return to WCA Archive Index
-- Topica Digest --
Re:
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:
By delkins mail.nysed.gov
Re:
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:
By delkins mail.nysed.gov
Re: drawing-was:RE:Acontraryexperience[W
By delkins mail.nysed.gov
Re:
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:
By delkins mail.nysed.gov
Re:
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:
By delkins mail.nysed.gov
Re: drawing-was:RE:Acontraryexperience[W
By delkins mail.nysed.gov
Re:
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:
By delkins mail.nysed.gov
Re: drawing-was:RE:Acontraryexperience[W
By delkins mail.nysed.gov
Re:
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:
By delkins mail.nysed.gov
Re:
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:
By delkins mail.nysed.gov
Re: drawing-was:RE:Acontraryexperience[W
By delkins mail.nysed.gov
Re:
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:
By delkins mail.nysed.gov
Mr. Elkins' Auto Replies...
By Gary GoodWinter.com
Re: Mr. Elkins' Auto Replies...
By sandra.schlick balcab.ch
Re: Genocide as necessity
By hermit tiac.net
RE: Denial of Steiner's Racism
By pstaud hotmail.com
Scaligero and spiritual racism
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Scaligero and spiritual racism
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Scaligero and spiritual racism
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: quantity, quality and morality
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: Destiny of anthroposophy
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Scaligero and spiritual anti-racism
By Percedol netscape.net
Re: quantity, quality and morality
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: Destiny of anthroposophy
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: drawing - was: RE: a contrary experience
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: Genocide as necessity
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: Denial of Steiner's Racism
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: The Mission
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: The Mission
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:53:53 -0500
From: "Doug Elkins" (DELKINS MAIL.NYSED.GOV)
Subject: Re:
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:
I am out of the office until March 11 and will be unable to answer
your e-mail until I return.
Doug Elkins
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:54:38 -0500
From: "Doug Elkins" (DELKINS MAIL.NYSED.GOV)
Subject: Re:
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:
I am out of the office until March 11 and will be unable to answer
your e-mail until I return.
Doug Elkins
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:54:38 -0500
From: "Doug Elkins" (DELKINS MAIL.NYSED.GOV)
Subject: Re: drawing-was:RE:Acontraryexperience[W
I am out of the office until March 11 and will be unable to answer
your e-mail until I return.
Doug Elkins
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:54:53 -0500
From: "Doug Elkins" (DELKINS MAIL.NYSED.GOV)
Subject: Re:
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:
I am out of the office until March 11 and will be unable to answer your e-mail
until I return.
Doug Elkins
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:55:39 -0500
From: "Doug Elkins" (DELKINS MAIL.NYSED.GOV)
Subject: Re:
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:
I am out of the office until March 11 and will be unable to answer
your e-mail until I return.
Doug Elkins
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:55:55 -0500
From: "Doug Elkins" (DELKINS MAIL.NYSED.GOV)
Subject: Re: drawing-was:RE:Acontraryexperience[W
I am out of the office until March 11 and will be unable to answer
your e-mail until I return.
Doug Elkins
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:55:55 -0500
From: "Doug Elkins" (DELKINS MAIL.NYSED.GOV)
Subject: Re:
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:
I am out of the office until March 11 and will be unable to answer
your e-mail until I return.
Doug Elkins
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:56:55 -0500
From: "Doug Elkins" (DELKINS MAIL.NYSED.GOV)
Subject: Re: drawing-was:RE:Acontraryexperience[W
I am out of the office until March 11 and will be unable to answer
your e-mail until I return.
Doug Elkins
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:57:10 -0500
From: "Doug Elkins" (DELKINS MAIL.NYSED.GOV)
Subject: Re:
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:
I am out of the office until March 11 and will be unable to answer
your e-mail until I return.
Doug Elkins
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:57:25 -0500
From: "Doug Elkins" (DELKINS MAIL.NYSED.GOV)
Subject: Re:
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:
I am out of the office until March 11 and will be unable to answer
your e-mail until I return.
Doug Elkins
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:57:55 -0500
From: "Doug Elkins" (DELKINS MAIL.NYSED.GOV)
Subject: Re: drawing-was:RE:Acontraryexperience[W
I am out of the office until March 11 and will be unable to answer
your e-mail until I return.
Doug Elkins
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:58:11 -0500
From: "Doug Elkins" (DELKINS MAIL.NYSED.GOV)
Subject: Re:
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:
I am out of the office until March 11 and will be unable to answer
your e-mail until I return.
Doug Elkins
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 14:02:55 -0400
From: Gary Bonhiver (gary goodwinter.com)
CC: (delkins mail.nysed.gov)
Subject: Mr. Elkins' Auto Replies...
on 2/28/02 1:58 PM, delkins mail.nysed.gov at delkins mail.nysed.gov wrote:
) I am out of the office until March 11 and will be unable to answer
your e-mail
) until I return.
)
) Doug Elkins
Mr. Elkins' Critics subscription has been turned off until he can promise
that he will not turn his "out of office" message on.
This caused a "looping" where someone's post was sent to him, his emailer
automatically replied, which was accepted by Topica as a new post, which was
sent out to everyone including him, which was then automatically replied to
by his emailer again, etc. etc. etc.
Folks, PLEASE do not turn this "out of office" feature on in your email
program. If you need to be away for a couple days, ask us to temporarily
turn off your subscription.
...Gary Bonhiver
www.waldorfcritics.org Webmaster
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 23:49:35 +0100
From: Sandra Schlick (sandra.schlick balcab.ch)
Subject: Re: Mr. Elkins' Auto Replies...
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------F553257BC3EF868AF5BA3759
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854";
x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Thank you so much Gary!
I had about 50 or 60 of those emails after all, and was afraid that
my messenger
will get problems handling it.
Sandra
Gary Bonhiver wrote:
) on 2/28/02 1:58 PM, delkins mail.nysed.gov at delkins mail.nysed.gov wrote:
)
) ) I am out of the office until March 11 and will be unable to
answer your e-mail
) ) until I return.
) )
) ) Doug Elkins
)
) Mr. Elkins' Critics subscription has been turned off until he can promise
) that he will not turn his "out of office" message on.
)
) This caused a "looping" where someone's post was sent to him, his emailer
) automatically replied, which was accepted by Topica as a new post, which was
) sent out to everyone including him, which was then automatically replied to
) by his emailer again, etc. etc. etc.
)
) Folks, PLEASE do not turn this "out of office" feature on in your email
) program. If you need to be away for a couple days, ask us to temporarily
) turn off your subscription.
)
) ...Gary Bonhiver
)
) www.waldorfcritics.org Webmaster
)
--------------F553257BC3EF868AF5BA3759
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
name="sandra.schlick.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Sandra Schlick
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="sandra.schlick.vcf"
begin:vcard
n:Schlick;Sandra
tel;home:061 692 20 07
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://home.balcab.ch/sandra.schlick/
adr:;;Sch–naustrasse 52;4058 Basel;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:sandra.schlick balcab.ch
title:MAES, Dipl. Masch. Ing. HTL
x-mozilla-cpt:;3
fn:Sandra Schlick
end:vcard
--------------F553257BC3EF868AF5BA3759--
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 19:23:28 -0500
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: Genocide as necessity
Dear David,
You wrote "In philosophy, you start by not confusing words and ideas
with things."
This is, of course, precisely where Steiner's epistomology (as
experience) leads in an entirely different direction. Not only are
"ideas" (but not words, which are just symbol system pointed towarfd a
possible inward experience) things, that is aspects of something that
has objective existence, but that for all seemingly material things,
social processes and states of mind there exists the respective "Idea"
to which it belongs. Each percept (experience) has a corresponding
concept, and the two taken together are a unity. It is only human
consciousness, in its current stage of evolution, that divides this
unity into an apparent duality.
yours in monism
joel
"David E. Gower" wrote:
)
) ) -----Original Message-----
) ) From: Joel Wendt [mailto:hermit tiac.net]
) ) Sent: Wednesday, 27 February, 2002 19:32
) ) To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) ) Subject: Re: Genocide as necessity
) )
) )
) ) Dear David,
) )
) ) This reasoning is a joke.
)
) I declare fervently to you that I am not making a joke, being facetious or
) offering glib commentary.
)
) ) Obviously it was individuals, but how else
) ) do you describe the behavior of individuals acting in groups?
)
) In philosophy, you start by not confusing words and ideas with things.
)
) Let's begin with a quote from John Locke, one of the individual
contributors to
) the idea of "modern materialism."
)
) "We should have a great many fewer disputes in the world if words were taken
) for what they are, the signs of our ideas only, and not for things
themselves."
) JOHN LOCKE (1632-1704), An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, 1690.
)
) Your statement:
)
) ") ) ) The genocide was committed by the Europeans (in the
) ) ) ) main)and they did this according to the psychological drivers living
) ) ) ) in their own ambitions, greed, and immorality."
)
) confuses a word and an idea with a thing.
)
) "European" is a word and an idea but it is not a "thing". A word or an idea
) cannot have
) "psychological drivers living in their own ambitions, greed, and immorality."
) Only an actual thing, an individual can.
)
) ) You make a generalization, and in this case, of the kind that can
be found in
) any
) ) text book on America History.
) )
) ) This is from Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States":
) )
) ) "Even allowing for the imperfection of myths, it is enough to make us
) ) question, for that time and ours, the excuse of progress in the
) ) annihilation of races and the telling history from the standpoint of the
) ) conquerors and leaders of Western civilization."
) )
) ) This, from a leading modern historian, has any number of
) ) generalizations. How you can expect people to write anything with any
) ) economy of words, without generalizations, is a quibble of amazing
) ) proportions.
)
) Locke is not quibbling. He is quite sincere in his contention that many
) disputes are caused by the confusion he points out. It is said (glibly) that
) "all generalisations are false". The actual problem with generalisations is
) that they usually treat an idea (the generalised label) as if it
were an actual
) thing.
)
) )
) ) Unless, of course, one is looking to form an argument to arrive at a
) ) given result and reason and common sense are of no moment.
)
) I'm not actually forming an argument. I'm stating the fact that when I read
) Steiner, Barfield, and Joel Wendt I see constant confusion of
words, ideas, and
) things. Each confusion is an error and it is these cumulative
errors that make
) these readings very difficult to treat as serious philosophy.
After the errors
) are removed there is often very little left of substance.
)
) There is a caveat I try constantly to keep in mind. Perhaps someone should
) have whispered it to Steiner while he was still alive. It is:
"Don't believe
) everything you think."
)
) David E. Gower
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 20:21:15 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Denial of Steiner's Racism
Percedol writes:
)Have you understood what is written above?
Some of it. Have you? Could you explain what it has to do with Massimo
Scaligero? Could you explain why you think it is a response to my question
about the racial laws? Why exactly did you post this irrelevant quote?
)Now, the question is, are you able to read those articles written by
)Scaligero,
No, my Italian isn't good enough to plow through a full article. Why would
this make a difference? When Peter Zegers and I tried to track down
Scaligero's Fascist-era articles last year, we found that the original
sources are difficult to locate. I did manage to get hold of some bound
issues of La Vita Italiana, but not from the corresponding years. The real
question, Percedol, is whether you have read these articles. Could you post
them? Or just provide a summary? It would be most interesting indeed to see
how you explain that Scaligero was neither a fascist nor a racist in the
1930's and 1940's. Just so all the work isn't on your shoulders, and in
order to make this a little more relevant for the rest of the list, I will
post another message explaining the significance of "spiritual racism"
within Italian Fascism.
)Of course, my guess is that nobody read it, just as it always happens.
Just as what always happens? If your hero Scaligero has nothing to hide, why
don't you post his Fascist-era views for all to read? I recommend you begin
with his article on "spiritual racism and biological racism", since that
would be most germane to this list. I also think it would be of interest to
list members if you would tell us what your relationship to Scaligero
is/was. I'd also be interested to learn what you think of his comrade Julius
Evola's work. By the way, we have answered every question you have posed to
us, but you have ignored every question we have posed to you. Why is that?
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 21:29:40 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Scaligero and spiritual racism
Hello critics,
Massimo Scaligero was a prominent Italian anthroposophist and race theorist
who wrote for a number of fascist periodicals during Mussolini's
dictatorship. He began writing for the fascist press in the early 1930's, at
the latest, when Scaligero was in his mid-20's. His work appeared in the
prominent fascist journal Critica Fascista as early as 1931, and he
continued to publish in similar organs into the 1940's. His articles
typically carried titles like this one from 1938: "The race problem and the
Roman tradition".
As Peter Zegers has explained, in 1938 Scaligero signed the infamous
petition of racist intellectuals urging the Fascist regime to adopt racial
laws similar to those of its ally Nazi Germany. Until that time, racism and
antisemitism had not played a particularly prominent role within Italian
Fascism (although anti-African racism was an important element surrounding
the Italian invasion of Ethiopia). Promoters of the new racial laws, like
the anthroposophist Scaligero, were initially a distinct minority within
Italian society; even figures like the King of Italy, the Pope, and many
leaders of the Fascist party opposed them. These laws were adopted at the
end of 1938, and they laid the basis for the increasing persecution of
Italian Jews in the following years.
Historians of Italian Fascism generally agree that after the success of
Scaligero and others in introducing a variant of Aryan ideology into
Mussolini's regime, racism came to play a crucial role in what was already a
brutal dictatorship. One standard work on the topic notes that "ethnic
racism became the main ideological component of Fascism from 1938 until the
end of the Second World War." (Edward Tannenbaum, The Fascist Experience:
Italian Society and Culture 1922-1945, p. 78) Tannenbaum goes on to observe
that a decidedly "spiritual" version of racism was central to this
ideological transition, as fascist intellectuals "stressed the 'spiritual'
rather than the biological idea of race." (ibid.) The distinction between
the two variants of racism began to blur almost immediately, as proponents
of "spiritual" racism called for "denying Jews influence in government or
education because they had a different spirit." (ibid.) By the end of the
1930's, "spiritual" racism was practically indistinguishable from its
biological cousin.
It is unclear what role Steiner's ideas, in particular, may have played in
this process. But Scaligero's own contribution is not in doubt, despite the
absurd denials of his fellow anthroposophists. Peter Zegers has already
given full citations for several standard historical works that clearly
identify Scaligero as a racist propagandist; another such work is Ruth
Ben-Ghiat's book La Cultura Fascista (Italian edition Bologna 2000; see
especially pp. 185, 202, and 272). In case anyone is inclined to believe
that such scholarship is the product of left-wing bias, I hasten to add that
notably conservative historians like Renzo De Felice share this assessment
of Scaligero's racism. In fact I am unaware of a single historian of Italian
Fascism who has questioned this clear consensus regarding Scaligero.
For anyone who would like a brief and accessible overview of the pernicious
results of Scaligero's efforts, I recommend the chapter on "The Racial Laws"
in Jasper Ridley's 1997 biography, Mussolini (pp. 283-292).
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 20:15:44 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Scaligero and spiritual racism
Lions and tigers and bears, oh my! I think it's amusing that when an
Italian Anthroposophist comes charging out of the lists with his
lance leveled to attack the detractors of Anthroposophy, the
skeletons in Italian Anthroposophy's closet come rattling out to trip
him up. Thanks, Peter Z. and Peter S.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 21:48:59 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Scaligero and spiritual racism
Peter S. (snip)
Tannenbaum goes on to observe
) that a decidedly "spiritual" version of racism was central to this
) ideological transition, as fascist intellectuals "stressed the 'spiritual'
) rather than the biological idea of race." (ibid.) The distinction between
) the two variants of racism began to blur almost immediately, as proponents
) of "spiritual" racism called for "denying Jews influence in government or
) education because they had a different spirit." (ibid.) By the end of the
) 1930's, "spiritual" racism was practically indistinguishable from its
) biological cousin. (snip)
Walden: Thank-you Peters both for this clarification. How easy it is to
conveniently ignore *uncomfortable* things people say or write. How
important it is, however, to speak our minds when injustice is blatantly
obvious. Racism is racism and it must be challanged.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 07:30:04 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: quantity, quality and morality
G'day all,
I am going to slightly disagree with Steve and agree with Diana.
While I don't have any written evidence, my experience is that at least some
proponents of Waldorf education claim that late reading leads to better
reading in the sense that Diana has described. I am going to further
disagree with Steve that "hardening" or whatever else might be discussed is
probably detectable by the means I'm suggesting provided the samples are
sufficiently large, and there is clarity about what is being measured. Of
course this clarity must be arrived at before the measurement. There is some
tradeoff between the size of the samples and the clarity. I think it is
quite common for the clarity to be more difficult than the statistical
design.
On the other hand I am happy for Steve to be correct. If it is so that the
lack of clarity about the definitions of outcomes from Steinerism, objective
introspection, clairvoyance, whatever, is is such that it is impossible to
pin it down, then it is even more clear in my mind that we are not
discussing a method or philosophy which is objective or scientific.
See you, Peter
)From: Diana Winters (winters_diana hotmail.com)
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)Subject: Re: quantity, quality and morality
)Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:52:39 +0000
)
)
)Steve:
))I have not heard Waldorf supporters claim that kids will read better if
))taught at an older age.
)
)They do claim late readers will enjoy it more, or stay enthusiastic about
)reading, whereas those taught earlier sometimes "burn out." This might be a
)testable measure, with questionnaires asking a person to rank how much
)enjoyment they get out of reading, how many books or magazines they read
)every year, and see how Waldorf grads compare with others. Diana
)
)
)
)_________________________________________________________________
)Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
)
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 23:38:30 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Destiny of anthroposophy
) Joel writes:
)) Now, it could be asked in this light, what did I mean "by destined to die
)) out". Again, if one presupposes a racist point of view then it is
possible
)) to put some weird interpretation on this. But, if we are not too
paranoid,
)) the word also has a meaning which recognizes that a past event has
)) happened, it has "become" the "destiny".
Walden: I know I should probably leave this one alone. It is, however,
incredible and this nonsense must be challenged. First, stating that a
particular race of people is "destined to die out" says it all. Nobody
needs to take a "weird interpretation" or a "racist point of view." The
words are purely racist. Secondly, the feeble excuse/explanation of a past
event having happened and has therefore become "destiny" is perverse. In
case our resident spiritual historian has not noticed... Native Americans
have not died out. This disrespect and patronizing spiritual arrogance is
simply shocking. I have many First Nations friends who would definitely be
deeply offended at this callous disregard for their culture. Shame.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 07:33:14 +0000
From: (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: Scaligero and spiritual anti-racism
That letter was about a today prominent Italian journalist who is in the
same list with Scaligero
(http://www.romacivica.net/novitch/LeggiRaz/promulgatori.htm). It is
clear from that letter that the list is a hybrid. It contains the names
of the 180 people who signed the racial laws and mixed with them
"l'elenco di personalitý italiane che pubblicamente si schierarono a
favore dei provvedimenti razzisti del regime" (The list of Italian
personalities who openly sided the racial measures of the regime).
Scaligero never signed the document for the racial laws. Why was he
included in that list? Scaligero writes in his book "Dallo Yoga alla
Rosacroce", p.95-96:
"Quando scoppio' il razzismo, non nego che fui preoccupato, perche'
intravvidi subito gli sviluppi assurdi di simile presa di posizione:
data una certa apertura della stampa alla mia collaborazione, sentii il
dovere di intervenire, perche' quel grosso errore fosse il meno nocivo
possibile. In tal senso feci uno sforzo invero immediato ed energico,
tentando di dare a quella iniziativa un contenuto che la dominasse, un
contenuto etico e simbolico, capace di far sfociare il tutto in una
serie di provvedimenti educativi e formativi della gioventu'. Ma il mio
tentativo venne sopraffatto dal solito politicismo fanatico: lo stesso
che sotto altro segno e altre forme oggi impedisce le iniziative libere
in ogni zona della Terra. Tuttavia, chi possa leggere i miei scritti
pubblicati sull'argomento a quel tempo, non puo' non avvertire il
contenuto che io intendevo sostanzialmente far valere. Avvenne persino
che un osseratore assai fine, sulla rivista Augustea, analizzasse le mie
tesi e mi accusasse di (antirazzismo mascherato).
Quello che pensavo allora del razzismo, lo penso tuttora: lo ritengo un
errore mentale dovuto alla incapacita' di distinguere nella coscienza
l'elemento interiore indipendente dalla razza."
("When racism broke out I do not deny I felt worried because I foresaw
the absurd developments of such a position: given a certain opening of
the press to my collaboration, I felt as a duty to intervene, to make
that great mistake the least harmful possible. In this direction I did a
truly immediate and strong effort, trying to give to that initiative a
content that would dominate it, an ethical and symbolic content, able to
drive the all thing in a series of educational and formative measures
for the young. But my attempt was overwhelmed by the usual political
fanaticism: the same that under a different sign and other forms is
preventing today the free initiatives in every area of the Earth.
However, who reads my writings published upon that topic at that time,
cannot but realize the content that essentially I meant to assert. It
even happened that a very bright observer analyzed my thesis and
eventually accused me of "masked anti-racism" on the periodical
'Augustea'. My thought about racism is the same of what I thought at
that time: I consider it a mental error due to the incapability to
distinguish, within consciousness, the inner element that is independent
from the race.")
"Non sono un politico, non sono mai stato un politico: per temperamento,
per costituzione interiore, per vocazione, non potrei esserlo. Se
dovessi definire me stesso mediante un opposto, potrei dire che sono il
contrario di quel che e' un uomo politico. Percio' ho sempre ammirato
coloro che sono capaci di donarsi alla politica, di esaurire se stessi
come politici: sono persuaso che essi assumono su se' la parte piu'
grave del peso umano, compiendo un sacrificio che divora la loro
esistenza, insieme con la loro stessa vanita' e la relativa sete di
vita. Strada facendo, salvo rare eccezioni, per essi l'apparire finisce
sempre con l'identificarsi con l'essere. Peraltro, sono convinto con lo
Steiner, eppero' con Mario Viezzoli, autore di un saggio inedito
sull'argomento, che l'epoca della politica e' finita e che ha inizio,
facendosi faticosamente strada attraverso la scorza degli impulsi
politici esauriti, l'era sociale, o l'era dell'impulso morale. Sono
convinto che la politica e' la sopravvivenza di un autentico
(oscurantismo) mentale, che impedisce di prendere contatto con il
contenuto obiettivo dei problemi umani: impedisce per via di
precostituita assunzione ideologica, di ravvisare nei problemi
situazioni che non esigono interpretazione secondo colore politico o
teorie di partito, ma soluzioni logiche, tecniche, essenzialemente
morali. Non politico, anzi apolitico per temperamento, tuttavia,
giovanissimo, nel periodo fascista credetti poter immettere nella forma
politica la mia visione del mondo: questo spiega la categoria in cui
qualcuno ancora oggi tanta recludermi: categoria che io non rinnego per
debito di lealta' e di verita', ma che non mi ha mai contenuto, ne' mi
ha mai impedito di essere quello che realmente volevo. Tanto e' vero che
sono sempre stato un isolato, ospitato dalla stampa del tempo solo
grazie a quella validita' etica degli argomenti che proponevo. Quello
che ho scritto in quel periodo lo potrei ripubblicare oggi su qualsiasi
giornale, di sinistra, di destra, o di centro, solo sostituendo alla
parola (Fascismo), per esempio, l'espressione (visone sociale), o
(istanza morale). Se invece che in un regime fascista mi fossi trovato
in regime sovietico, il contenuto delle mie idee sarebbe stato identico:
avrei soltanto dovuto trovargli un'altra forma. I miei scritti del tempo
stanno li' a testimoniare che io volevo allora quello che voglio
tuttora: sottolineare come senso ultimo dei problemi, l'esigenza della
reintegrazione dell'uomo. Solatnto una via morale puo' garantire una via
sociale: solo l'individuo libero che rechi in se' la moralita' come
forza, o come seconda natura, e' garanzia della giusta gestione di un
organismo sociale e del suo stato di diritto: questo e' sempre stato il
senso dell'aspetto (politico) dei miei scritti: un pensiero d'una
semplicita' da parere ingenuo e tuttavia concreta chiave del problema."
(ibid. p.92-93)
(Do you need a translation?)
His editor writes that during those years Scaligero wrote the book
"L'India contro l'Inghilterra" (Soc. An. Poligrafici Il Resto del
Carlino, Bologna 1941), and in the same climate also a life of Dante for
kids (collana "Le Vite" directed by Aristide Campanile, Domenico Conte
Editore, Napoli), and "La razza di Roma" (Mantero, Tivoli 1939), assay
about the common origins of Roma and of Italy, and the novel "Niccoloso
da Recco navigatore Atlantico (Oberdan Zucchi, Milano 1942), an Italian
epic of the discovery of the Canary Islands, last remnant of the lost
Atlantis.
If you are interested in these and other works, why don't you contact
the editor? I am sure he will solve all your doubts.
As you can see, Scaligero condamned racism completely and without
doubts. And he never had any different positions about it.
Those historians, De Felice, Germinario, etc., must have assumed that
Scaligero was a racist since he wrote on those journals. Maybe, one day
someone will say that he was a communist instigating people to public
revolt because he wrote "il marxismo accusa il mondo" and
"Rivoluzione". I have read some articles written in 1942-43 and he was
writing on the same tone he wrote later. His editor wrote recently that
Scaligero never, and he underlines NEVER made any distinction of sex,
wealth, culture, political side, race or religion. He always treated
everybody with the same, even embarassing, deference. And this is
referred to the period under question.
You ask me if I have read 'Mein Kampf'. No, but I have watched the movie
by Leni Riefenstahl, "Triumph of the Will". I think it's enough! And I
visited the 'risiera di San Sabba'. Hitler stated he was a racist and he
prosecuted jewish people. I don't need to read books. I have first hand
reports about jewish people being arrested and disappearing during the
war.
To Peter S. I would like to say that by explaining spiritual racism as
it was meant by Evola, you will just give a different view that that of
Scaligero. The two (they were not comrades) had quite opposite views,
and Evola despite some good works ( for instance the Hermetic Tradition
and some articles appeared as the group of UR and KRUR) made several
mistakes. Also, Evola supported spiritual racism, but this is not a
surprise considering that he had a very aristocratic view about esoteric
knowledge.
On the pages of the "Diorama" edited by Evola Scaligero wrote: "La
Fides, Perdita della direzione olimpica" (1941), "Sulla conoscenza di
se'" (1942), "Una esigenza dell'anima moderna" (1942), "La virtu' e la
coscienza del sangue" (1943), "Necessita' di essere onesti" (1943).
What I think of Evola? I do not share his view about the race. ( As well
as I reject the racial laws introduced in Italy in 1938. If you read it,
those principles are just so absurd and against individuality!)
Different peoples had different task, but they were all important.
Today, as Scaligero puts it "le razze hanno esaurito la loro funzione:
formandosi i popoli e le Nazioni e tendendosi a confederare le Nazioni"
("Lotta di classe e Karma" Perseo, Roma, 1970, p182) (races have
exhausted their function: Peoples and Nations are forming and they tend
to unite in confederations).
But Evola beyond his limits had an incredible knowledge and some of his
books are interesting, for example his plane explanation of Alchemy (it
is almost contrasting with his aristocratic vision that he made alchemy
it so clear to the reader). He was totally wrong about the sense of the
Grail legend and about Steiner and about a lot of other things.
Read the article "Dioniso" written by Scaligero on Evola in the book
"Testimonianze su Evola" Ed. Mediterranee.
Evola remains with Guenon one the most important traditionalists and it
is actually interesting to read the corrispondence that Evola had with
Guenon. In common they had that they both strongly opposed the Spiritual
Science.
Percedol
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 07:40:17 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: quantity, quality and morality
G'day again.
I read Diana's comments again, and I don't think the questionairres are
necessary. I still think that comprehension tests will probably suffice.
Let me put this question another way, bearing in mind that I don't know the
answer. How would prospective Waldorf parents react if they KNEW in advance
there was a statistical likleihood that their children would read less well
than their peers from other schools? My own view is that this could only be
balanced by some other positive outcome, eg lower divorce rate, lower arrest
rate for crimes involving victims, longer life span, healthier children,
better support for aged parents :) than appropriately selected samples.
It would be good if some of the other critics or perhaps a DOF or two would
suggest measures that are better. How about density of Waldorf graduates in
high quality orchestras?
)From: Diana Winters (winters_diana hotmail.com)
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)Subject: Re: quantity, quality and morality
)Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:52:39 +0000
)
)
)Steve:
))I have not heard Waldorf supporters claim that kids will read better if
))taught at an older age.
)
)They do claim late readers will enjoy it more, or stay enthusiastic about
)reading, whereas those taught earlier sometimes "burn out." This might be a
)testable measure, with questionnaires asking a person to rank how much
)enjoyment they get out of reading, how many books or magazines they read
)every year, and see how Waldorf grads compare with others. Diana
)
)
)
)_________________________________________________________________
)Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
)
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 07:44:09 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Destiny of anthroposophy
G'day Joel and Walden.
I have to disagree with Joel again. We have another word which describes
events like taht being discussed and that is "contingent".
Peter F.
)From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)Subject: Re: Destiny of anthroposophy
)Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 23:38:30 -0800
)
) ) Joel writes:
) )) Now, it could be asked in this light, what did I mean "by destined to
)die
) )) out". Again, if one presupposes a racist point of view then it is
)possible
) )) to put some weird interpretation on this. But, if we are not too
)paranoid,
) )) the word also has a meaning which recognizes that a past event has
) )) happened, it has "become" the "destiny".
)
)Walden: I know I should probably leave this one alone. It is, however,
)incredible and this nonsense must be challenged. First, stating that a
)particular race of people is "destined to die out" says it all. Nobody
)needs to take a "weird interpretation" or a "racist point of view." The
)words are purely racist. Secondly, the feeble excuse/explanation of a past
)event having happened and has therefore become "destiny" is perverse. In
)case our resident spiritual historian has not noticed... Native Americans
)have not died out. This disrespect and patronizing spiritual arrogance is
)simply shocking. I have many First Nations friends who would definitely be
)deeply offended at this callous disregard for their culture. Shame.
)
_________________________________________________________________
Join the worldís largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 07:56:53 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: drawing - was: RE: a contrary experience
Sarah-Jo Robinson wrote:
)A final point - although I expect this won't go down well - I have
)nearly completed my seventh year of educational training with a Waldorf
)emphasis - first in curative ("special") education and now for Classes I -
)VIII. I also teach part-time in a Waldorf school. and my IQ last time it
)was assessed fell at 176, which is over average.
G'day Sarah-Jo. It goes down fine with me, but it leads me to ask a
question. Please explain to me in terms that you think I will understand the
practice of curative education in Waldorf schools. Please don't be of the
opinion that I will be easy to get on with in discussion of this. You will
have to go easy with me cause I come out with lesser weight than 176. Of
course that 176 gives you an added responsibility.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Join the worldís largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 08:08:45 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Genocide as necessity
Joel Wendt wrote:
Each percept (experience) has a corresponding
concept, and the two taken together are a unity.
Peter Farrell asks in response:
Do these have a one to one correspondence or are there multiple possible
concepts associated with each percept and vice versa?
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Join the worldís largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 08:25:09 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Denial of Steiner's Racism
Percedol writes:
)Of course, Scaligero never changed his mind after the war
I guess that makes him open minded.
See you, Peter F.
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 08:56:28 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: The Mission
walden quotes the Anthroposophical Society in Florida:
The campaign for a new social order had been especially well received in the
big Waldorf Astoria cigarette-factory at Stuttgart."
Peter asks:
Why was the Waldorf Astoria cigarette-factory at Stuttgart interested in
Steiner?
Anyone know?
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 09:29:10 +0000
From: mypostbox (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: The Mission
)
) Peter asks:
) Why was the Waldorf Astoria cigarette-factory at Stuttgart interested in
) Steiner?
)
) Anyone know?
we were told that he was good buddies with the owner
bea
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 649
-- Topica Digest --
Re: The Mission
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Scaligero and spiritual racism
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Genocide as necessity
By mysplum earthlink.net
Scaligero and spiritual racism
By peter_zegers runbox.no
Re: Genocide as necessity
By hermit tiac.net
Re: Genocide as necessity
By hermit tiac.net
Re: quantity, quality and morality
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Scaligero and spiritual anti-racism
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Walt to Peter S. on critical thinking
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Genocide as necessity
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: The Mission
By dan dandugan.com
Re: content versus method
By hermit tiac.net
Re: Genocide as necessity
By hermit tiac.net
Re: content versus method
By peter_zegers runbox.no
Re: Genocide as necessity
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Genocide as necessity
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Genocide as necessity
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Genocide as necessity
By snell gv.net
Re: the two steiners
By charliemorrison btinternet.com
Re: the two steiners
By charliemorrison btinternet.com
Re: content versus method
By hermit tiac.net
Re: Genocide as necessity
By hermit tiac.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 07:26:58 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: The Mission
on 3/1/02 1:29 AM, bea at mypostbox.formail virgin.net wrote:
)
)
))
)) Peter asks:
)) Why was the Waldorf Astoria cigarette-factory at Stuttgart interested in
)) Steiner?
))
)) Anyone know?
)
) we were told that he was good buddies with the owner
) bea
Sharon: I bet ol' Emile Molt frequented Steiner's underground Rosicrucian
Temple in Stuttgart.
"The managing director of the Waldorf Astoria Tobacco Company, Emil Molt, an
enthusiastic supporter of Rudolf Steiner's concepts of re-forming social
life, had asked him to provide the children of his factory workers with a
more human-orientated education." (p6 Waldorf Education World-Wide , Editor
Hans Joachim Mattke, Translator Carl Hoffman 1994).
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 07:35:33 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Scaligero and spiritual racism
on 2/28/02 9:48 PM, walden at awaldenpond shaw.ca wrote:
) Peter S. (snip)
) Tannenbaum goes on to observe
)) that a decidedly "spiritual" version of racism was central to this
)) ideological transition, as fascist intellectuals "stressed the 'spiritual'
)) rather than the biological idea of race." (ibid.) The distinction between
)) the two variants of racism began to blur almost immediately, as proponents
)) of "spiritual" racism called for "denying Jews influence in government or
)) education because they had a different spirit." (ibid.) By the end of the
)) 1930's, "spiritual" racism was practically indistinguishable from its
)) biological cousin. (snip)
Sharon: A similar idea was used in South Africa to justify Apartheid.
Africans were said to be people without souls.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 07:53:55 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Genocide as necessity
on 2/28/02 4:23 PM, Joel Wendt at hermit tiac.net wrote:
) Dear David,
)
) You wrote "In philosophy, you start by not confusing words and ideas
) with things."
)
)
) This is, of course, precisely where Steiner's epistomology (as
) experience) leads in an entirely different direction. Not only are
) "ideas" (but not words, which are just symbol system pointed towarfd a
) possible inward experience) things, that is aspects of something that
) has objective existence, but that for all seemingly material things,
) social processes and states of mind there exists the respective "Idea"
) to which it belongs. Each percept (experience) has a corresponding
) concept, and the two taken together are a unity. It is only human
) consciousness, in its current stage of evolution, that divides this
) unity into an apparent duality.
Sharon: Sounds like Cabala meets Alchemy. BTW Steiner's views are quite
ancient.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 14:28:15 +0100
From: Peter Zegers (peter_zegers runbox.no)
Subject: Scaligero and spiritual racism
Percedol wrote: "Scaligero never signed the document for the racial
laws."
We never said so, Peter Staudenmaier and I only stated that he signed
the infamous petition of racist intellectuals urging the Fascist regime
to adopt racial laws. Percedol, are you denying that Scaligero signed
this petition? The actual law was signed by Mussolini, Ciano and king
Emmanuel III. Percedol, please don't try to confuse matters too much.
Scaligero admits more or less that he signed the petition in the passage
Percedol translated: "Given a certain opening of the press to my
collaboration, I felt as a duty to intervene, to make that great mistake
the least harmful possible." This is a very poor excuse. Accusations of
'masked anti-racism' made by rivals in racism are not very convincing
(Percedol, could you tell me who made this accusation and whether
Scaligero responded to this criticism?). As for Scaligero's opinion on
racism: "I consider it a mental error due to the incapability to
distinguish, within consciousness, the inner element that is independent
from the race." Note that he is not denying the existence of races as
such. It is completely in line with what Peter Staudenmaier wrote about
the Italian version of 'spiritual' racism ("Tannenbaum goes on to
observe that a decidedly "spiritual" version of racism was central to
this ideological transition, as fascist intellectuals "stressed the
'spiritual' rather than the biological idea of race"). So I fail to see
the condemnation of racism Percedol seems to find in these words.
Percedol wrote "His [unnanmed] editor wrote recently that Scaligero
never, and he underlines NEVER made any distinction of sex, wealth,
culture, political side, race or religion. He always treated everybody
with the same, even embarassing, deference. And this is referred to the
period under question." This makes it very puzzling why he would have
signed the petition of racist scientists and why he wrote many articles
for the fascist press. Scaligero wrote: "Quello che ho scritto in quel
periodo lo potrei ripubblicare oggi su qualsiasi giornale, di sinistra,
di destra, o di centro, solo sostituendo alla parola (Fascismo), per
esempio, l'espressione (visone sociale), o (istanza morale)." (My rough
translation: What I wrote in that period I could republish today in any
paper, right-wing, left-wing, or center, only substituting the word
'Fascism', for example, for the expression 'social vision' or 'moral
request'). This makes him look like an opportunist, hardly a 'masked
anti-racist'. He also wrote: "Non politico, anzi apolitico per
temperamento, tuttavia, giovanissimo, nel periodo fascista credetti
poter immettere nella forma politica la mia visione del mondo: questo
spiega la categoria in cui qualcuno ancora oggi tanta [tenta?]
recludermi: categoria che io non rinnego per debito di lealta' e di
verita', ma che non mi ha mai contenuto, ne' mi ha mai impedito di
essere quello che realmente volevo." (My rough translation: Non
political, in fact a-political by temperament, and very young, I
nevertheless believed during the fascist era that I could put my
worldview into political shape: this explains the category in which some
even today try to confine me: a category that I don't deny out of
loyalty and truth, but that has never restrained nor impeded me to be
what I really wanted to be). So basically - albeit in a rather
convoluted way - Scaligero admits he was a fascist and has always
remained loyal to his 'a-political fascism'.
Percedol wrote: "Different peoples had different task, but they were all
important." Interesting, could you elaborate this a bit? In order to
discuss this subject more fully, it would be of great help if Percedol
could make the articles from Scaligero available to us, especially
"Razzismo spirituale e razzismo biologico" (Spiritual racism and
biological racism; "La Vita Italiana", July 1941) and "Per un razzismo
integrale" (For an integral racism; "La Vita Italiana", May 1942).
Percedol, please send me the texts in Italian if you are interested in a
real debate about this issue.
Peter Zegers
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 12:46:03 -0500
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: Genocide as necessity
Peter Farrell wrote:
)
) Joel Wendt wrote:
)
) Each percept (experience) has a corresponding
) concept, and the two taken together are a unity.
)
) Peter Farrell asks in response:
) Do these have a one to one correspondence or are there multiple possible
) concepts associated with each percept and vice versa?
Dear Peter,
Not a bad question given the statement from which you derived it, but
like the sense world, the inner world is very complicated.
Since I have to use words to point to concepts there is an inherent
difficulty. You will think about this according to your own experience
of the mind, which will be different from mine. So the words I use will
not have the same reference points. This is not a fixed situation, but
until one explores the mind in a most intimate manner it is not easy to
get a real appreciation.
Let us start with the word "in". It consists of two letters "i" and
"n" and in another language would take a different form. For each word
there is a related "concept", but in the case of "in" it is what some
call a paired concept, because you can't really "think" "in" without
"out" also being present, almost the otherside of the coin so to speak.
So the word "in" has a concept "in-out" (as does the word "out").
Please, at this point, understand that I am using the "word" concept in
a very specific way, and not trying to use it according to the
dictionary - I could use a made up word as well.
Concepts can get complicated - take the phrase "the diamond was in the
box at the end of the bed". If we read this in a fiction novel we might
form a kind of picture inwardly according to the concept the writer
meant to give us. At the same time we could call this phrase a related
set-of-concepts, or an idea. All I am trying to point to is that, at
least with material we write (such as this whole e-mail) there is a
hierarchy of concepts, ideas and idea complexes that the mind becomes
involved with through the finger pointing done by the writer in
composing the message.
Now at a naive level the percept (the experience) in this case is
primarily the words on this page, but at the same time each individual
reader has a history of relating to the words, conceps, ideas and
idea-complexes certain past percepts (experiences). Inwardly in the
mind, these past and present experiences and word usages mix in quite
unconscious ways, out of which we begin to assemble the "meaning".
In the case of sense percepts, such as nature objects (a plant, a tree,
a flower) the Idea is no so immediately available. This is due in part
to the fact that we are not raised to pay proper attention to our inner
experiences. For example, we might be having a conversation and someone
will interrupt and say: "I have an idea". Now if we are self honest in
the sense Peter S. wants us to be, we have to admit that this statement
arises from a very definite inward experience whose details and exact
nature we sleep through (in most cases). We mostly notice it in
passing, because our "I" consciousness (the self awareness within the
inwardness) is focused on the conversation and not inwardly on the
unconscious willing that produced the experience of the idea.
This is why various kinds of concentration exercises and meditation
practices are necessary in order to begin to distinguish the various
aspects of the inwardness that need to be identified and understood.
The inwardness is to the self awareness also an experience, that is a
"percept". In Theory of Knowledge both the percepts of the sense world
and the percepts of the inwardness are called "the necessary given",
since they arise without our inner activity.
What does require our inner activity (the will of the self awareness)
is the production of "thought content", or words (spoken in the inner
voice), concepts, ideas and idea complexes. But this willing can be
both (or either) conscious or unconscious. What makes the whole thing
all the more difficult is that once we begin to explore the inwardness
(as a percept/experience) we find that even our "intention" is a complex
of motives, urges, desires and wants. So when we "think", when we draw
forth thoughts, this "intention" effects the nature of the produced
"thought-content".
This is not so clear when we "think" about a material object, such as a
pencil, or a nature object such as a plant. Yet, when we think about a
person with whom we have a relationship, the whole moral tone that is
living in us infects the "thought-content".
Not only that, but what we "feel" becomes involved. In thinking about
a nature object it helps to cultivate a "mood of soul", a kind of
intentional feeling of reverence, but when we think about other people
then our antipathies and sympathies (likes and dislikes) influence the
intention living in the thought calling forth process. So it becomes
necessary to struggle to have some mastery of this feeling activity.
Now the feelings appear before the self awareness also as a necessary
given (in the beginning, this is complicated once we start to bring the
will more and more into play). So we really don't get rid of the
disliking of the person we are thinking about. Rather it becomes
possible to notice that we are producing a thought content filled with
antipathy, which once noticed can be dealt with and replaced with a more
intentional and careful (heart-felt) way of thinking.
Peter, your question above may have seemed simple, but to experience,
the matching of percepts and concepts is quite difficult and it makes no
real sense to think of things in a one to one relationship. The inner
world is as easily as complicated as the sense world.
warm regards,
joel
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 12:50:34 -0500
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: Genocide as necessity
mysplum wrote:
) Sharon: Sounds like Cabala meets Alchemy. BTW Steiner's views are quite
) ancient.
Dear Sharon,
The truth that the world is a monism hasn't changed, and was well known
in ancient times. Meanwhile, however, humanity has itself changed, so
that in our time - to our conditions of mind - it was necessary to
present this material in a certain way so as to place it before the
human "I am" in freedom.
warm regards,
joel
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 17:54:21 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: quantity, quality and morality
Peter F.:
)I read Diana's comments again, and I don't think the questionairres are
)necessary. I still think that comprehension tests will probably suffice.
I'm not real enthusiastic about questionnaires or anything - I
usually hang up on people taking surveys - politely of course :). Waldorf
defenders would scoff, since what they are actually claiming about reading
would be something "subtle," "rich," "deep," and conveniently intangible. A
questionnaire that asked you to check a category - How many books do you
read a year? 0; 1-5; 5-20; over 20 - would be considered materialistic.
I just thought of it as a way of pinning them down on the claim that late
readers enjoy it more or are less likely to burn out. I don't buy that claim
for a minute.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Join the worldís largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 11:58:06 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Scaligero and spiritual anti-racism
Percedol writes:
)That letter was about a today prominent Italian journalist who is in the
)same list with Scaligero
)(http://www.romacivica.net/novitch/LeggiRaz/promulgatori.htm). It is
)clear from that letter that the list is a hybrid.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Do you mean that the list of
signatories of the petition demanding race laws is erroneous, that it
contains names of people who did not, in fact, sign the petition? If that is
what you mean, could you explain your basis for this claim?
)It contains the names
)of the 180 people who signed the racial laws and mixed with them
)"l'elenco di personalitý italiane che pubblicamente si schierarono a
)favore dei provvedimenti razzisti del regime" (The list of Italian
)personalities who openly sided the racial measures of the regime).
"Signed the racial laws" doesn't make sense to me. We're talking about
people who called for the introduction of the racial laws before they were
actually promulgated. Scaligero was one of those people. Are you disputing
this? Are you saying that he was not one of the "Italian personalities who
openly sided the racial measures of the regime"? Again, please explain what
you base this claim on.
)Scaligero never signed the document for the racial laws.
Which document? The authorship of the laws themselves remains in dispute, as
far as I know. Some historians attribute them to Mussolini himself, others
say Ciano was the main author, while still others argue that a young scholar
wrote up the first draft after a thorough interview with Mussolini. In any
case, nobody has claimed that Scaligero participated in writing the race
laws, but that he publically called for their adoption. Are you denying
this?
)("When racism broke out I do not deny I felt worried because I foresaw
)the absurd developments of such a position: given a certain opening of
)the press to my collaboration, I felt as a duty to intervene, to make
)that great mistake the least harmful possible.
This is standard ex post facto apolegetics. Scaligero is trying to explain
away his own collaboration. This is hardly evidence that he did not
collaborate; it's exactly the opposite.
)In this direction I did a
)truly immediate and strong effort, trying to give to that initiative a
)content that would dominate it, an ethical and symbolic content, able to
)drive the all thing in a series of educational and formative measures
)for the young.
Heidegger said the same idiotic things about trying to give philosophical
direction to the Nazi movement for the sake of German youth etc etc. This is
Scaligero convicting himself, not acquitting himself. Percedol, what on
earth made you quote this as if it reflected favorably on Scaligero?
)But my attempt was overwhelmed by the usual political
)fanaticism: the same that under a different sign and other forms is
)preventing today the free initiatives in every area of the Earth.
)However, who reads my writings published upon that topic at that time,
)cannot but realize the content that essentially I meant to assert.
Namely, that spiritual (or "integral") racism was the proper way forward for
the fascist movement. This is a line of reasoning with very lengthy
historical roots within the voelkisch tradition, and is one of the chief
areas of overlap between anthroposophy and fascist thought.
)It
)even happened that a very bright observer analyzed my thesis and
)eventually accused me of "masked anti-racism" on the periodical
)'Augustea'.
That happened all the time within classical fascist movements. Some early
Nazis routinely accused Hitler of working for the Jews or of being Jewish
himself. When different varieties of racism are competing for ideological
hegemony, it is quite natural for racists of one persuasion to call racists
of another persuasion covert anti-racists.
)My thought about racism is the same of what I thought at
)that time: I consider it a mental error due to the incapability to
)distinguish, within consciousness, the inner element that is independent
)from the race.")
Scaligero is clearly prevaricating here. He openly and forcefully advocated
his own preferred version of racism at the time.
)If you are interested in these and other works, why don't you contact
)the editor? I am sure he will solve all your doubts.
What doubts? And who would depend on Scaligero's editor for accurate and
objective information about his Fascist-era activities? If I wanted to find
out about the political history of, say, Bossi or Fini or Berlusconi, would
you recommend that I contact their editors?
)As you can see, Scaligero condamned racism completely and without
)doubts.
Huh? Nothing that you quoted supports this claim, and much of what you
quoted directly contradicts it. In any case, quoting Scaligero's post-war
attempts at self-justification is hardly a reliable way to establish what he
believed and wrote during the 1930's and 1940's. Why don't you quote his
published work from that period?
)Those historians, De Felice, Germinario, etc., must have assumed that
)Scaligero was a racist since he wrote on those journals.
Don't be ridiculous. They quote Scaligero's articles verbatim and give full
citations. If you'd like to convince us that such passages are
unrepresentative of his views at the time, you only need to provide us with
full articles that he published in the fascist press. You could start by
posting the two articles we've asked you about that he wrote for La Vita
Italiana in the early 1940's.
)Maybe, one day
)someone will say that he was a communist instigating people to public
)revolt because he wrote "il marxismo accusa il mondo" and
)"Rivoluzione".
You seem to think that this would be contradictory. You're mistaken.
Scaligero's fellow anthroposophist-fascist Werner Haverbeck made the same
sort of opening to the Communist left. In fact it's a common feature of
far-right intellectuals to make such ideological zig-zags.
)I have read some articles written in 1942-43 and he was
)writing on the same tone he wrote later.
Which articles are those?
)His editor wrote recently that
)Scaligero never, and he underlines NEVER made any distinction of sex,
)wealth, culture, political side, race or religion.
He couldn't have been a very talented writer if he truly abjured all such
distinctions.
)He always treated
)everybody with the same, even embarassing, deference. And this is
)referred to the period under question.
So what? I couldn't care less how he treated people personally. The only
issue under discussion is his public role.
)You ask me if I have read 'Mein Kampf'. No, but I have watched the movie
)by Leni Riefenstahl, "Triumph of the Will". I think it's enough!
Enough for what?
)I don't need to read books. I have first hand
)reports about jewish people being arrested and disappearing during the
)war.
Then surely you are aware that some of these arrests and disappearances took
place in Italy, a fact which was made possible by the prior creation of a
racist climate. Don't you believe that the people who contributed to the
creation of this climate should be held responsible for their actions?
)To Peter S. I would like to say that by explaining spiritual racism as
)it was meant by Evola, you will just give a different view that that of
)Scaligero.
Yes, I got that impression from what I've seen by Scaligero; they seem to
have held divergent versions of the Aryan myth. Could you tell us more about
Scaligero's version?
)The two (they were not comrades)
What makes you say that?
)Also, Evola supported spiritual racism
So did Scaligero.
)On the pages of the "Diorama" edited by Evola Scaligero wrote: "La
)Fides, Perdita della direzione olimpica" (1941), "Sulla conoscenza di
)se'" (1942), "Una esigenza dell'anima moderna" (1942), "La virtu' e la
)coscienza del sangue" (1943), "Necessita' di essere onesti" (1943).
Do you consider these to be examples of "spiritual anti-racism"? Could you
explain why?
)Different peoples had different task, but they were all important.
Just one sentence ago you were extolling "individuality", and now you're
telling us that whole peoples have determinate tasks (which is the standard
anthroposophist view, of course). Could you explain how you manage to
reconcile those two contrary viewpoints?
)Today, as Scaligero puts it "le razze hanno esaurito la loro funzione:
)formandosi i popoli e le Nazioni e tendendosi a confederare le Nazioni"
)("Lotta di classe e Karma" Perseo, Roma, 1970, p182) (races have
)exhausted their function: Peoples and Nations are forming and they tend
)to unite in confederations).
Similar to Steiner's view of the future. What functions do you believe races
used to have? What functions do you believe peoples and nations have today?
And why do you believe that your views are anti-racist?
)Read the article "Dioniso" written by Scaligero on Evola in the book
)"Testimonianze su Evola" Ed. Mediterranee.
Does Scaligero challenge Evola's racism in that article?
)Evola remains with Guenon one the most important traditionalists and it
)is actually interesting to read the corrispondence that Evola had with
)Guenon. In common they had that they both strongly opposed the Spiritual
)Science.
Guenon is a perennial favorite among a wide variety of far-right
esotericists. Obviously there are differences among occultists on any number
of issues, including the validity of Steiner's version of "spiritual
science". But what Steiner shared with Evola and other esoteric fascists is
an obsession with the Aryan myth and the supposed cycles of racial decline
and advance. Fascist anthroposophists like Scaligero form the bridge between
these two figures.
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Join the worldís largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 18:09:28 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Walt to Peter S. on critical thinking
Walt wrote:
)When are Waldorf students prepared for critical thinking, and how (Debra's
)question) is this preparation accomplished? Potentially and hopefully from
)the first grade, by the very nature of the main lesson structure, where
)lessons are presented in a living way,
Right, like non-Waldorf teachers aim to present lessons in a dead
way. Come on, it's jargon, Walt.
In Waldorf the "living way" means precisely *not* to encourage
critical or analytical thinking. Steiner said this was deadening for
children. It's almost Orwellian, this redefining of words to mean
their opposites, depending on whom one is speaking to.
)and the lessons are recapitulated by the students in the following days.
I assume you are using "recapitulated" as a big fancy word for reviewing,
which all children do in school as a *beginning* to thinking on their own
about what they are learning. Nobody else would claim that reviewing and
repeating are the same thing as critical thinking. But you have certainly
learned how to talk the talk. "Recapitulating" sounds a lot more
sophisticated than reviewing.
)"Marked by careful attention and judgment" is also practiced from the first
)grade through the activity of students creating a permanent record of what
)they have learned in class. Students spend a fair amount of time each day
)devoting careful attention to these records.
They copy very carefully into their main lesson books what the teacher
dictates or writes on the board. They copy specified decorative squiggles in
the margin. Definitely they spend a "fair amount of time" doing this. This
is done to *avoid* any thinking about the material, to pass time that might
otherwise be available for discussion or response to the material that came
from the student's own initiative.
Developing "judgment" would involve asking the children not just to copy
carefully, but to explain concepts in their own words, answer (and pose to
one another) questions to show their comprehension of the material, write
their own compositions on subjects they've learned about, or in the case of
a story talk about things like characters' motivations or plot structure.
Even offer opinions on what they liked or didn't like about it! All standard
in "progresive" classrooms, and frankly, even in many of the (supposedly
dreadful) inner city classrooms that I've observed. All that even in first
grade - not after puberty.
Obviously in the early grades the children's "analyses" are very simple and
fairly concrete (criticism often consists of "I liked it"). That is fine.
It's a question of accustoming them gradually to using their brains. Their
brains *want* to develop the same as their knitting and crocheting abilities
Walt.
)At any time they or their parents can judge the accuracy of these records
)against reality.
So checking whether they've copied correctly is an aid to critical
thinking? I suppose it's better than nothing.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 12:20:05 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Genocide as necessity
Hi Joel, I followed you right up to here:
)This is why various kinds of concentration exercises and meditation
)practices are necessary in order to begin to distinguish the various
)aspects of the inwardness that need to be identified and understood.
Why do you believe this? Do you think that you failed to understand your own
experiences before you began undertaking concentration exercises and
meditation practices?
)In thinking about
)a nature object it helps to cultivate a "mood of soul", a kind of
)intentional feeling of reverence
What does this help you to do?
)Rather it becomes
)possible to notice that we are producing a thought content filled with
)antipathy, which once noticed can be dealt with and replaced with a )more
)intentional and careful (heart-felt) way of thinking.
Do you think that antipathy cannot be intentional and careful?
)Peter, your question above may have seemed simple, but to experience,
)the matching of percepts and concepts is quite difficult and it makes )no
)real sense to think of things in a one to one relationship.
I understood Peter F's question differently. I didn't think he was asking
about the difficulty involved, but about whether a given precept can be
meaningfully associated with several distinct concepts. Unless you deny this
(which would call the rest of your system into doubt), I don't understand
why it is difficult for you to recognize that your writings on race can be
accurately interpreted as racist, regardless of your intentions. Do you
believe that the only racist utterances are ones that are made with
deliberate malice?
)The inner
)world is as easily as complicated as the sense world.
You say these things as if they were not embarrassingly obvious truisms,
Joel. Why is that?
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 10:25:38 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: The Mission
)walden quotes the Anthroposophical Society in Florida:
)
)The campaign for a new social order had been especially well
)received in the big Waldorf Astoria cigarette-factory at Stuttgart."
)
)Peter asks:
)Why was the Waldorf Astoria cigarette-factory at Stuttgart
)interested in Steiner?
Emil Molt, the director of the factory, was a follower of Steiner and
suggested that Steiner might create a school for the children of the
workers.
-Dan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 16:35:44 -0500
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: content versus method
Dear Alice,
You said a lot in response to my stuff and I want to reply in general
to at least some of what you took the time to write. Sorry it has taken
so long to get around to it. I copied your comments at the end in case
you have forgotten after all this time.
It isn't really a tenent of Steiner "that we define for ourselves such
basic concepts as good and evil." Rather it is that our spiritual
freedom is found in coming to "knowledge" of these things out of our own
forces and experiences, without just believing something someone else
has told us.
The truth is independent of me, Steiner, Peter S., Dan Dugan or Peter
F. No one owns it, while in a very real sense the "truth" owns itself.
The problem is how to come to real knowledge of the truth.
I can understand how you would react to "pontification", but, as I have
tried to show on this list over and over again, those who treat Steiner
as a kind of infalible Pope and thus create a kind of religion I have
called Steinerism, do not represent either what Steiner really taught or
how actual anthroposophists approach such questions. If you personally
knew more anthroposophists you would meet many who don't take Steiner's
word on everything, and who really proceed the way you are proceeding -
which is, I (you) want to decide for myself what is true.
I didn't really understand what you were writing about how I see or not
see people of color. I guess having the racist name thrown at me, by
people who really don't want to deal with the actual issues, has left me
a bit perplexed.
For example, in my Waking the Sleeping Giant essay (which is about
stuff that no one yet on this list has talked about), I pointed out a
distinction between one's physical heritage and one's soul spiritual
identity. Of course people can disagree with this idea, but it is held
by large portions of the world (mostly by tradition), and is growing in
numbers of believers (namely the idea of reincarnation and karma). This
is one of those things that is true, or not true, whatever we think we
believe.
When I met a human being (and this has been part of my work life
for decades), I always see past the color, or other so-called racial
characteristics, trying to meet the human being (the spiritual being)
who is wearing the body like a garment. Having had out of body
experiences (something many people besides anthroposophists speak
about), it is pretty clear that we are not the physical form, which is
rather a gift given to us.
In my writings about the American Indian, I made a clear distinction
between the physical heritage, which in terms of simple numbers
decreased enormously during the genocide, and the spirits that
reincarnate over time in this stream. Yet, since I am an
"anthroposophist" and among the "hated", I have to be wrong, so the
macarthites on the list spin and spin and spin since it is crucial to
their views that anthroposophy not be about anything true (i.e. we never
really discuss whether reincarnation is true or not, and how one might
know or not, nor deal with the fact that what we believe is irrelevant
to the truth).
You should (and others) try to pay attention to the fact that in the
main I have very carefully not been defending anything Steiner ever said
in the huge number of lectures he gave. Yet, again and again I am
approached as if I was, and Steiner's thinking is thrown at me as if I
held those ideas as beliefs. I write from my own experiences almost
exclusively, with reference to others not as authorities, but as a means
of relating to the audience to whom I am writing.
Yet, if I say something that agrees with Steiner, something I have
thought out for myself, the next thing I hear is that I am parroting
something Steiner said. Then you wonder why I don't think communication
is happening on this list.
Another thing that bothers me is when I write something, it is treated
as if somehow I am offering the whole of it, so if you (or someone else)
has an additional thought (such as your remarks below about
"relationship"), then that must mean I have left something out.
We aren't writing books in these e-mail messages, so it is really
impossible to make definitive statements about anything (although some
people like to try). Every subject matter is quite complicated and each
of us is also worthy of a great deal of respect for the total experience
of their life that lives behind what they bring to the discussion.
Short snippy judgmental comments aren't communication - they are like
nasty comments made by ten year olds walking past each other in the
school yard.
We all can do better, including myself, and I want to thank you for
being one of the people on the list who treats me as another human
being.
warm regards,
joel
Alice K wrote:
) Alice here: nervously, I will take a few deep breaths and attempt to respond
) ever so gently to the persistent Joel.
) Alice here: I thought it was part of the tenents of Steiner study that we
) define for ourselves such basic concepts as "good and evil"..Who owns the
) truth?
) Alice here: I think the complexity and multi-layering of these matters is
) true - I admire Steiner's attempt to make sense of the ecology of it all and
) attempt to find patterns and purpose. But I believe the truth is owned by
) the consciousness of all by it's very definition, not on the pontification
) by one man. It is the dialogue that counts.
) Alice again: Well, Joel, as I read your dialogue with others on this list
) and some of what you have written on your web site, I have to say that it
) does seem that communication has been very difficult. But I would wonder if
) you haven't yet seen patterns that have something to do with the nature of
) this material. It seems to me that if the presentation and advocacy of
) Steiner as TRUTH produces this kind of reaction, I would wonder of what use
) it is. It seems that if it actually inhibits relationship, it is of
) questionable value.
)
) Alice here: If we are reading your words, interpreting them through our own
) mental/spiritual filters as separate beings, and feeding you back thoughts
) through words, how can this NOT be communication?
) If you don't think that you look at a human being of color differently than
) anyone else than I would like to know that. I personally believe that
) cultural/sub-cultural differences should be recognized but with an open mind
) of course to the value of every human.
) Alice here: I agree with you that there are indeed forces in biology that
) are other forms of energy. I think that - dare I say it - Steiner was wrong
) and perhaps backward about believing,for instance that the soul pushed the
) blood through the heart, which is not a pump. I think that he skipped of the
) neuro-chemistry and cellular consciousness of the being, wrongly
) interpreting these responses as "soul".. I personally believe that we all
) "carry the light" - or forms of energy if you will. I had a powerful
) experience when I was twenty years old and doing my college fieldwork as a
) PT aid in a large hospital in California. I watched a man die. And I can
) tell you as he left his body, I was profoundly aware of the thing that was
) not his biology - but what I would call his "soul"..I am grateful for this
) experience.
) but I believe it is a much more complex and chemical interaction than
) Steiner outlined.
) Alice here: what about holographic analysis that in each cell is the image
) of the whole?
) Alice here: Somehow this model seems to completely ignore the most important
) aspect of all - relationship.
) Alice here: Biological imperative? found in the animal kingdom?
) Alice here: I still believe it has more to do with the value of relationship
) and clarity and comfort within dialogue.
) Alice here: Yet living in our bodies, which I presume we all do, restricts
) us to sensation with our perceptions - both inner and outer. Have you ever
) been in great pain? Two years ago, soon after our own W.E. trauma, I had a
) six week bout with an 8mm kidney stone. (shedding old ideas?) It was such
) intense pain - despite the meditation techniques I could employ, in the end
) I was curled semi-fetal in an ambulance. I don't think there was anyway to
) circumvent the biological perception of this event - my systems/ tissue
) would not let me.
) Alice here: This is my point too - don't we all own truth? I appreciate that
) you are encouraging us to think, but when we do and let you know, it seems
) that we are punished by you...are you sharing the path?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 17:11:49 -0500
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: Genocide as necessity
Dear Peter S,
I have written some comments below in [brackets].
joel
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
) Hi Joel, I followed you right up to here:
)
) )This is why various kinds of concentration exercises and meditation
) )practices are necessary in order to begin to distinguish the various
) )aspects of the inwardness that need to be identified and understood.
)
) Why do you believe this? Do you think that you failed to understand your own
) experiences before you began undertaking concentration exercises and
) meditation practices?
[I would guess that you failed to follow me at this point because we
went past your own understanding of your own inwardness. Why don't you
write out for us your own objective understanding of your inwardness and
allow us to ask you questions?]
)
) )In thinking about
) )a nature object it helps to cultivate a "mood of soul", a kind of
) )intentional feeling of reverence
)
) What does this help you to do?
[Since you don't know the answer to this question, it suggest again we
have come upon a place where your own ignorance of the universal aspects
of inwardness is revealed. The better question is what could you do if
you understood it in practice.]
)
) )Rather it becomes
) )possible to notice that we are producing a thought content filled with
) )antipathy, which once noticed can be dealt with and replaced with a )more
) )intentional and careful (heart-felt) way of thinking.
)
) Do you think that antipathy cannot be intentional and careful?
[Yes, and no. People can become obsessed with their hate object and
justify this to themselves in all manner of ways. So in a sense the
hate is intention and careful. The point is do they notice that the
thought-content changes according to this emotional background. We can
find justifications for any hateful feeling, but a thought content
created out this emotional texture is usually not the truth.]
)
) )Peter, your question above may have seemed simple, but to experience,
) )the matching of percepts and concepts is quite difficult and it makes )no
) )real sense to think of things in a one to one relationship.
)
) I understood Peter F's question differently. I didn't think he was asking
) about the difficulty involved, but about whether a given precept can be
) meaningfully associated with several distinct concepts. Unless you deny this
) (which would call the rest of your system into doubt), I don't understand
) why it is difficult for you to recognize that your writings on race can be
) accurately interpreted as racist, regardless of your intentions. Do you
) believe that the only racist utterances are ones that are made with
) deliberate malice?
[Do you believe that all your utterances are true? Don't you realize
how easy it is to create a big lie and justify it, especially given your
apparent awareness of all manner of aspects of recent history? What
about your intentions in reading my material? Do you deny reading my
writing looking to find things to criticise? Do you deny that others
have refuted the essence of all your claims of racism against Steiner?
Why is your point of view right? What is your method of thinking that
leads you to the truth, rather than to preconcived prejudices? What do
you know about your own inwardness that justifies your conclusions above
that of others, especially since it is their own words being
interpreted? In reading my material did you ever find anything that was
said that was right? What was that? Tell us about your own inner
search and what teachers if any do you follow? Do you have a religion,
or religious beliefs? When did you stop beating your wife? Since you
admit not knowing Italian, how can you really justify using secondary
sources for your criticism of MS? What do his views on race have to do
with whether he replicated Steiner's achievement in the realm of living
thought? Have you forgotten that this was the point I was making? How,
even if he was a devoted racist (MS), does this effect whether his later
writings are the truth? When are you going to answer my questions? Do
you believe my questions are less important than yours because I appear
to you to be an anthroposophist? Are you bigoted (a kind of racism)
against anthroposophists? What anthroposophists do you admire? Have
you read any books by Owen Barfield? How about George Kaufmann Adams'
book: "Space in the Light of Creation"? Do you believe in God? Why
not? If you are an atheist, how can you claim to know there is no God?
Have I asked enough questions yet? Isn't this a marvelous technique for
misdirecting the thread of the conversation, by asking endless
questions, many of which are spun with assumptions that aren't true?
Where did you learn to practice this way of dialogue? Did you study to
become such a good macarthyist?
) )The inner
) )world is as easily as complicated as the sense world.
)
) You say these things as if they were not embarrassingly obvious truisms,
) Joel. Why is that?
[More comments from the school yard. When are you going to reveal
something of yourself here? Are you afraid of exposing what you really
feel, or who you are? What is your worst fear? Come on now, lets not
hide behind clever word games.]
)
) Peter S.
)
) _________________________________________________________________
) MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
) http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 23:58:44 +0100
From: Peter Zegers (peter_zegers runbox.no)
Subject: Re: content versus method
Joel wrote to Alice: "We all can do better, including myself, and I want
to thank you for being one of the people on the list who treats me as
another human being."
This is funny coming from a person who treats most members of this list
as non-persons by putting them on his black list. And who doesn't
respond in a mature way to criticism of his ideas, but starts calling
critics "macarthyists" instead.
Peter Zegers
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 19:17:32 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Genocide as necessity
on 3/1/02 9:50 AM, Joel Wendt at hermit tiac.net wrote:
) Dear Sharon,
)
) The truth that the world is a monism hasn't changed, and was well known
) in ancient times. Meanwhile, however, humanity has itself changed, so
) that in our time - to our conditions of mind - it was necessary to
) present this material in a certain way so as to place it before the
) human "I am" in freedom.
Sharon: I can't figure out how anyone could think of Steiner's doctrine as
monistic, it just seems so dualistic to me (matter versus spirit).
I'm certain that there have always been thinkers like me, as well as
thinkers like you Joel, and never the twain shall meet. It's the human
condition. I wonder how much we've really changed...the more I learn, the
more I don't think we've changed much.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 19:00:16 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Genocide as necessity
Joel writes:
)[I would guess that you failed to follow me at this point because we
)went past your own understanding of your own inwardness. Why don't you
)write out for us your own objective understanding of your inwardness )and
)allow us to ask you questions?]
Why? Wouldn't it be easier if you just answered my question?
) ) )In thinking about
) ) )a nature object it helps to cultivate a "mood of soul", a kind of
) ) )intentional feeling of reverence
) )
) ) What does this help you to do?
)
)[Since you don't know the answer to this question, it suggest again we
)have come upon a place where your own ignorance of the universal )aspects
)of inwardness is revealed. The better question is what could )you do if
)you understood it in practice.]
You're having trouble reading today, Joel. The question I asked was: "What
does this help you to do?" I didn't ask about universal aspects of
inwardness. Why do you continue to avoid very simple questions? If you
actually practiced the "feeling of reverence" you mentioned above, it would
make you look even more foolish than you already do (because, among many
other things, it would require you to revere smallpox, HIV, malaria, and all
sorts of other "nature objects"). Thus I asked you to explain what it is
that you think this attitude helps you to do. Was that too complicated for
you? Should I re-phrase the question?
)People can become obsessed with their hate object and
)justify this to themselves in all manner of ways. So in a sense the
)hate is intention and careful. The point is do they notice that the
)thought-content changes according to this emotional background.
It would be exceedingly odd if anyone failed to notice this.
)We can
)find justifications for any hateful feeling, but a thought content
)created out this emotional texture is usually not the truth.]
Why not?
)[Do you believe that all your utterances are true?
No, of course not. Nobody believes that, Joel.
)Don't you realize
)how easy it is to create a big lie and justify it, especially given )your
)apparent awareness of all manner of aspects of recent history?
Yes. What does this have to do with the question I asked you?
)What about your intentions in reading my material?
What would you like to know about them? And why would they be relevant to my
question?
)Do you deny reading my
)writing looking to find things to criticise?
Yes, of course. What would be the point of that?
)Do you deny that others
)have refuted the essence of all your claims of racism against Steiner?
Yes, Joel, everybody who has paid attention to these debates denies that.
You don't have to agree with my specific analysis of Steiner's racism, but
if you deny that the statement "The negro race does not belong in Europe" is
racist, then you plainly don't understand what racism is.
)Why is your point of view right?
It isn't. What on earth are you talking about? I asked you whether you
believed that the only racist utterances are ones that are made with
deliberate malice. What would that have to do with my point of view?
)What is your method of thinking that
)leads you to the truth, rather than to preconcived prejudices?
Unlike you, I don't use any special "method". I just use regular old
thinking. You should try it sometime.
)What do
)you know about your own inwardness that justifies your conclusions )above
)that of others, especially since it is their own words being
)interpreted?
That question doesn't make sense. Nothing about my inwardness, or your
inwardness, or anybody's inwardness has the slightest thing to do with which
conclusions are correct.
)In reading my material did you ever find anything that was
)said that was right?
Yes, of course.
)What was that?
I think much of your explication of Steiner's early epistemology is pretty
accurate, for example.
)Tell us about your own inner
)search and what teachers if any do you follow?
Why? What would this have to do with whether the arguments I present are
reasonable or persuasive?
)Do you have a religion,
)or religious beliefs?
I'm an atheist, and I don't have any consistent spiritual practice at this
point in my life. Why do you think this is relevant to our discussion?
)When did you stop beating your wife?
I'm not married.
)Since you
)admit not knowing Italian
That isn't something to "admit", Joel.
)how can you really justify using secondary
)sources for your criticism of MS?
Are you kidding? That is an extraordinarily naive question, even for you.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you don't know Afrikaans,
and that you've never read a single article or even a lengthy quote by
Verwoerd, Malan, Vorster, or any of the other architects of Apartheid. Are
you therefore in any way uncertain whether Apartheid was racist? If so,
could you explain why?
)What do his views on race have to do
)with whether he replicated Steiner's achievement in the realm of living
)thought?
Beats me. What does that mean?
)Have you forgotten that this was the point I was making?
Yes, I have. Have you forgotten what I asked you about Scaligero? It was
this: Why were you completely oblivious of his politcal past until Peter
Zegers and I pointed it out to you? I don't mean that you should personally
research all the people you quote or recommend (after all, that would
require you to read secondary sources!). I mean that it is remarkable that
anthroposophists who promote Scaligero's work manage to avoid mentioning
this aspect -- and all the while deny that anthroposophist race theory has
anything in common with classical fascism. You have been hoodwinked by your
fellow anthros, Joel. They ought to have told you about Scaligero's past,
but they didn't. Why do you think that happened? Wouldn't you like to avoid
it in the future?
)How,
)even if he was a devoted racist (MS), does this effect whether his )later
)writings are the truth?
"Are the truth"? I don't understand that phrase. Writings usually contain
some truth and some untruth, no matter who wrote them. It is entirely
possible that everything you've read by Scaligero is unimpeachable and of
surpassing value. So what? I asked how come you think it's okay to ignore
the fact that he was an active racist and fascist for decades. Why don't you
answer that question?
)When are you going to answer my questions?
Which ones haven't I answered? And when do you think you might get around to
answering mine, by the way?
)Do
)you believe my questions are less important than yours because I appear
)to you to be an anthroposophist?
No. I have no idea what you mean by that. What anthroposophists say is
obviously more important to me, not less so; otherwise my research would be
impossible.
)Are you bigoted (a kind of racism)
)against anthroposophists?
No, of course not. Bigotry against anthroposophists isn't racism, by the
way, since nobody considers anthroposophists to be a race.
)What anthroposophists do you admire?
Several friends in Michigan and Frankfurt, plus some folks I know in
Vermont. I also think Arfst Wagner does very important work, although I
disagree entirely with his basic assumtions. Some of Jens Heisterkamp's work
is also important, to those of us concerned with the far-right tendency
within anthroposophy. Somehow I have given you the impression that I am
uniformly hostile to all anthroposophists; you're very much mistaken.
)Have
)you read any books by Owen Barfield?
Yes, Romanticism Comes of Age. Plus lots of shorter pieces.
)How about George Kaufmann Adams'
)book: "Space in the Light of Creation"?
No, never heard of it.
)Do you believe in God?
No.
)Why not?
Beats me.
)If you are an atheist, how can you claim to know there is no God?
For the same reasons that I claim to know there is no sunken continent of
Atlantis and no Easter Bunny, I guess.
)Have I asked enough questions yet?
By all means, continue. You might answer a few of mine, while you're at it.
)Isn't this a marvelous technique for
)misdirecting the thread of the conversation, by asking endless
)questions, many of which are spun with assumptions that aren't true?
Conversations don't have predetermined directions, Joel. They go wherever we
take them.
)Where did you learn to practice this way of dialogue?
I grew up in a big family. Do you have some sort of grudge against dialogue?
)Did you study to become such a good macarthyist?
You really do need to learn at least a little tiny bit about McCarthyism,
Joel. Maybe you could overcome your apprehensions about secondary sources
and crack open a history book for a couple minutes. Try Zinn's book, since
you appear to have it handy; you'll find his examination of the McCarthy era
in chapter 16, especially pp. 427-436.
)When are you going to reveal
)something of yourself here?
I don't see why it would be relevant in this forum, but tell me what you'd
like me to reveal and I'll be happy to oblige.
)Are you afraid of exposing what you really
)feel, or who you are?
I don't think so. I rarely refrain from saying what I really feel.
)What is your worst fear?
I have no idea. Spiders maybe?
)Come on now, lets not
)hide behind clever word games.]
I'm right out here in the open, Joel. Not hidden in any way. How about if
you engage with the arguments I've put forward, instead of pretending it's
all just a game? Wouldn't that be a better way to get both of us closer to
the truth?
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 21:51:31 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Genocide as necessity
on 3/1/02 5:00 PM, Peter Staudenmaier at pstaud hotmail.com wrote:
) Joel writes:
)
)) [I would guess that you failed to follow me at this point because we
)) went past your own understanding of your own inwardness. Why don't you
)) write out for us your own objective understanding of your inwardness )and
)) allow us to ask you questions?]
)
) Why? Wouldn't it be easier if you just answered my question?
Sharon: This is so much like Waldorf school. What a relief to be the heck
away from it.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 23:08:15 -0800
From: Debra Snell (snell gv.net)
Subject: Re: Genocide as necessity
)on 3/1/02 5:00 PM, Peter Staudenmaier at pstaud hotmail.com wrote:
)
)) Joel writes:
))
))) [I would guess that you failed to follow me at this point because we
))) went past your own understanding of your own inwardness. Why don't you
))) write out for us your own objective understanding of your inwardness )and
))) allow us to ask you questions?]
))
)) Why? Wouldn't it be easier if you just answered my question?
)
)Sharon: This is so much like Waldorf school. What a relief to be the heck
)away from it.
)
Debra:
Insidious, punishing, degrading. Positively dismissive. Public rape.
They get away with it all the time. Certain people will draw the
line. We await enough of us. They are coming.
--
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 07:57:05 -0000
From: "Charlie Morrison" (charliemorrison btinternet.com)
Subject: Re: the two steiners
Hi Peter,
due to lack of time and my aversion to long posts, I've decided to split my
reply into manageable chunks.
In my previous post, I wrote:
) )Well, what would your opinion be about the following quote?
) )"Surely the mere inspection of a subject can profit us but little. Every
act of seeing leads to consideration, consideration to reflection,
reflection to combination..."
Peter S replied:
) Any contemporary scientist would agree with this quote. This position
suggests no new epistemology, and certainly not the kind of epistemology
that Steiner promoted before his theosophical turn.
Charlie M replies to the reply:
I think this quote by Goethe accords quite well with Steiner's writings on
percepts and thinking. But I don't share your faith that any scientists
would, in practice, agree with it. Not in the recent past anyway. A year or
two ago I read an article about pioneering surgery carried out on adults who
had been blind from birth. The experts were surprised to witness the chaotic
and disjointed nature of these peoples new found visual perception. At first
they could not even recognise basic geometric shapes without handling them.
This would have come as no surprise to the experts if their understanding of
perception and thinking was the same as Goethe's and Steiner's.
Peter S:
)Goethe described himself as "an empiricist and realist" and he was
extremely skeptical toward subjectivist approaches to knowledge. He
ridiculed the notion of "thinking about thinking", in his own words, as a
waste of time. I don't endorse that dismissal, but it is plainly at odds
with Steiner's early epistemology.
Charlie M replies:
Critics of both Goethe and Steiner have called their approach to knowledge
subjective. They would both have disagreed with this view.
Goethe wished to stay within the experience as much as he could. In his
opinion abstract speculation would only lead him away from the reality that
thorough observation brings. That is why he was so opposed to the colour
theory based on Newton's experiments. Once you start adding entities like
corpuscles or waveforms you have left the realm of colour. Whatever these
things may be they are definitely not colour as such.
I would say that Steiner considered his own world conception to be in
agreement with Goethe's in this respect. He claimed that his teachings were
taken from personal experience. He did not speak of a theoretical spiritual
world out there somewhere, but of a world he experienced.
Now you may say Steiner's spiritual experiences are all subjective nonsense.
But this is also what has been said about Goethe's Urpflanze. Are you now
beginning to see any similarities between their outlooks? Both men treated
as objective fact what others claimed to be just something in their
respective minds.
I'll continue my reply as time permits.
Warm regards,
Charlie M.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 08:36:40 -0000
From: "Charlie Morrison" (charliemorrison btinternet.com)
Subject: Re: the two steiners
Hi again Peter,
to continue the discussion:
Peter S wrote:
The early Steiner developed an approach to knowledge grounded in people's
everyday experience of the world around them and of their own internal
perception of that world. The point of his approach was to help us better
understand how our thinking processes relate to the external world. He never
mentions, alludes to, assumes the existence of, or otherwise entertains the
notion of any "higher worlds", much less higher worlds that determine what
goes on in the world available to our five senses.
Charlie M replies:
He doesn't have to mention "higher worlds" directly in "The Theory of
Knowledge". If you begin to understand what he is saying, it leads you to
the higher worlds. This is not a separate place, it is all a unity. The so
called sense world is just that part of the higher worlds that we have split
off due to our organisation. We make it what it is. And our process of
development is slowly drawing it back together for us, back to the unity
that it always was.
Peter S:
For the early Steiner, nothing lies "beyond the world of experience" in the
sense that I think you mean here. This has nothing to do with whether the
metaphysical aspects of the world are unattainable or not (a question on
which I remain agnostic and one which the early Steiner doesn't address).
Charlie M replies:
Have you read "The Philosophy of Freedom"? Half a dozen pages at the end of
chapter 7 is taken up expounding on metaphysical realism.
Peter S:
The later Steiner does say that "higher worlds" direct the goings-on in this
world. Sometimes he says that what we experience in this world "reflects"
the hidden processes in the higher worlds. Are you disputing this?
Charlie M replies:
Certainly not, but for him the higher worlds were part of his experience.
And as time went by he gained more experience and knowledge about this
world. As the early Steiner said in "Theory of Knowledge" "..our mind is not
to be conceived as a receptacle for the ideal world, containing the thoughts
within itself, but as an organ which perceives the thoughts." thoughts that
have a real existence in the higher worlds.
I'll try to explain my thoughts on the 'higher worlds'. Earthworms know
nothing of oceans and clouds and the rain that falls on them. The're
oblivious to the mind of a mole or the process in making a garden spade. Yet
they are a necessary part of our world, we interact with them and they with
us. We are like the worms in relation to the higher reality. It is not
separate from us, nor us from it. The difference is, we have it in our own
power to experience these worlds.
Peter S:
) His early attacks on theosophy make fun of the idea of clairvoyance, for
example. But within a few years he claimed to be clairvoyant himself.
Charlie replies:
He always opposed mediumistic spiritualism. And I'm sure there were a lot of
theosophists involved in this. He maintained that it was imperative that any
clairvoyance be in full self conscious awareness. He never had any time for
mediums.
More to follow (run out of time),
Warm regards,
Charlie.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 06:50:29 -0500
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: content versus method
Dear Peter Z.,
Actually you've got it wrong (again!), but I am not surprised. You are
one of the ones who likes to play 10 year old school yard name calling
games, so what I do is treat folks the way they treat me (its called
mirroring). You get on my delete list when reading your writing becomes
a complete waste of time because it: a) never really says anything; and,
b) raises its level of name calling to extremes (child abuser,
megalomaniac).
As far as calling people "macarthyists", well it seems to be a shoe
that fits, so why don't you wear it.
j.
Peter Zegers wrote:
)
) Joel wrote to Alice: "We all can do better, including myself, and I want
) to thank you for being one of the people on the list who treats me as
) another human being."
)
) This is funny coming from a person who treats most members of this list
) as non-persons by putting them on his black list. And who doesn't
) respond in a mature way to criticism of his ideas, but starts calling
) critics "macarthyists" instead.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 07:03:00 -0500
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: Genocide as necessity
Dear Sharon,
If you were to study the philosophical problems a little more
carefully, you would discover the apparent dualism you mention (matter
vs. spirit) is spoken of and resolved in Steiner's writings. Secondly,
the monism I mention is not of the same character as the dualism to
which you refer.
There are two kinds of monism/dualism dichotomies, the one which you
mention (matter vs. spirit), and the one to which I was refering, which
is different. There are chapters in The Philosophy of Freedom that
discuss this.
As to us being on different sides, I actually don't think so. When I
read your stuff, although I disagree with many of your conclusions, I
see someone putting a lot of will into trying to understand what the
truth is - reading a lot of books and doing a lot of thinking.
I sense you are much younger than me, so your journey has qualities
that will be quite different from mine. As to the evolution of
consciousness, it is really quite obvious once one actually begins to
look at the facts in places outside the dynamics of this list. Since
you like to read, read some Owen Barfield. Unless of course, his being
an anthroposophist means he couldn't possible actually know anything
worth learning.
warm regards,
joel
mysplum wrote:
)
) on 3/1/02 9:50 AM, Joel Wendt at hermit tiac.net wrote:
)
) ) Dear Sharon,
) )
) ) The truth that the world is a monism hasn't changed, and was well known
) ) in ancient times. Meanwhile, however, humanity has itself changed, so
) ) that in our time - to our conditions of mind - it was necessary to
) ) present this material in a certain way so as to place it before the
) ) human "I am" in freedom.
)
) Sharon: I can't figure out how anyone could think of Steiner's doctrine as
) monistic, it just seems so dualistic to me (matter versus spirit).
)
) I'm certain that there have always been thinkers like me, as well as
) thinkers like you Joel, and never the twain shall meet. It's the human
) condition. I wonder how much we've really changed...the more I learn, the
) more I don't think we've changed much.
)
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 650
-- Topica Digest --
context
By hermit tiac.net
Re: context
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: context
By sandra.schlick balcab.ch
Goethe and related quotes for Charlie and Peter S's dialogue
By hermit tiac.net
Re: the two steiners
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: context
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: context
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: context
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: context
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: the two steiners
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: content versus method
By pstaud hotmail.com
No black list, Joel?
By peter_zegers runbox.no
Re: context
By hermit tiac.net
Scaligero vs. racism
By Percedol netscape.net
Re: context
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Goethe and related quotes for Charlie and Peter S's dialogue
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Scaligero vs. racism
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: context
By sandra.schlick balcab.ch
Manifesto of the Racist Scientists
By peter_zegers runbox.no
Peter S. and Joel slowly and painfully get acquainted: was: Genocide as
necess
By hermit tiac.net
Re: Scaligero and spiritual anti-racism
By koala noos.fr
Re: No black list, Joel?
By hermit tiac.net
Rene Guenon and Action Francaise
By peter_zegers runbox.no
Re: No black list, Joel?
By peter_zegers runbox.no
Re: context
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: No black list, Joel?
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: No black list, Joel?
By peter_zegers runbox.no
Re: Scaligero and spiritual anti-racism
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Peter S. and Joel slowly and painfully get acquainted
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Manifesto of the Racist Scientists
By Percedol netscape.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 10:31:47 -0500
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: context
Dear Sharon and Debra,
You would be justified in being upset if my remarks to Peter had taken
place in another context. But as usual with the critics-list, people
forget the context and the course of development, and take remarks
outside of their natural environment, forgetting that the whole meaning
of these remarks is imbedded in that context.
It would be one thing, if I were a Waldorf teacher, and having a
causual conversation with a parent, who in asking me some question about
Steiner got some kind of dismissive response, suggesting I know
something the parent did not, and that they should accept my "superior"
point of view.
But that is not the context in which the remarks I made to Peter S.
were made.
For the lurkers, let us recall the context.
This all begins with the critics-list itself, which routinely contains
inaccurate statements about Steiner, Waldorf and anthroposophy (among
other kinds of errors). I make a choice (I could choose otherwise) to
participate in the list and speak to the errors (at least for the
benefit of the lurkers).
But errors are not the only thing on this list. There is a great deal
of truth as well. Something is rotten in Waldorf and the
anthroposophical movement, and readers of my website will find these
problems discussed there in great detail and with only that kind of
accuracy an "insider" can have.
The critics-list comes into existence because of events that happened
in the lives of people, events they often did not understand, and that
often first confused them and then lead them to have deep questions
about Waldorf and anthroposophy. Harm has been done to parents and to
children, and this (something I was unaware of when I first joined this
list, but no longer doubt at all) has no excuse.
At the same time, if the critics are going to assert wrongness in
Waldorf and anthroposophy they need to get their facts right, and in
many cases they do not. So when I come here it is not to dispute the
wrongs done, but to assert that the understanding of the source of those
wrongs be correct, for it is possible (and does happen here) that
additional wrongs are done in the name of the pain and the passion
arising from the original wrongs.
Thus, discussion occurs over what really is anthroposophy, with the
critics (whose very attitude and agenda makes it unlikely they will
understand) frequently confusing normal human errors for systemic errors
in anthroposophy. The steinerism (dogmatic anthroposophy) of many in
Waldorf (and in the anthroposophical movement) is made the fault of
Steiner, not those who choose to set aside the own common sense (which
he asked them not to do).
As the discussion proceeds over time, questions from the critics more
and more insist that every statement I make be explained. The train of
thought (over many weeks) begins with the distinction that anthroposophy
is not a set of beliefs, but a kind of inner act, to demands that that
inner act be explained in detail. Then when I do give details
questions are asked about those processes being described at the request
of critics.
In the end then we get to a situation where it is clear that the person
asking the questions has reached a limit of their own knowledge of inner
life. This could be fine, if people would not insist they already know
everything. Peter S. could say, okay, I don't understand this. But
that is not really what is said. In fact, both Sharon's and Debra's
comments leave out what Peter S. wrote, as did Peter S. when he went to
this issue.
Here is what he said: "Why do you believe this? Do you think that you
failed to understand your own experiences before you began undertaking
concentration exercises and meditation practices?" In addition, he
preceeded this with the comment: "I followed you right up to here"
So when I reply: "I would guess that you failed to follow me at this
point because we went past your own understanding of your own
inwardness. Why don't you write out for us your own objective
understanding of your inwardness and allow us to ask you questions?",
everyone forgets the deep context and trys to interpret my approach as
some kind of put down of Peter S.
What I wrote simply acknowledges the impasse, and suggest a way out.
Peter's approach (which begins with "Why do you believe this...") is to
ask questions that a) ignore the course of the dialogue (why I know what
I know - no "belief" is involved - is clearly stated always to be based
upon personal experience; and b) which introduces facts not in evidence
("do you think you failed...") - facts which slide the dialogue off its
point and onto an entirely different subject matter.
This is of course no communication at all. The natural logic of
question and answer is destroyed by a kind of verbal trickery, which
steps outside the point under discussion to add extraneous matters
pretending as questions.
It is also very wearing to reply to this kind of questioning, which is
why (in its extreme forms) I have likened it to macarthyism. It is
possible to deflect matters away from the issues by introducing constant
irrelevant side issues, and Peter S. is a master (unconscious or
otherwise) of this form of discourse, which isn't dialogue at all.
The racism issue is one form of this extremist macarthyite type of
misdirection. For those lurkers interested in real answers to the
racist assertions, here are some urls:
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/waldorf/
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/plans1.html
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/two-mythologies.htm
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/comments1.htm
warm regards,
joel
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 17:02:08 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: context
Joel wrote:
)Something is rotten in Waldorf and the anthroposophical movement, and
) )readers of my website will find these problems discussed there in )great
)detail and with only that kind of accuracy an "insider" can have.
Joel, here's one more question I've posed to you and never seen answered
(maybe I'm on your black list). How often and how recently have you had any
experience with Waldorf schools, and what does that experience consist of?
How long ago did you have a child in one (I know you had at least one)? Have
you ever worked in one? When your child was there, how much time did you
spend in the classrooms? In what other capacities, if any, were you involved
with any Waldorf school (volunteering, serving on the board, etc.)?
I'm trying to establish your credentials as an "insider." Are you calling
yourself an insider by virtue of being an anthroposophist? You've made an
analysis of the Waldorf movement from your anthroposophical understanding,
and have acknowledged that there are problems.
However, I'm not sure how we can call you an "insider" compared with parents
who have recently had children in these schools, or in my case, worked
there. Many of the parents here had children in Waldorf for years and were
deeply involved in the life of the schools.
But maybe I don't know what your involvement with Waldorf consists of. Would
you mind clarifying?
)confusing normal human errors for systemic errors in anthroposophy.
Of course normal human errors occur in Waldorf, as anywhere. Not every
mistake is "systemic." But even when they start as "normal human errors,"
such errors morph into systemic errors when they are excused, rationalized,
ignored, denied, or worsened (even institutionalized) by the system which
backs up the teachers, which is anthroposophy.
)The steinerism (dogmatic anthroposophy) of many in Waldorf (and in the
) )anthroposophical movement) is made the fault of Steiner
Beating a very dead horse with you, Joel, but most of the parents here truly
don't care if it's Steiner's fault or Jack in the Beanstalk's fault. They
care what happened to their children, and defense of Steiner in response to
this rings hollow. (Only a few of us have made any kind of attempt to
correlate the problems with the underlying philosophy, or figure out what
the heck the teacher was thinking; and even then, we don't much care whether
"anthroposophy" or "Steinerism" is to blame.)
Of course it's not Steiner's fault. Steiner's dead, rest in peace. It's the
fault of the people who continue to follow and defend Steiner on the many
points on which he was wrong.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 18:16:18 +0100
From: Sandra Schlick (sandra.schlick balcab.ch)
Subject: Re: context
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------2E286E373DED84958B03F82E
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854";
x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dear Diana
I'm not adressed but nevertheless reat your questions and I am an insider. I
spent my first 8 years in a Waldorf School in Switzerland (Rudolf Steiner
Schule Basel). My sisters spent some more years there and my mother worked for
some years in another one. We are all not antorposopes and therefore, we were
in plenty of problems like not being fully integrated and being the target for
the antroposophes, who attacked us all sooner or later. Concerning Steiner, I
must disapoint you, because I never reat his books. I felt so bad in this
school that I never felt motivated to investigate in the thoughts of the person
who is considered as spiritual father of it or however you want to call it.
If you have questions to me eg about school live or how I or my family was
treated, feel free to pose them.
Sandra
Diana Winters wrote:
) Joel wrote:
)
) )Something is rotten in Waldorf and the anthroposophical movement, and
) ) )readers of my website will find these problems discussed there in )great
) )detail and with only that kind of accuracy an "insider" can have.
)
) Joel, here's one more question I've posed to you and never seen answered
) (maybe I'm on your black list). How often and how recently have you had any
) experience with Waldorf schools, and what does that experience consist of?
) How long ago did you have a child in one (I know you had at least one)? Have
) you ever worked in one? When your child was there, how much time did you
) spend in the classrooms? In what other capacities, if any, were you involved
) with any Waldorf school (volunteering, serving on the board, etc.)?
)
) I'm trying to establish your credentials as an "insider." Are you calling
) yourself an insider by virtue of being an anthroposophist? You've made an
) analysis of the Waldorf movement from your anthroposophical understanding,
) and have acknowledged that there are problems.
)
) However, I'm not sure how we can call you an "insider" compared with parents
) who have recently had children in these schools, or in my case, worked
) there. Many of the parents here had children in Waldorf for years and were
) deeply involved in the life of the schools.
)
) But maybe I don't know what your involvement with Waldorf consists of. Would
) you mind clarifying?
)
) )confusing normal human errors for systemic errors in anthroposophy.
)
) Of course normal human errors occur in Waldorf, as anywhere. Not every
) mistake is "systemic." But even when they start as "normal human errors,"
) such errors morph into systemic errors when they are excused, rationalized,
) ignored, denied, or worsened (even institutionalized) by the system which
) backs up the teachers, which is anthroposophy.
)
) )The steinerism (dogmatic anthroposophy) of many in Waldorf (and in the
) ) )anthroposophical movement) is made the fault of Steiner
)
) Beating a very dead horse with you, Joel, but most of the parents here truly
) don't care if it's Steiner's fault or Jack in the Beanstalk's fault. They
) care what happened to their children, and defense of Steiner in response to
) this rings hollow. (Only a few of us have made any kind of attempt to
) correlate the problems with the underlying philosophy, or figure out what
) the heck the teacher was thinking; and even then, we don't much care whether
) "anthroposophy" or "Steinerism" is to blame.)
)
) Of course it's not Steiner's fault. Steiner's dead, rest in peace. It's the
) fault of the people who continue to follow and defend Steiner on the many
) points on which he was wrong.
) Diana
)
) _________________________________________________________________
) Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
)
--------------2E286E373DED84958B03F82E
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
name="sandra.schlick.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Sandra Schlick
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="sandra.schlick.vcf"
begin:vcard
n:Schlick;Sandra
tel;home:061 692 20 07
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://home.balcab.ch/sandra.schlick/
adr:;;Sch–naustrasse 52;4058 Basel;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:sandra.schlick balcab.ch
title:MAES, Dipl. Masch. Ing. HTL
x-mozilla-cpt:;3
fn:Sandra Schlick
end:vcard
--------------2E286E373DED84958B03F82E--
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 14:03:22 -0500
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Goethe and related quotes for Charlie and Peter S's dialogue
Heisenberg on Goethe (from his Wandlungen in den Grunlagen der
Naturwissenschaft - Changes in the foundations of Natural Science):
"The renouncing of life and immediacy, which was the premise for the
progress of natural science since Newton, form the real basis for the
bitter struggle which Goethe waged against the physical optics of
Newton. It would be superficial to dismiss this struggle as
unimportant: there is such significance in one of the most outstanding
men directing all of his efforts to fighting against the development of
Newtonian optics."
A. N. Whitehead (Science and the Modern World) "if science is not to
degenerate into a medly of ad hoc hypothesese, it must become
philosophical and enter upon a thorough crticism of its own foundations"
Goethe [refering to Kant in Goethe's Anschauende Urteilscraft (Intuitive
Judgement)] "It is true, the author [Kant] here seems to be pointing to
an intellect not human but divine. And yet, if in the moral sphere we
are supposed to lift ourselves up to a higher region through faith in
God, Virtue and Immortality, so drawing nearer the Primal Being, why
should it not be likewise in the intellectual? By contemplation of an
ever-creative nature, may we not make ourselves worthy to be spiritual
sharers in her productions? I at first, led by an inner urge that would
not rest, had quite unconsciously been seeking for the realm of Type and
Archetype, and my attempt has been rewarded: I have been able to build
up a description, in conformity with Nature herself."
Goethe (Nachschaffen einer immer schaffenden Natur) "every process in
nature, rightly observed, wakens in us a new organ of cognition"
Goethe (Metamorphosis of Plants) "experiences of this kind of
metamorphosis will enable us to disclose what is hidden from us in the
regular way of development, and to see clearly and visible what we
should otherwise only be able to infer."
Goethe (letter to poet Herder) "Further, I must confide to you that I am
quite close to the secret of plant creation, and that it is the simplest
thing imaginable. The ur-plant will be the strangest creature in the
world, for which nature herself should envy me. With this model and the
key to it one will be able to invent plants ad infinitum; they would be
consistent; that is to be say, though non-existing, they would be
capable of existing, being no shades or semblances of the painter or
poet, but possessing truth and necessity. The same law will be capable
of extension to all lving things."
Goethe on the method for the new organ of cognition: "exact sensorial
fantasy (Exakte sinnliche Phantasie)"
Goethe in letter to Schiller "I am glad to have ideas without knowing
it, and to see them with my very eyes."
Goethe "Microscopes and telescopes, in actual fact, confuse man's innate
clarity of mind."
Goethe "every fact is itself already theory"
Goethe "The greatest achievement would be to understand that everything
factual is already its own theory. Do no look beyond the phenomena;
they are themselves the teaching."
Goethe to his secretary Eckermann: "As for what I have done as a poet, I
take no pride in it whatever. Excellant poets have lived before me, and
others will come after me. But that in my century century I am the only
person who knows the truth in the difficult sicience of colours - of
that, I say, I am not a little proud,..."
Ernst Lehr's (Man or Matter) "While the theory of Newton and his
successors was based on excluding the colour-seeing faculty of the eye,
Goethe founded his theory on the eye's experience of colour." ... "It
was characteristic of Goethe's whole mode of procedure that he at once
changed the quesiton, 'What is colour?' into the question, 'How does
colour arise?' It was equally characteristic that he did not, as Newton
did, shut himself into a darkend room, so as to get hold of the
colour-phenomenon by means of an artificially set-up apparatus.
Instead, he turned first of all to nature, to let her give him the
answer to the questions she had raised."
Steiner, in Theory of Knowledge, on Goethe: "In his essay Nature he
[Goethe] says we are incapable of getting outside Nature. If then, we
desire to interpret Nature to ourselves in this sense, which was his, we
must find the means with Nature herself." from the the chapter
"thought".
Emerson, from his essay Nature: "Nature is the incarnation of a thought,
and turns to a thought again, as ice becomes water and gas. The world is
mind precipitated, and the volatile essence is forever escaping again
into the state of free thought."
Steiner, from Theory again: "It is really the genuine, and indeed the
truest, form of Nature, which comes to manifestation in the human mind,
whereas for a mere sense-being only Nature's external aspect would
exist. Knowledge plays here a role of world significance. It is the
conclusion of a work of creation. What takes place in human
consciousness is the interpretation of Nature to itself. Thought is the
last member in a series of processes whereby Nature is formed."
warm regards,
joel
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 13:14:43 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: the two steiners
Hi Charlie,
)Hi Peter,
)due to lack of time and my aversion to long posts, I've