and children with small heads according to
Steiner (there you go, Roger; revisiting one faculty meeting I
attended), considering the child's karma, recommending eurythmy or
anthroposophic medicine, etc.
In short, Charlie, the statement that what goes on in a Waldorf faculty
meeting doesn't shed light on Waldorf is preposterous.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 11:23:48 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Sources, Dictionaries, Encyclopedias
Hi Charlie,
)I made no such claim.
Okay. So you did not, in fact, mean that the the study of the temperaments
is among Steiner's greatest gifts to teachers when you wrote that the study
of the temperaments is among Steiner's greatest gifts to teachers. You're
still welcome to clarify at any point...
)The original spark was a claim that the attributes of the temperaments
)are always negative.
What Roger said is that none of the temperaments is desirable. By the way,
in the very same post he also said this:
"Mainly, [Steiner] just took concepts dreamed up by others (in this
case, ancient Greek physicians) and twisted them to his own purposes. If
the Greeks had said there are five humours, or six, or thirty-seven, I’m
sure Steiner would have gone along and come up with different
rationalizations for fitting them into his system."
Maybe you got Steiner mixed up with Galen?
) I noted that this is false
What is false? That Roger thinks none of the temperaments is desirable?
Maybe you got yourself mixed up with Roger? Or Roger mixed up with Steiner?
)and, according to what you just wrote
)above, my statement is true.
The fact that Steiner says complimentary things about the different
temperaments has nothing to do with either your statement or Roger's
statement. Really. Here's Roger's original post, and your original reply;
take another look:
http://lists.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1720916530&sort=d&start=36982
http://lists.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1720916871&sort=d&start=36982
)You decide so much stuff on your own.
I didn't decide anything, I simply asked you a question. If you are not in
fact trying to say that you think Steiner attached no negative connotations
at all to any of the temperaments, and if you are aware that Roger and
Steiner are different people and that you and Steiner are different people
and that you and Roger are different people, then perhaps you could try to
re-state whatever your initial claim was about. What exactly was "totally
wrong" in the first place, Charlie?
To make this slightly more worthwhile, and since you're for some reason
rather tight-lipped on the subject, maybe I can go out on a limb and
hypothesize that you thought Roger was saying that all anthroposophists
believe that the temperaments as such are all entirely undesirable and that
he furthermore claimed that Steiner never said complimentary things about
any of the various temperaments. Leaving aside the puzzling matter of why
you might have thought Roger said this, the really interesting question
would be: just what *did* Steiner say about the positive and negative
aspects of each temperament? Do you really have nothing at all to say on
that topic?
) ) No need to please me; I'm not in your classroom, after all, sitting with
) ) the
) ) other cholerics or whatever it is I am. You're a teacher, Charlie. If
) ) you
) ) can't find the time to figure out even rudimentary information about
) ) fundamental aspects of your own teaching practice, maybe it's a good
) ) time to
) ) rethink that particular pedagogical choice?
)
)Let's make a deal; you don't try to teach me how to support Waldorf
)education and I won't try to teach you how to undermine it.
Learning something about the inadequate theory you impose on your pupils (or
wish you could impose, apparently) will not undermine Waldorf education.
Abandoning the inadequate theory will not undermine Waldorf education.
Engaging in an actual discussion about Steiner's version of the theory will
not undermine Waldorf education. Really and truly. In fact -- you might want
to sit down for this -- it could very well improve Waldorf education.
Imagine that!
Yours for teaching,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Get a FREE Web site, company branded e-mail and more from Microsoft Office
Live! http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 13:05:40 +0000
From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Sources, Dictionaries, Encyclopedias
Let me try a shorter version of this. Charlie, look at this, if you
will:
Charlie:
)The original spark was a claim that the attributes of the )temperaments
)are always negative.
That is a claim about what Steiner said.
Peter:
)What Roger said is that none of the temperaments is desirable.
What Roger said, recapped by Peter, is a claim about the temperaments -
it is not a claim about what Steiner said about the temperaments.
Do you see what I'm getting at? We don't disagree on what Steiner said
about the temperaments. I think this is relevant to where you got heated
up saying people didn't believe you had done so much study, also. You
seemed to think people were saying you didn't really know what Steiner
said about the temperaments.
Do you get that that's not the part we dispute? We don't dispute what
Steiner said about the temperaments, nor your own knowledge or
understanding of what Steiner said about the temperaments. It's the
significance of the temperaments, their effects, their real-world
applications that are in dispute - not what Steiner said about them
(specifically, whether any of the lists of attributes include anything
positive - we all agree that they do).
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 13:16:09 +0000
From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Sources, Dictionaries, Encyclopedias
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)Learning something about the inadequate theory you impose on your
))pupils (or wish you could impose, apparently) will not undermine
))Waldorf education.
)Abandoning the inadequate theory will not undermine Waldorf )education.
)Engaging in an actual discussion about Steiner's version of the )theory
)will not undermine Waldorf education.
Heck no. We could envision, for instance, that if Waldorf teachers had
more information about the origins of this theory, the history of this
theory and its applications, and perhaps comparative information on
other, differing theories of "temperament" and its application in
education, and finally, critique of the very notion of "temperament,"
they might decide not to "apply the temperaments" per Rudolf Steiner any
longer, but rather to take all such information as potentially useful
theories, and/or potentially damaging theories - they might be both -
and decide for themselves whether to apply them or not in their own
classrooms.
This would improve Waldorf education. Understanding that Rudolf Steiner
was probably right on some things and wrong on others, and being willing
to give other theorists equal time, would improve Waldorf education.
It would make those faculty meetings less "peculiar to Waldorf," too,
wouldn't it? People wouldn't any longer be obliged to inquire, "So what
temperament is he?" when a child initially came up for discussion in
"child study," because it would not be taken for granted that that was
the only appropriate model to use to discuss the child. So there would
no longer be this recognizable structure to "child study." (It usually
starts, for instance, with a physical description of the child, which of
course is meant to show the temperament.)
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 14:17:10 +0000
From: Roger Rawlings (iankilburn bellsouth.net)
Subject: Human IQ
Woman And Pet Hospitalized After Eating Contaminated Pet Food
March 28, 2007 2:02 p.m. EST
Nidhi Sharma - All Headline News Staff Writer
Ottawa, Canada (AHN) - A Canadian woman and her 1-year-old dog ended up
in the hospital with almost identical symptoms after the two ate the
same moist pet food that was recalled in North America some time back.
In an attempt to trick her terrier into trying a new kind of food,
Elaine Larabie ate it herself and suffered from "embarrassing" symptoms
including foaming at the mouth, problems urinating, vomiting and loss of
appetite.
Roger Rawlings
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 14:21:05 +0000
From: Roger Rawlings (iankilburn bellsouth.net)
Subject: RE: Bad Little Kids
Lemuria wrote:
) I've been to a zillion faculty meetings; if there is something I can
) clear up for you, I'll try.
Great. Thanks. I'm not exclusively interested in faculty meetings, but
in any and all events inside Waldorfs (including the brutalization
caused by small-minded tyrants). But feel free to tell us anything at
all, including all the good stuff.
Roger Rawlings
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 14:38:19 +0000
From: Roger Rawlings (iankilburn bellsouth.net)
Subject: RE: Sources, Dictionaries, Encyclopedias
Diana Winters wrote:
)
) We're simply working from a premise that he cannot work from, or refuses
)
) to work from - that Steiner is not the arbiter of whether what Steiner
) said always makes sense, or whether what Steiner said is always useful
) and good - and not least, whether what Steiner said about his own claims
)
) is always true and correct.
)
)
Well said, Diana.
I'm working on another posting about the works of Hermann von Baravalle.
I'll preempt myself, slightly, by quoting a passage that will appear in
that much-anticipated and wonderfully eye-opening posting:
"I’ve noticed that when Anthroposophists refer to any statement made by
Steiner, the point seems to be: Here is the unarguable truth. Why is it
true? Because Steiner said so. [This, of course, is the mode of
argumentation called “appeal to authority.” A true authority ought to
know what s/he is talking about, so citing an authority can buttress a
case. However, if the “authority” is not “truly an authority on the
subject under consideration,” then the appeal to authority is a logical
fallacy. See Robert Baum, LOGIC (New York, etc.: Harcourt Brace, 1996),
p.556. Since Steiner’s statements were so often demonstrably wrong or at
least extremely implausible, citing him as an authority is dubious at
best.]"
And certainly you are right, Diana, that citing Steiner as the authority
on the question of whether Steiner was right is quite loopy (or, to be
drearily academic, tautological).
Roger Rawlings
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 14:44:58 +0000
From: Roger Rawlings (iankilburn bellsouth.net)
Subject: RE: Bad Little Kids
Diana Winters wrote:
)
) Ninety percent of what goes on in a Waldorf faculty
) meeting is uniquely Waldorf and would not be recognizable in another
) school, and there are often discussions that non-Waldorf teachers
) couldn't make head or tail of.
Thank you for the entire posting, Diana. Tell us more, anytime.
My mother, by the way, attended Waldorf faculty meetings every week for
years, because she was the headmaster's secretary. But because she was a
good secret-ary (keeper of secrets), she never told me what was
discussed, etc.
Roger Rawlings
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 14:56:51 +0000
From: Frank Smith (eltrigal78 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Sources, Dictionaries, Encyclopedias
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
)
) Hi Charlie,
(snip)
) What Roger said is that none of the temperaments is desirable. By the
) way,
) in the very same post he also said this:
)
) "Mainly, [Steiner] just took concepts dreamed up by others (in this
) case, ancient Greek physicians) and twisted them to his own purposes. If
) the Greeks had said there are five humours, or six, or thirty-seven, I’m
) sure Steiner would have gone along and come up with different
) rationalizations for fitting them into his system."
)
) Maybe you got Steiner mixed up with Galen?
)
A statement which deserves to be passed over as irony if it wasn't so
silly, even as irony - because in fact the Greeks did not say there are
5, 6 or 37 humors, but only four. The Greeks said many things which were
- and still are - confoundedly correct, or at least still taken
seriously, including the 4 temperaments. Btw, did anyone say that
Steiner invented the idea of 4 temperaments? I don't think so. It may
be, though, that he was the first to apply them to education (not sure).
Peter continues:
) What is false? That Roger thinks none of the temperaments is desirable?
) Maybe you got yourself mixed up with Roger? Or Roger mixed up with
) Steiner?
If Roger thinks that none of the temperaments is desirable, he may be
exposing himself as a melancholic. In any case, he'd be wrong¨:
The four personality types
Each of the four types of humours corresponded to a different
personality type.
Sanguine
Sanguine indicates the personality of an individual with the temperament
of blood, the season of spring (wet and hot), and the element of air. A
person who is sanguine is generally optimistic, cheerful, even-tempered,
confident, rational, popular, and fun-loving. He or she can be daydreamy
to the point of not accomplishing anything and impulsive, acting on
whims in an unpredictable fashion. Sanguines usually have a lot of
energy, but have a problem finding a way to direct the energy. This also
describes the manic phase of a bipolar disorder.
Choleric
Choleric corresponds to the fluid of yellow bile, the season of summer
(dry and hot), and the element of fire. A person who is choleric is a
doer and a leader. They have a lot of ambition, energy and drive, and
try to instill it in others, but can dominate people of other
temperaments, especially phlegmatic types. Many great charismatic,
military and political figures were cholerics. On the negative side,
they are easily angered or bad tempered.
In folk medicine, a baby referred to as "colic" is one who cries
frequently and seems to be constantly angry. This is an adaptation of
"choleric," although no one now would attribute the condition to bile.
Similarly, a person described as "bilious" is mean-spirited, suspicious,
and angry. This, again, is an adaptation of the old humour theory
"choleric."
The disease Cholera gained its name from choler (bile).
Melancholic
Melancholic is the personality of an individual characterized by black
bile; hence (Greek μελας, melas, "black", +
χολη, kholé, "bile"); a person who was a thoughtful
ponderer had a melancholic disposition. Often very kind and considerate,
melancholics can be highly creative - as in poets and artists - but also
can become overly obsessed on the tragedy and cruelty in the world, thus
becoming depressed. It also indicates the season of autumn (dry and
cold) and the element of earth. A melancholy is also often a
perfectionist, being very particular about what they want and how they
want it in some cases. This often results in being unsatisfied with
one's own artistic or creative works, always pointing out to themselves
what could and should be improved.
This temperament describes the depressed phase of a bipolar disorder.
There is no bodily fluid corresponding to black bile. However, the
medulla of the adrenal glands decomposes very rapidly after death, and
it is possible that this product is the mythical "black bile".
Phlegmatic
A phlegmatic person is calm and unemotional. Phlegmatic means pertaining
to phlegm, corresponds to the season of winter (wet and cold), and
connotes the element of water.
While phlegmatics are generally self-content and kind, their shy
personality can often inhibit enthusiasm in others and make themselves
lazy and resistant to change. They are very consistent, relaxed, and
observant, making them good administrators and diplomats. Like the
sanguine personality, the phlegmatic has many friends. But the
phlegmatic is more reliable and compassionate; these characteristics
typically make the phlegmatic a more dependable friend.
c. 400 BC Hippocrates's four humours blood yellow bile black bile
phlegm
Season: spring summer autumn winter
Element: air fire earth water
Organ: liver spleen gall bladder brain/lungs
Characteristics: courageous, amorous easily angered despondent,
sleepless calm, unemotional
c. 325 BC Aristotle's four sources of happiness hedone (sensuous
pleasure) ethikos (moral virtue) propraitari (acquiring assets)
dialogike (logical investigation)
c. 190 AD Galen's four temperaments sanguine choleric melancholic
phlegmatic
c. 1550 Paracelsus's four totem spirits curious sylphs changeable
salamanders industrious gnomes inspired undines
c. 1905 Adicke's four world views innovative doctrinaire traditional
skeptical
c. 1912 Adler's four personality types Social Useful Ruling Dominant
Avoiding Getting or Leaning
c. 1914 Spränger's four value attitudes artistic religious economic
theoretic
c. 1920 Kretchmer's four character styles hypomanic hyperesthetic
depressive anesthetic
c. 1947 Erich Fromm's four orientations exploitative receptive
hoarding marketing
c. 1958 Myers's cognitive function types SP - sensory perception NF -
intuitive feeling SJ - sensory judgement NT - intuitive thinking
c. 1978 Keirsey/Bates four temperaments (old) Dionysian Apollonian
Epimethian Promethian
c. 1998 Keirsey's four temperaments Artisan Idealist Guardian
Rational
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_humours
Frank
http://SouthernCrossReview.org
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 15:01:18 +0000
From: Frank Smith (eltrigal78 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: temperaments - was: Sources, Dictionaries, Encyclopedias
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
) Maybe you got Steiner mixed up with Galen?
Temperament theory has its roots in the ancient four humors theory of
the Greek Historian Hippocrates (460-370 BC), who believed certain human
behaviors were caused by body fluids (called "humors"): blood, yellow
bile, black bile, and phlegm. Next, Galen (131-200) developed the first
typology of temperament in his dissertation Die Temperamentis, and
searched for physiological reasons for different behaviors in humans.
Nicholas Culpeper (1616-1654) was the first to disregard the idea of
fluids as defining human behavior, and Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), Alfred
Adler (1879-1937), Theorien von Adicke (1905), Eduard Spränger (1914),
Ernst Kretchmer (1920), Erich Fromm (1947), and Rudolf Steiner
(1861-1925) all theorized on the four temperaments (with different
names) and greatly shaped our modern theories of temperament. Hans
Eysenck (1916-1997) was one of the first psychologists to analyze
personality differences using a psycho-statistical method (factor
analysis), and his research led him to believe that temperament is
biologically based. The factors he proposed in his book Dimensions of
Personality were Neuroticism (N) which was the tendency to experience
negative emotions, and the second was Extraversion (E) which was the
tendency to enjoy positive events, especially social ones. By pairing
the two dimensions, Eysenck noted how the results were similar to the
four ancient temperaments.
* High N, High E = Choleric
* High N, Low E = Melancholic (also called "Melancholy"/pl. "-ies")
* Low N, High E = Sanguine
* Low N, Low E = Phlegmatic
Other researchers developed similar systems, many of which did not use
the ancient temperament names, and several paired extroversion with a
different factor, which would determine relationship/task-orientation.
Examples are DiSC assessment, Social Styles, and a theory that adds a
fifth temperament. One of the most popular today is the Keirsey
Temperament Sorter, whose four temperaments were based largely on the
Greek gods Apollo, Dionysus, Epimetheus and Prometheus. and were mapped
to the 16 types of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). They were
renamed (SP=Artisan, SJ=Guardian, NF=Idealist, NT=Rational). Rather than
using extroversion and introversion (E/I) and task/people focus, like
other theories, KTS mapped the temperaments to "Sensing" and "Intuition"
(S/N, renamed "concrete" and "abstract") paired with a new category,
"Cooperative" and "pragmatic" (loosely based on Judging and Perception,
or J/P). When "Role-Informative" and "Role-Directive" (loosely connected
with Thinking/Feeling or T/F, and corresponding to
people/task-orientation), and finally E/I are factored in, you attain
the 16 types. Finally, the Interaction Styles of Linda V. Berens
combines Directing and Informing with E/I to form another group of
"styles" which greatly resemble the ancient temperaments, and these are
mapped together with the Keirsey Temperaments onto the 16 types.
and:
) Imagine that!
Frank
http://SouthernCrossReview.org
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 15:10:15 +0000
From: Frank Smith (eltrigal78 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Ur-language, was: anthroposophists discuss race
Roger Rawlings wrote:
)
)
) Pete Karaiskos wrote:
) )
) ) You bet I DID. Boy, don't I wish I could squirt stuff out of my ass and
) )
) )
) ) build an intricate web to ensnare people with. But then, I'm not
) ) Steiner. ;)
) )
) ) Pete
)
R: Great reply!
)
) While I've argued that we should be polite to each other on the list,
) there are certain historical figures whom we must discuss from every
) angle, if we are to have an intelligent discussion. Steiner, Hitler,
) etc. They made themselves fair game by their pronouncements and actions.
)
) And if they showed themselves to be lunatics, we must be honest enough
) to say so.
We're used to Pete K.'s ravings, Roger, but are YOU seriously equating
Hitler and Steiner - and also claiming that the latter was a lunatic?
Please reply, I want to know what kind of person I'm communicating with
(using language, not squeeks, peeps or growls).
Frank
http://SouthernCrossReview.org
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 15:34:19 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Ur-language, was: anthroposophists discuss race
Thanks Frank,
I'm glad my ravings get such rave reviews among Anthroposophists. Gee,
ya think maybe I'm not the only one to notice the connections between
Steiner's ideas and Hitler's? I personally think they were BOTH raving
lunatics... but then what do I know... right?
Pete
Frank Smith wrote:
)
)
) Roger Rawlings wrote:
) )
) )
) ) Pete Karaiskos wrote:
) ) )
) ) ) You bet I DID. Boy, don't I wish I could squirt stuff out of my ass and
) ) )
) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) build an intricate web to ensnare people with. But then, I'm not
) ) ) Steiner. ;)
) ) )
) ) ) Pete
) )
) R: Great reply!
) )
) ) While I've argued that we should be polite to each other on the list,
) ) there are certain historical figures whom we must discuss from every
) ) angle, if we are to have an intelligent discussion. Steiner, Hitler,
) ) etc. They made themselves fair game by their pronouncements and actions.
) )
) )
) ) And if they showed themselves to be lunatics, we must be honest enough
) ) to say so.
)
) We're used to Pete K.'s ravings, Roger, but are YOU seriously equating
) Hitler and Steiner - and also claiming that the latter was a lunatic?
) Please reply, I want to know what kind of person I'm communicating with
) (using language, not squeeks, peeps or growls).
) Frank
)
) http://SouthernCrossReview.org
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 16:08:32 +0000
From: Roger Rawlings (iankilburn bellsouth.net)
Subject: RE: Ur-language, was: anthroposophists discuss race
Frank Smith wrote:
) We're used to Pete K.'s ravings, Roger, but are YOU seriously equating
) Hitler and Steiner - and also claiming that the latter was a lunatic?
) Please reply, I want to know what kind of person I'm communicating with
) (using language, not squeeks, peeps or growls).
I did not equate Hitler with Steiner. I said they are historical figures
whom we need to study from every angle. Nor did I say that Steiner was a
lunatic. I said that if Hitler or Steiner showed themselves to be
lunatics, we should come out and say so.
I'm not qualified to pass definitive judgments on the mental condition
of anyone I haven't meant (any more than you are qualified to say that I
am probably a melancholic).
These e-mail exchanges are naturally a bit informal. Here's what I said
about Steiner's mentality in my memoir (I made the statement after
providing lots of quotations and analyses):
"Cicero once said he wondered why two soothsayers meeting in the street
didn’t burst out laughing.[82] But mystics usually have their act down
too well for that. And some, I’m sure, truly believe their own
pronouncements. Maybe Steiner believed every word he uttered. If so, all
the worse, for if he wasn’t a charlatan, then he was almost certainly a
lunatic. We don’t need to split hairs, though. Whether or not he was
clinically sane, it is frightening that anyone ever took him seriously,
much less founded schools devoted to his doctrines. As I’ve suggested,
part of the explanation must surely be that many of Steiner’s followers
have read only a small—perhaps expurgated—selection of his works. They
don’t know their man. But other, more committed followers surely have a
profound motive: They hope to obtain the spiritual rewards Steiner
promised. This is, of course, understandable—salvation is a nearly
universal human desire. For this reason alone, prophets have rarely
lacked audiences. Disciples cluster around oracles—including the ones
who want to hasten the Apocalypse. We are drawn to the professed
certainty of those who claim to know God’s will. We value the supposedly
empowering answers they offer us—even if, in truth, we are being led
astray, step after step, doctrine after doctrine."
Please note: "almost surely" not "definitely" a lunatic. Also, " Whether
or not he was clinically sane..." I distinctly left open the possibility
that Steiner was in his right mind—even though I consider virtually all
of his doctrines to be worthless or worse.
Roger Rawlings
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 11:40:57 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: how to undermine Waldorf
In place of more merciless blasting, perhaps some reflections on the
Charlie's Humors episode would be in order.
If I read him right (always a chancey proposition), Charlie's last post to
me was apparently based on the premise that my posts to him were an attempt
to undermine Waldorf education. If anything, I am likely guilty of more or
less the opposite; in light of the experiences and efforts of many of the
other members of this list, I probably ought to do more than I do to shed
critical light on Waldorf as a whole. But this simply hasn't been my focus.
For better or worse, I don’t have a strong investment in whether Waldorf is
undermined or shored up or left to go on its merry way. I don’t really study
Waldorf as such, I study anthroposophy, and I am neither an especially good
source for information on Waldorf today (pretty much everybody else on this
list knows more about that than I do), nor do I carry a particular animus
toward Waldorf. On the basis of the recent exchange with Charlie, though,
I’d say that Waldorf is doing a fine job of undermining itself.
(It is worth noting, however, that Charlie's stated beliefs on the general
theme of critique may well have played an important role here. After all, he
believes that critique is tantamount to hatred, which is probably why he
managed to convince himself that I harbor a malevolent agenda toward him and
his kind, whoever his kind may be. It is also true that some of my recent
research has focused on the behavior of the Waldorf movement in Germany
during the Nazi era, and that once I get around to writing up that research,
it probably won't produce a particularly pretty picture. But the topic will
likely occupy at most one chapter in my dissertation, and perhaps an
article. And for what it's worth, the Waldorf movement in the Nazi era comes
out looking almost appealing in comparison with the biodynamic movement. But
I digress.)
So in the hopes of unruffling your feathers, Charlie, I'll try to recap our
exchange as I see it. I think what happened is more or less the following:
You thought you could play “gotcha” with a notably amiable former Waldorfian
whose posts are not only informative and thoughtful but very well sourced.
When you got caught with your pants down, you decided, oddly, that the rest
of us were playing “gotcha” with you. You then went on to announce that you
have no interest in learning about the very topic on which you previously
claimed special knowledge, and that you see no need to substantiate your
various and sundry claims in any case.
I'd say those posts of yours, here in a public forum, go a long way toward
undermining Waldorf. If we imagine a parent who is potentially interested in
Waldorf reading this list, she or he will be treated to the spectacle of a
Waldorf teacher trying to defend Waldorf by insisting rather irritably that
Waldorf teachers don’t need to explain, justify, or even learn much about
the methods they subjects their Waldorf pupils to, and that requests for
further information are unreasonable and nasty and brutish.
It's not really any of my business, but perhaps a more promising way to
improve rather than undermine Waldorf education would be to acknowledge
those instances in which even dedicated Waldorf teachers would do well to
learn more about their own preferred theories and practices, and to engage
once in a while with the legitimate points put forward by those whose
experience with Waldorf has been less than salutary.
Then again, I would say that, since I'm hopelessly sanguine, or choleric, or
something. Greetings to all,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Get a FREE Web site, company branded e-mail and more from Microsoft Office
Live! http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 17:05:11 +0000
From: Roger Rawlings (iankilburn bellsouth.net)
Subject: RE: Sources, Dictionaries, Encyclopedias
Frank Smith wrote:
)
) The four personality types
)
) Each of the four types of humours corresponded to a different
) personality type.
)
) Sanguine
)
) Choleric
)
)
) Melancholic
)
))
) Phlegmatic
)
)
Thanks for this very interesting posting, Frank. I believe it gives us
valuable insights into Anthroposophical tenets.
On the other hand, I must admit to you that I find it completely
unconvincing. (I’ve given my reasons for dismissing the four
temperaments, at length, in previous postings. I won’t repeat myself
now.)
I’m willing to stipulate that you are speaking the truth as you
understand it. But where does that get us? To get to the root of
Anthroposophical doctrines, we need to consider what the leading
Anthroposophists have said. In my two longest postings on the subject of
the humours (“Humouresque” and “What the Man Said”) my sources were
Hermann von Baravalle and Rudolf Steiner--I quoted both men and gave
specific citations. As I understand rational discussion, that's how
things work.
Roger Rawlings
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 17:08:58 +0000
From: Roger Rawlings (iankilburn bellsouth.net)
Subject: In the Room?
An interesting question has occurred to me. (Sort of interesting,
anyway.) I wonder what the procedure was when the faculty at my Waldorf
discussed me or my sisters (the shapes of our skulls, the sizes of our
ears, the lengths of our ""spirtual noses, etc.) Would they have asked
my mother to leave the room, or would they have passed judgments on us
(all in a very helpful spirit, of course) in her presence? Diana?
Charlie? What happened at your schools in such circumstances?
Roger Rawlings
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 17:17:35 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Sources, Dictionaries, Encyclopedias
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
)
) Hi Charlie,
)
)
) )I made no such claim.
)
)
) Okay. So you did not, in fact, mean that the the study of the
) temperaments
) is among Steiner's greatest gifts to teachers when you wrote that the
) study
) of the temperaments is among Steiner's greatest gifts to teachers.
) You're
) still welcome to clarify at any point...
)
Funny how you fail to mention what the sentence refers to...so I will
write it.
The assertion addresses`your statement (that, by the way, comes from
absolutely NOWHERE)that I feel that Steiner invented the idea of
humors/temperaments. Please check my post on 3/30.
Your lack of dedication to honesty is a damn shame.
Please excuse me if I don't continue to play your game and spend my time
checking old posts to find where you have lied, invented and fabricated
things that you claim to come from me.
You, sir, are a liar.
)
) )The original spark was a claim that the attributes of the temperaments
) )are always negative.
)
)
) What Roger said is that none of the temperaments is desirable. By the
) way,
) in the very same post he also said this:
)
) "Mainly, [Steiner] just took concepts dreamed up by others (in this
) case, ancient Greek physicians) and twisted them to his own purposes. If
) the Greeks had said there are five humours, or six, or thirty-seven, I’m
) sure Steiner would have gone along and come up with different
) rationalizations for fitting them into his system."
)
) Maybe you got Steiner mixed up with Galen?
)
)
) ) I noted that this is false
)
)
) What is false? That Roger thinks none of the temperaments is desirable?
) Maybe you got yourself mixed up with Roger? Or Roger mixed up with
) Steiner?
)
)
) )and, according to what you just wrote
) )above, my statement is true.
)
)
) The fact that Steiner says complimentary things about the different
) temperaments has nothing to do with either your statement or Roger's
) statement. Really. Here's Roger's original post, and your original
) reply;
) take another look:
)
) http://lists.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1720916530&sort=d&start=36982
)
)
) http://lists.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1720916871&sort=d&start=36982
)
)
)
) )You decide so much stuff on your own.
)
)
) I didn't decide anything, I simply asked you a question. If you are not
) in
) fact trying to say that you think Steiner attached no negative
) connotations
) at all to any of the temperaments, and if you are aware that Roger and
) Steiner are different people and that you and Steiner are different
) people
) and that you and Roger are different people, then perhaps you could try
) to
) re-state whatever your initial claim was about. What exactly was
) "totally
) wrong" in the first place, Charlie?
)
) To make this slightly more worthwhile, and since you're for some reason
) rather tight-lipped on the subject, maybe I can go out on a limb and
) hypothesize that you thought Roger was saying that all anthroposophists
) believe that the temperaments as such are all entirely undesirable and
) that
) he furthermore claimed that Steiner never said complimentary things
) about
) any of the various temperaments. Leaving aside the puzzling matter of
) why
) you might have thought Roger said this, the really interesting question
) would be: just what *did* Steiner say about the positive and negative
) aspects of each temperament? Do you really have nothing at all to say on
)
) that topic?
)
)
) ) ) No need to please me; I'm not in your classroom, after all, sitting with
) ) ) the
) ) ) other cholerics or whatever it is I am. You're a teacher, Charlie. If
) ) ) you
) ) ) can't find the time to figure out even rudimentary information about
) ) ) fundamental aspects of your own teaching practice, maybe it's a good
) ) ) time to
) ) ) rethink that particular pedagogical choice?
) )
) )Let's make a deal; you don't try to teach me how to support Waldorf
) )education and I won't try to teach you how to undermine it.
)
)
) Learning something about the inadequate theory you impose on your pupils
) (or
) wish you could impose, apparently) will not undermine Waldorf education.
)
) Abandoning the inadequate theory will not undermine Waldorf education.
) Engaging in an actual discussion about Steiner's version of the theory
) will
) not undermine Waldorf education. Really and truly. In fact -- you might
) want
) to sit down for this -- it could very well improve Waldorf education.
) Imagine that!
)
) Yours for teaching,
)
)
) Peter S.
)
) _________________________________________________________________
) Interest Rates near 39yr lows! $430,000 Mortgage for $1,399/mo -
) Calculate
) new payment
) http://www.lowermybills.com/lre/index.jsp?sourceid=lmb-9632-18466&moid=7581
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 17:23:29 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Sources, Dictionaries, Encyclopedias
Diana Winters wrote:
)
)
) Let me try a shorter version of this. Charlie, look at this, if you
) will:
)
) Charlie:
)
) )The original spark was a claim that the attributes of the )temperaments
) )are always negative.
)
) That is a claim about what Steiner said.
)
) Peter:
) )What Roger said is that none of the temperaments is desirable.
)
) What Roger said, recapped by Peter, is a claim about the temperaments -
) it is not a claim about what Steiner said about the temperaments.
)
) Do you see what I'm getting at? We don't disagree on what Steiner said
) about the temperaments. I think this is relevant to where you got heated
)
) up saying people didn't believe you had done so much study, also. You
) seemed to think people were saying you didn't really know what Steiner
) said about the temperaments.
)
) Do you get that that's not the part we dispute? We don't dispute what
) Steiner said about the temperaments, nor your own knowledge or
) understanding of what Steiner said about the temperaments.
Who is "we"?
This is exactly what Peter S. is saying.
It's the
) significance of the temperaments, their effects, their real-world
) applications that are in dispute - not what Steiner said about them
) (specifically, whether any of the lists of attributes include anything
) positive - we all agree that they do).
)
) Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 17:25:45 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Ur-language, was: anthroposophists discuss race
And please note, Frank, that I did not say or suggest Roger equates
Steiner with Hitler (although for me, it's fun to draw similarities
since Anthropops get all charged up when I do).
Pete
Roger Rawlings wrote:
)
)
) Frank Smith wrote:
)
) ) We're used to Pete K.'s ravings, Roger, but are YOU seriously equating
) ) Hitler and Steiner - and also claiming that the latter was a lunatic?
) ) Please reply, I want to know what kind of person I'm communicating with
) ) (using language, not squeeks, peeps or growls).
)
) I did not equate Hitler with Steiner. I said they are historical figures
)
) whom we need to study from every angle. Nor did I say that Steiner was a
)
) lunatic. I said that if Hitler or Steiner showed themselves to be
) lunatics, we should come out and say so.
)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 17:31:02 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Bad Little Kids
Diana Winters wrote:
)
)
) Lemuria wrote:
)
) )I would say that not much goes on in a faculty meeting at a )particular
) )school that would cast a light on Waldorf as a whole. So )much is
) )discussed that is peculiar to the school and what is going )on at the
) )time.
)
)
) Wow, that's wildly false, Charlie. I would say that virtually the
) opposite is true. Ninety percent of what goes on in a Waldorf faculty
) meeting is uniquely Waldorf and would not be recognizable in another
OK...you're sort of right about that...my meaning was that the schools
are very different from each other, so the faculty meetings would be,
too.
I never intended to shed light on the differences between Waldorf and
"other schools;" that would take a VERY long time, eh?
If you were hoping for an answer that described child study, eurythmy,
painting, planning the Michaelmas festival, talking about whether we
should be using homework, grades, tests, worksheets....you won't be
getting that. Especially since Peter has highlighted my desperate
inadequacies as a teacher and a human being, I have much other more
important work to do!
Oh...and working on my tan...I'm in Florida getting tanned and toned for
bikini season up north!
c
) school, and there are often discussions that non-Waldorf teachers
) couldn't make head or tail of. Of course, details of upcoming events are
)
) discussed, but they're "peculiar to the school" only in the trivial
) sense that the date and time of the Christmas fair for that particular
) school in that particular time and town are "peculiar." Most of the
) details of how events are organized organized (namely, according to
) Steiner's indications), you will certainly not find in non-Waldorf
) schools.
)
) Furthermore it is standard for a portion of every Waldorf faculty
) meeting to be devoted not to school business but to "Steiner study."
) Since this happens every week, at virtually every Waldorf faculty
) meeting that occurs (at least in private schools; charters in the US
) have to omit this, or at least call it something else), it's completely
) ludicrous to assert that "not much goes on" in a typical Waldorf faculty
)
) meeting that would shed light on Waldorf as a whole - unless you'd like
) people to believe that what "Steiner said" doesn't shed light on
) Waldorf?
)
) Likewise, "child study" is a routine feature of Waldorf faculty meetings
)
) (obligatory, I was told), and while faculty in other schools surely also
)
) discuss the children, you're surely aware that outside of Waldorf
) schools, they're not doing "child study" according to Steiner's
) temperaments, studying a worksheet that details the differences between
) children with large heads and children with small heads according to
) Steiner (there you go, Roger; revisiting one faculty meeting I
) attended), considering the child's karma, recommending eurythmy or
) anthroposophic medicine, etc.
)
) In short, Charlie, the statement that what goes on in a Waldorf faculty
) meeting doesn't shed light on Waldorf is preposterous.
) Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 17:34:19 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Sources, Dictionaries, Encyclopedias
It has been my experience that this "you are a liar" stuff goes along
with the "agenda" nonsense Anthroposophists produces without basis in
fact. I had an interesting encounter with someone codenamed "Waldork"
recently on Wikipedia who insisted on calling me a liar. I asked them
to produce even ONE instance of anything I have lied about anywhere -
EVER. Having failed this somewhat reasonable request, the simply
decided to reiterate that I am a liar (something of a brainwashing
technique I suspect - repeat something enough times and it becomes
true). Indeed, simply WISHING someone is lying is enough to make it
true for some people. How convenient.
Pete
Lemuria wrote:
)
)
) Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
) )
) )
) ) Hi Charlie,
) )
) )
) ) )I made no such claim.
) )
) )
) ) Okay. So you did not, in fact, mean that the the study of the
) ) temperaments
) ) is among Steiner's greatest gifts to teachers when you wrote that the
) ) study
) ) of the temperaments is among Steiner's greatest gifts to teachers.
) ) You're
) ) still welcome to clarify at any point...
) )
)
) Funny how you fail to mention what the sentence refers to...so I will
) write it.
) The assertion addresses`your statement (that, by the way, comes from
) absolutely NOWHERE)that I feel that Steiner invented the idea of
) humors/temperaments. Please check my post on 3/30.
) Your lack of dedication to honesty is a damn shame.
) Please excuse me if I don't continue to play your game and spend my time
)
) checking old posts to find where you have lied, invented and fabricated
) things that you claim to come from me.
) You, sir, are a liar.
)
)
) )
) ) )The original spark was a claim that the attributes of the temperaments
) ) )are always negative.
) )
) )
) ) What Roger said is that none of the temperaments is desirable. By the
) ) way,
) ) in the very same post he also said this:
) )
) ) "Mainly, [Steiner] just took concepts dreamed up by others (in this
) ) case, ancient Greek physicians) and twisted them to his own purposes. If
) ) the Greeks had said there are five humours, or six, or thirty-seven, I’m
) ) sure Steiner would have gone along and come up with different
) ) rationalizations for fitting them into his system."
) )
) ) Maybe you got Steiner mixed up with Galen?
) )
) )
) ) ) I noted that this is false
) )
) )
) ) What is false? That Roger thinks none of the temperaments is desirable?
) ) Maybe you got yourself mixed up with Roger? Or Roger mixed up with
) ) Steiner?
) )
) )
) ) )and, according to what you just wrote
) ) )above, my statement is true.
) )
) )
) ) The fact that Steiner says complimentary things about the different
) ) temperaments has nothing to do with either your statement or Roger's
) ) statement. Really. Here's Roger's original post, and your original
) ) reply;
) ) take another look:
) )
) ) http://lists.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1720916530&sort=d&start=36982
) )
) )
) )
) ) http://lists.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1720916871&sort=d&start=36982
) )
) )
) )
) )
) ) )You decide so much stuff on your own.
) )
) )
) ) I didn't decide anything, I simply asked you a question. If you are not
) ) in
) ) fact trying to say that you think Steiner attached no negative
) ) connotations
) ) at all to any of the temperaments, and if you are aware that Roger and
) ) Steiner are different people and that you and Steiner are different
) ) people
) ) and that you and Roger are different people, then perhaps you could try
) ) to
) ) re-state whatever your initial claim was about. What exactly was
) ) "totally
) ) wrong" in the first place, Charlie?
) )
) ) To make this slightly more worthwhile, and since you're for some reason
) ) rather tight-lipped on the subject, maybe I can go out on a limb and
) ) hypothesize that you thought Roger was saying that all anthroposophists
) ) believe that the temperaments as such are all entirely undesirable and
) ) that
) ) he furthermore claimed that Steiner never said complimentary things
) ) about
) ) any of the various temperaments. Leaving aside the puzzling matter of
) ) why
) ) you might have thought Roger said this, the really interesting question
) ) would be: just what *did* Steiner say about the positive and negative
) ) aspects of each temperament? Do you really have nothing at all to say on
) )
) )
) ) that topic?
) )
) )
) ) ) ) No need to please me; I'm not in your classroom, after all, sitting with
) ) ) ) the
) ) ) ) other cholerics or whatever it is I am. You're a teacher, Charlie. If
) ) ) ) you
) ) ) ) can't find the time to figure out even rudimentary information about
) ) ) ) fundamental aspects of your own teaching practice, maybe it's a good
) ) ) ) time to
) ) ) ) rethink that particular pedagogical choice?
) ) )
) ) )Let's make a deal; you don't try to teach me how to support Waldorf
) ) )education and I won't try to teach you how to undermine it.
) )
) )
) ) Learning something about the inadequate theory you impose on your pupils
) )
) ) (or
) ) wish you could impose, apparently) will not undermine Waldorf education.
) )
) )
) ) Abandoning the inadequate theory will not undermine Waldorf education.
) ) Engaging in an actual discussion about Steiner's version of the theory
) ) will
) ) not undermine Waldorf education. Really and truly. In fact -- you might
) ) want
) ) to sit down for this -- it could very well improve Waldorf education.
) ) Imagine that!
) )
) ) Yours for teaching,
) )
) )
) ) Peter S.
) )
) ) _________________________________________________________________
) ) Interest Rates near 39yr lows! $430,000 Mortgage for $1,399/mo -
) ) Calculate
) ) new payment
) ) http://www.lowermybills.com/lre/index.jsp?sourceid=lmb-9632-18466&moid=7581
) )
) )
) )
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 17:37:19 +0000
From: Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
Subject: RE: Roger's website
Roger Rawlings wrote:
)
)
) Keith McLean wrote:
) )
) ) Came across Roger's website today.
) )
) ) This is from section 2:
) )
) ) "I had been at Waldorf virtually my entire life, which meant that what I
) )
) )
) ) saw and heard there generally seemed normal to me." etc.
)
) Yup. That's part of what I said. Thanks for spreading the word.
)
) Roger Rawlings
No problem.
Regards,
Keith
Tyranny begets tyranny.
- K Mclean
------
Our knowledge has made us cynical,
our cleverness hard and unkind.
We think too much and feel too little:
More than machinery we need humanity;
More than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness.
Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost.
- Charlie Chaplin ("The Great Dictator" [1940])
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 17:37:21 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Ur-language, was: anthroposophists discuss race
Roger Rawlings wrote:
)
)
) Frank Smith wrote:
)
) ) We're used to Pete K.'s ravings, Roger, but are YOU seriously equating
) ) Hitler and Steiner - and also claiming that the latter was a lunatic?
) ) Please reply, I want to know what kind of person I'm communicating with
) ) (using language, not squeeks, peeps or growls).
)
) I did not equate Hitler with Steiner. I said they are historical figures
)
) whom we need to study from every angle. Nor did I say that Steiner was a
)
) lunatic. I said that if Hitler or Steiner showed themselves to be
) lunatics, we should come out and say so.
Roger,
If somebody said something about "critics od Waldorf education such as
Roger Rawlings and Adolf Hitler..." it would be difficult to deny that
an attempt was made at connecting the two.
It would be considered unfair and inflammatory.
c
)
) I'm not qualified to pass definitive judgments on the mental condition
) of anyone I haven't meant (any more than you are qualified to say that I
)
) am probably a melancholic).
)
) These e-mail exchanges are naturally a bit informal. Here's what I said
) about Steiner's mentality in my memoir (I made the statement after
) providing lots of quotations and analyses):
)
) "Cicero once said he wondered why two soothsayers meeting in the street
) didn’t burst out laughing.[82] But mystics usually have their act down
) too well for that. And some, I’m sure, truly believe their own
) pronouncements. Maybe Steiner believed every word he uttered. If so, all
)
) the worse, for if he wasn’t a charlatan, then he was almost certainly a
) lunatic. We don’t need to split hairs, though. Whether or not he was
) clinically sane, it is frightening that anyone ever took him seriously,
) much less founded schools devoted to his doctrines. As I’ve suggested,
) part of the explanation must surely be that many of Steiner’s followers
) have read only a small—perhaps expurgated—selection of his works. They
) don’t know their man. But other, more committed followers surely have a
) profound motive: They hope to obtain the spiritual rewards Steiner
) promised. This is, of course, understandable—salvation is a nearly
) universal human desire. For this reason alone, prophets have rarely
) lacked audiences. Disciples cluster around oracles—including the ones
) who want to hasten the Apocalypse. We are drawn to the professed
) certainty of those who claim to know God’s will. We value the supposedly
)
) empowering answers they offer us—even if, in truth, we are being led
) astray, step after step, doctrine after doctrine."
)
) Please note: "almost surely" not "definitely" a lunatic. Also, " Whether
)
) or not he was clinically sane..." I distinctly left open the possibility
)
) that Steiner was in his right mind—even though I consider virtually all
) of his doctrines to be worthless or worse.
)
) Roger Rawlings
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 17:40:02 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Sources, Dictionaries, Encyclopedias
Pete Karaiskos wrote:
)
) It has been my experience that this "you are a liar" stuff goes along
) with the "agenda" nonsense Anthroposophists produces without basis in
) fact. I had an interesting encounter with someone codenamed "Waldork"
) recently on Wikipedia who insisted on calling me a liar. I asked them
) to produce even ONE instance of anything I have lied about anywhere -
) EVER. Having failed this somewhat reasonable request, the simply
) decided to reiterate that I am a liar (something of a brainwashing
) technique I suspect - repeat something enough times and it becomes
) true). Indeed, simply WISHING someone is lying is enough to make it
) true for some people. How convenient.
)
) Pete
I, on the other hand, have clearly shown where Peter has omitted, misled
and lied.
c
)
)
) Lemuria wrote:
) )
) )
) ) Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) Hi Charlie,
) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) )I made no such claim.
) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) Okay. So you did not, in fact, mean that the the study of the
) ) ) temperaments
) ) ) is among Steiner's greatest gifts to teachers when you wrote that the
) ) ) study
) ) ) of the temperaments is among Steiner's greatest gifts to teachers.
) ) ) You're
) ) ) still welcome to clarify at any point...
) ) )
) )
) ) Funny how you fail to mention what the sentence refers to...so I will
) ) write it.
) ) The assertion addresses`your statement (that, by the way, comes from
) ) absolutely NOWHERE)that I feel that Steiner invented the idea of
) ) humors/temperaments. Please check my post on 3/30.
) ) Your lack of dedication to honesty is a damn shame.
) ) Please excuse me if I don't continue to play your game and spend my time
) )
) )
) ) checking old posts to find where you have lied, invented and fabricated
) ) things that you claim to come from me.
) ) You, sir, are a liar.
) )
) )
) ) )
) ) ) )The original spark was a claim that the attributes of the temperaments
) ) ) )are always negative.
) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) What Roger said is that none of the temperaments is desirable. By the
) ) ) way,
) ) ) in the very same post he also said this:
) ) )
) ) ) "Mainly, [Steiner] just took concepts dreamed up by others (in this
) ) ) case, ancient Greek physicians) and twisted them to his own purposes. If
) ) ) the Greeks had said there are five humours, or six, or thirty-seven, I’m
) ) ) sure Steiner would have gone along and come up with different
) ) ) rationalizations for fitting them into his system."
) ) )
) ) ) Maybe you got Steiner mixed up with Galen?
) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) ) I noted that this is false
) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) What is false? That Roger thinks none of the temperaments is desirable?
) ) ) Maybe you got yourself mixed up with Roger? Or Roger mixed up with
) ) ) Steiner?
) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) )and, according to what you just wrote
) ) ) )above, my statement is true.
) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) The fact that Steiner says complimentary things about the different
) ) ) temperaments has nothing to do with either your statement or Roger's
) ) ) statement. Really. Here's Roger's original post, and your original
) ) ) reply;
) ) ) take another look:
) ) )
) ) ) http://lists.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1720916530&sort=d&start=36982
) ) )
) ) )
) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) http://lists.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1720916871&sort=d&start=36982
) ) )
) ) )
) ) )
) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) )You decide so much stuff on your own.
) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) I didn't decide anything, I simply asked you a question. If you are not
) ) ) in
) ) ) fact trying to say that you think Steiner attached no negative
) ) ) connotations
) ) ) at all to any of the temperaments, and if you are aware that Roger and
) ) ) Steiner are different people and that you and Steiner are different
) ) ) people
) ) ) and that you and Roger are different people, then perhaps you could try
) ) ) to
) ) ) re-state whatever your initial claim was about. What exactly was
) ) ) "totally
) ) ) wrong" in the first place, Charlie?
) ) )
) ) ) To make this slightly more worthwhile, and since you're for some reason
) ) ) rather tight-lipped on the subject, maybe I can go out on a limb and
) ) ) hypothesize that you thought Roger was saying that all anthroposophists
) ) ) believe that the temperaments as such are all entirely undesirable and
) ) ) that
) ) ) he furthermore claimed that Steiner never said complimentary things
) ) ) about
) ) ) any of the various temperaments. Leaving aside the puzzling matter of
) ) ) why
) ) ) you might have thought Roger said this, the really interesting question
) ) ) would be: just what *did* Steiner say about the positive and negative
) ) ) aspects of each temperament? Do you really have nothing at all to say on
) ) )
) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) that topic?
) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) ) ) No need to please me; I'm not in your classroom, after all, sitting with
) ) ) ) ) the
) ) ) ) ) other cholerics or whatever it is I am. You're a teacher, Charlie. If
) ) ) ) ) you
) ) ) ) ) can't find the time to figure out even rudimentary information about
) ) ) ) ) fundamental aspects of your own teaching practice, maybe it's a good
) ) ) ) ) time to
) ) ) ) ) rethink that particular pedagogical choice?
) ) ) )
) ) ) )Let's make a deal; you don't try to teach me how to support Waldorf
) ) ) )education and I won't try to teach you how to undermine it.
) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) Learning something about the inadequate theory you impose on your pupils
) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) (or
) ) ) wish you could impose, apparently) will not undermine Waldorf education.
) ) )
) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) Abandoning the inadequate theory will not undermine Waldorf education.
) ) ) Engaging in an actual discussion about Steiner's version of the theory
) ) ) will
) ) ) not undermine Waldorf education. Really and truly. In fact -- you might
) ) ) want
) ) ) to sit down for this -- it could very well improve Waldorf education.
) ) ) Imagine that!
) ) )
) ) ) Yours for teaching,
) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) Peter S.
) ) )
) ) ) _________________________________________________________________
) ) ) Interest Rates near 39yr lows! $430,000 Mortgage for $1,399/mo -
) ) ) Calculate
) ) ) new payment
) ) ) http://www.lowermybills.com/lre/index.jsp?sourceid=lmb-9632-18466&moid=7581
) ) )
) ) )
) ) )
) ) )
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 17:45:35 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: In the Room?
Roger Rawlings wrote:
)
) An interesting question has occurred to me. (Sort of interesting,
) anyway.) I wonder what the procedure was when the faculty at my Waldorf
) discussed me or my sisters (the shapes of our skulls, the sizes of our
) ears, the lengths of our ""spirtual noses, etc.) Would they have asked
) my mother to leave the room, or would they have passed judgments on us
) (all in a very helpful spirit, of course) in her presence? Diana?
) Charlie? What happened at your schools in such circumstances?
)
) Roger Rawlings
You see...phrases like "pass judgement" have such a negative connotation
that is is very difficult to believe that you are really looking for
information instead of just being evocative/inflammatory.
That being said, in my experience (from working full-time as a class
teacher in 2 schools), your mother would have been told what was about
to happen and told that it would be OK if she chose to excuse herself,
and somebody else would take notes.
If somebody had been asked to leave the room under similar
circumstances, I certainly would have objected strongly.
maybe your mother had a positive relationship with Anthroposophy and
understood that these people were trying their best to help you.
c
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 17:50:22 +0000
From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Human IQ
Roger Rawlings wrote:
)Woman And Pet Hospitalized After Eating Contaminated Pet Food
LOL. To be fair, though, Roger, she didn't know it was contaminated . .
. I've done weird things to get pets to eat certain foods, or otherwise
cooperate with my plans for them . . . Do you have much experience
giving cats pills, for instance? I might consider taking it myself if it
would persuade the cat. (I don't think my cats would fall for it,
though.)
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 17:52:31 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Sources, Dictionaries, Encyclopedias
Actually, when you say "Steiner's greatest gifts" - you are indeed
saying that this was Steiner who was giving this gift - i.e. it was his
to give. It's pretty clear, whether you actually believe it to be true
or not, that you are implying that Steiner produced or at least
developed this idea and gave it to teachers. Sounds like you're trying
to split hairs here in an attempt to devaluate Peter's very reasonable
argument (that's a nice way of saying "call him a liar").
Pete
Lemuria wrote:
)
)
) Pete Karaiskos wrote:
) )
) ) It has been my experience that this "you are a liar" stuff goes along
) ) with the "agenda" nonsense Anthroposophists produces without basis in
) ) fact. I had an interesting encounter with someone codenamed "Waldork"
) ) recently on Wikipedia who insisted on calling me a liar. I asked them
) ) to produce even ONE instance of anything I have lied about anywhere -
) ) EVER. Having failed this somewhat reasonable request, the simply
) ) decided to reiterate that I am a liar (something of a brainwashing
) ) technique I suspect - repeat something enough times and it becomes
) ) true). Indeed, simply WISHING someone is lying is enough to make it
) ) true for some people. How convenient.
) )
) ) Pete
)
) I, on the other hand, have clearly shown where Peter has omitted, misled
)
) and lied.
) c
) )
) )
) ) Lemuria wrote:
) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) Hi Charlie,
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) )I made no such claim.
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) Okay. So you did not, in fact, mean that the the study of the
) ) ) ) temperaments
) ) ) ) is among Steiner's greatest gifts to teachers when you wrote that the
) ) ) ) study
) ) ) ) of the temperaments is among Steiner's greatest gifts to teachers.
) ) ) ) You're
) ) ) ) still welcome to clarify at any point...
) ) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) Funny how you fail to mention what the sentence refers to...so I will
) ) ) write it.
) ) ) The assertion addresses`your statement (that, by the way, comes from
) ) ) absolutely NOWHERE)that I feel that Steiner invented the idea of
) ) ) humors/temperaments. Please check my post on 3/30.
) ) ) Your lack of dedication to honesty is a damn shame.
) ) ) Please excuse me if I don't continue to play your game and spend my time
) ) )
) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) checking old posts to find where you have lied, invented and fabricated
) ) ) things that you claim to come from me.
) ) ) You, sir, are a liar.
) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) )The original spark was a claim that the attributes of the temperaments
) ) ) ) )are always negative.
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) What Roger said is that none of the temperaments is desirable. By the
) ) ) ) way,
) ) ) ) in the very same post he also said this:
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) "Mainly, [Steiner] just took concepts dreamed up by others (in this
) ) ) ) case, ancient Greek physicians) and twisted them to his own purposes. If
) ) ) ) the Greeks had said there are five humours, or six, or thirty-seven, I’m
) ) ) ) sure Steiner would have gone along and come up with different
) ) ) ) rationalizations for fitting them into his system."
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) Maybe you got Steiner mixed up with Galen?
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) I noted that this is false
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) What is false? That Roger thinks none of the temperaments is desirable?
) ) ) ) Maybe you got yourself mixed up with Roger? Or Roger mixed up with
) ) ) ) Steiner?
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) )and, according to what you just wrote
) ) ) ) )above, my statement is true.
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) The fact that Steiner says complimentary things about the different
) ) ) ) temperaments has nothing to do with either your statement or Roger's
) ) ) ) statement. Really. Here's Roger's original post, and your original
) ) ) ) reply;
) ) ) ) take another look:
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) http://lists.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1720916530&sort=d&start=36982
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) http://lists.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1720916871&sort=d&start=36982
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) )You decide so much stuff on your own.
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) I didn't decide anything, I simply asked you a question. If you are not
) ) ) ) in
) ) ) ) fact trying to say that you think Steiner attached no negative
) ) ) ) connotations
) ) ) ) at all to any of the temperaments, and if you are aware that Roger and
) ) ) ) Steiner are different people and that you and Steiner are different
) ) ) ) people
) ) ) ) and that you and Roger are different people, then perhaps you could try
) ) ) ) to
) ) ) ) re-state whatever your initial claim was about. What exactly was
) ) ) ) "totally
) ) ) ) wrong" in the first place, Charlie?
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) To make this slightly more worthwhile, and since you're for some reason
) ) ) ) rather tight-lipped on the subject, maybe I can go out on a limb and
) ) ) ) hypothesize that you thought Roger was saying that all anthroposophists
) ) ) ) believe that the temperaments as such are all entirely undesirable and
) ) ) ) that
) ) ) ) he furthermore claimed that Steiner never said complimentary things
) ) ) ) about
) ) ) ) any of the various temperaments. Leaving aside the puzzling matter of
) ) ) ) why
) ) ) ) you might have thought Roger said this, the really interesting question
) ) ) ) would be: just what *did* Steiner say about the positive and negative
) ) ) ) aspects of each temperament? Do you really have nothing at all to say on
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) that topic?
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) ) No need to please me; I'm not in your classroom, after all, sitting with
) ) ) ) ) ) the
) ) ) ) ) ) other cholerics or whatever it is I am. You're a teacher, Charlie. If
) ) ) ) ) ) you
) ) ) ) ) ) can't find the time to figure out even rudimentary information about
) ) ) ) ) ) fundamental aspects of your own teaching practice, maybe it's a good
) ) ) ) ) ) time to
) ) ) ) ) ) rethink that particular pedagogical choice?
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) )Let's make a deal; you don't try to teach me how to support Waldorf
) ) ) ) )education and I won't try to teach you how to undermine it.
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) Learning something about the inadequate theory you impose on your pupils
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) (or
) ) ) ) wish you could impose, apparently) will not undermine Waldorf education.
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) Abandoning the inadequate theory will not undermine Waldorf education.
) ) ) ) Engaging in an actual discussion about Steiner's version of the theory
) ) ) ) will
) ) ) ) not undermine Waldorf education. Really and truly. In fact -- you might
) ) ) ) want
) ) ) ) to sit down for this -- it could very well improve Waldorf education.
) ) ) ) Imagine that!
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) Yours for teaching,
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) Peter S.
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) _________________________________________________________________
) ) ) ) Interest Rates near 39yr lows! $430,000 Mortgage for $1,399/mo -
) ) ) ) Calculate
) ) ) ) new payment
) ) ) ) http://www.lowermybills.com/lre/index.jsp?sourceid=lmb-9632-18466&moid=7581
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 17:55:22 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Human IQ
Another case of animals being smarter than humans? (GD&R)
Pete
Diana Winters wrote:
)
)
) Roger Rawlings wrote:
)
) )Woman And Pet Hospitalized After Eating Contaminated Pet Food
)
) LOL. To be fair, though, Roger, she didn't know it was contaminated . .
) . I've done weird things to get pets to eat certain foods, or otherwise
) cooperate with my plans for them . . . Do you have much experience
) giving cats pills, for instance? I might consider taking it myself if it
)
) would persuade the cat. (I don't think my cats would fall for it,
) though.)
)
) Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 18:00:19 +0000
From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Sources, Dictionaries, Encyclopedias
Roger Rawlings wrote:
)"I’ve noticed that when Anthroposophists refer to any statement made )by
)Steiner, the point seems to be: Here is the unarguable truth. Why )is it
)true? Because Steiner said so. [This, of course, is the mode )of
)argumentation called “appeal to authority.”
And I think anthroposophists are often quite unaware that they are doing
this, and thus are sincerely aggrieved by what they see as critics'
refusal to accept "Steiner said" at face value. They simply get
themselves confused. They end up thinking we are disputing that Steiner
said it, when what we are disputing is whether it is so. Sometimes,
also, critics brush off arguments about "what Steiner meant" as not
relevant to what he actually said and the effects of his statements.
Also, to expand this a little, they take as a given that statements from
Steiner must be sincere and Steiner's motives uncomplicated. Critics do
not assume that Steiner was always sincere and guileless. We take it as
at least a possibility that he was on certain occasions being
disingenuous and self-serving, or that at times he may have been unaware
of his own motives. Anthroposophists do not want to grant that Steiner
could ever have been unaware of his own motives. They simply want him to
have been above any foibles or character flaws.
Rarely, I think, do critics suggest that Steiner's motives were bad or
evil. But what we do suggest - that he wasn't perfect, and that he was
sometimes wrong, and that some of his doctrines have pernicious effects
- to anthroposophists, all such possibilities are intolerable.
Diana
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 2502
-- Topica Digest --
RE: In the Room?
By Diana.Winters verizon.net
RE: Sources, Dictionaries, Encyclopedias
By Diana.Winters verizon.net
RE: Sources, Dictionaries, Encyclopedias
By pkcompany netzero.net
The Lunatic Doctor
By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
RE: Sources, Dictionaries, Encyclopedias
By iankilburn bellsouth.net
RE: Bad Little Kids
By Diana.Winters verizon.net
RE: Sources, Dictionaries, Encyclopedias
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Sources, Dictionaries, Encyclopedias
By Diana.Winters verizon.net
RE: Human IQ
By Diana.Winters verizon.net
RE: Ur-language, was: anthroposophists discuss race
By iankilburn bellsouth.net
RE: Human IQ
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: In the Room?
By iankilburn bellsouth.net
RE: Human IQ
By iankilburn bellsouth.net
RE: Human IQ
By Diana.Winters verizon.net
RE: Sources, Dictionaries, Encyclopedias
By iankilburn bellsouth.net
RE: Human IQ
By iankilburn bellsouth.net
RE: Human IQ
By Diana.Winters verizon.net
RE: Human IQ
By iankilburn bellsouth.net
RE: Bad Little Kids
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: Human IQ
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: Human IQ
By pkcompany netzero.net
Not So Humouresque
By iankilburn bellsouth.net
RE: Sources, Dictionaries, Encyclopedias
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Sources, Dictionaries, Encyclopedias
By iankilburn bellsouth.net
RE: Sources, Dictionaries, Encyclopedias
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Ur-language, was: anthroposophists discuss race
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Ur-language, was: anthroposophists discuss race
By iankilburn bellsouth.net
Viciousness
By iankilburn bellsouth.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 18:07:52 +0000
From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: In the Room?
Roger:
)An interesting question has occurred to me. (Sort of interesting,
)anyway.) I wonder what the procedure was when the faculty at my )Waldorf
)discussed me or my sisters (the shapes of our skulls, the )sizes of our
)ears, the lengths of our ""spirtual noses, etc.) Would )they have asked
)my mother to leave the room, or would they have )passed judgments on us
)(all in a very helpful spirit, of course) in )her presence? Diana?
)Charlie? What happened at your schools in such circumstances?
Another one I can answer quickly! I was (technically) on the faculty and
my child was certainly discussed in front of me, in a formal "child
study" and other times as well. I don't remember it all too clearly now,
but I think they may have asked me if I wanted to leave the room or not
attend that meeting, but of course I wanted to hear what they had to
say. I don't recall too many of the details of it now, except that, of
course, my child was deemed phlegmatic. (And I remember someone pointing
out that he said "Look at me!" quite a lot; he was 3 at the time.)
I think that if you are considered sympathetic enough to anthroposophy
that you are invited to attend faculty
meetings in the first place, they'll say pretty much anything in front
of you. I certainly sat with my jaw on the floor a large percentage of
the time. But I was at the time trying - striving - to "come to
anthroposophy," and so I guess it was assumed it was safe to let it all
hang out in front me. I presume that they later regretted this.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 18:15:38 +0000
From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Sources, Dictionaries, Encyclopedias
I wrote:
)Do you see what I'm getting at? We don't disagree on what Steiner )said
)about the temperaments. I think this is relevant to where you )got
)heated up saying people didn't believe you had done so much )study,
)also. You seemed to think people were saying you didn't )really know
)what Steiner said about the temperaments.
)Do you get that that's not the part we dispute? We don't dispute )what
)Steiner said about the temperaments, nor your own knowledge or
)understanding of what Steiner said about the temperaments.
Charlie:
)Who is "we"?
)This is exactly what Peter S. is saying.
Charlie, these misunderstandings *really* could be avoided if you would
try a little harder to follow what is said, and to examine your own
contributions and how they work as responses to things other people have
said to you or asked you. Really! I'm not trying to be snotty.
I did not read what Peter said as an attempt to tell the whole world
that you do not know much about Steiner and the temperaments. What I did
see happening was that you made certain claims, then refused to give any
further information as to their origin, why you believed them to be
true, what evidence you had for them etc.
In other words, Peter was actually trying very hard *not* to be forced
to come to the conclusion that you didn't know much. He was practically
begging you to tell what you know. I've seen this same dynamic at work
with anthroposophists so many times. It's like you practically beg to be
made fools of. Why do you do it? If you know such-and-such, don't you
get that you would make Waldorf look better if you'd show it? Roger's
quite right (or maybe it was Peter who said this) that prospective
parents read this list all the time and if you have information to
share, you can do Waldorf huge favors by sharing it. (Petty tantrums
have the opposite effect, "Why are you picking on me" type replies.)
If on the other hand you consider critics such idiots that we are not
worth talking to, what are you doing posting here? Ignore us and let us
make fools of ourselves. If the information we post is false and can be
readily shown so, what is stopping you from simply setting the record
straight? It is surely the *least* effective way to deal with us, to
assert that we are wrong about this or that but refuse to say why or
show the evidence.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 18:16:01 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Sources, Dictionaries, Encyclopedias
It's kinda like getting in a discussion about religion. When somebody
starts quoting The Bible as the definitive source on morality, there's
nothing more that you can say to that person (not intending to knock
religions here). When you get to the point where "it's true because it
says so right here" then you're truly lost. Oddly, this flies in the
face of what Waldorf itself teaches regarding, say, science - that just
because it is written (even proven) doesn't mean it's true. So we are
basically being asked to debate within the guidelines that Steiner was
the ultimate authority on everything - something most critics are
unwilling to accept (duh...).
Pete
Diana Winters wrote:
)
)
) Roger Rawlings wrote:
)
) )"I’ve noticed that when Anthroposophists refer to any statement made )by
) )
) )Steiner, the point seems to be: Here is the unarguable truth. Why )is it
) )
) )true? Because Steiner said so. [This, of course, is the mode )of
) )argumentation called “appeal to authority.”
)
) And I think anthroposophists are often quite unaware that they are doing
)
) this, and thus are sincerely aggrieved by what they see as critics'
) refusal to accept "Steiner said" at face value. They simply get
) themselves confused. They end up thinking we are disputing that Steiner
) said it, when what we are disputing is whether it is so. Sometimes,
) also, critics brush off arguments about "what Steiner meant" as not
) relevant to what he actually said and the effects of his statements.
)
) Also, to expand this a little, they take as a given that statements from
)
) Steiner must be sincere and Steiner's motives uncomplicated. Critics do
) not assume that Steiner was always sincere and guileless. We take it as
) at least a possibility that he was on certain occasions being
) disingenuous and self-serving, or that at times he may have been unaware
)
) of his own motives. Anthroposophists do not want to grant that Steiner
) could ever have been unaware of his own motives. They simply want him to
)
) have been above any foibles or character flaws.
)
) Rarely, I think, do critics suggest that Steiner's motives were bad or
) evil. But what we do suggest - that he wasn't perfect, and that he was
) sometimes wrong, and that some of his doctrines have pernicious effects
) - to anthroposophists, all such possibilities are intolerable.
)
) Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 18:18:00 +0000
From: Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
Subject: The Lunatic Doctor
Lately we have been talking about the question of sanity versus insanity
regarding the mental state of the Doctor, and the comparision with
Hitler. Clearly other leaders have been the target of criticism and
doubt but instead for less than good reasons - for example, the immortal
Gandhi of Mahatma fame.
But here are some words from the good Doctor - judge for yourself:
"Like Alice, I try to believe three impossible things before breakfast."
"Anybody remotely interesting is mad, in some way or another."
"In my time I have been threatened by experts. And I don't rate you very
highly at all."
"If I knew everything that was going to happen, where would the fun be?"
"Dreams are important... never underestimate them."
"To the rational mind, nothing is inexplicable; only unexplained."
"I'm not helping you, officially. And if anyone happens to ask whether I
made any material difference to the welfare of this planet, you can tell
them I came and went like a summer cloud."
"I think you'll find, Sir, that I'm qualified to deal with practically
everything, if I choose."
"I tolerate this century but I don't enjoy it."
"Small though it is, the human brain can be quite effective when used
properly."
"I am the Doctor, whether you like it or not."
:) ;)
Regards,
Kei