return to WCA Archive Index
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Mike Helsher's Shoes
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Mike Helsher's Shoes
By pkcompany netzero.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 22:00:37 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Mike Helsher's Shoes
)Mike has suggested that I have no business complaining about Waldorf if
)I don't first walk in his shoes - i.e. be in so pittiful a state that I
)should need the "help" of Anthroposophy to recover.
Is that what he was trying to say? Turning to anthroposophy, for him, was
better than wandering the streets for days, out of his mind and wallowing in
filth? I'd let him have the point.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 02:39:53 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Mike Helsher's Shoes
Diana Winters wrote:
)
)
)
) )Mike has suggested that I have no business complaining about Waldorf if
) )I don't first walk in his shoes - i.e. be in so pittiful a state that I
) )should need the "help" of Anthroposophy to recover.
)
)
) Is that what he was trying to say? Turning to anthroposophy, for him,
) was
) better than wandering the streets for days, out of his mind and
) wallowing in
) filth? I'd let him have the point.
)
) Diana
For me, it would be a toss-up... (G).
Pete
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 2116
-- Topica Digest --
By cffrey mindspring.com
Re:
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE:
By pkcompany netzero.net
Racism today, not to mention yesterday
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE:
By diana.winters verizon.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 00:05:52 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject:
OK...so I've been lurking in the inky shadows for some time now, and, at
the risk of seeming like I'm just in for a quick and dirty snipe, I just
have to say that there was a time when there was a variety of people on
this list discussing a variety of subjects, and there was the idea that
some of what was happening here could have a positive effect on Waldorf
education.
Now it just seems like the list may has well be re-named, " Subject:
Rudolf Steiner was a dirty Nazi; talk amongst yourselves."
Even if it's true, it's about as interesting as watching curling on TV.
Same cast, same script...only the calendar has changed.
Yikes!
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 17:36:32 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re:
Lemuria,
Gosh - where have I seen this type of misinformed post before? Hint: Steiner
was not a Nazi. The timing is off for one thing. Have you actually been
reading anything at this list? Ever?
-Walden
Lemuria wrote:
"OK...so I've been lurking in the inky shadows for some time now, and, at
the risk of seeming like I'm just in for a quick and dirty snipe, I just
have to say that there was a time when there was a variety of people on
this list discussing a variety of subjects, and there was the idea that
some of what was happening here could have a positive effect on Waldorf
education.
Now it just seems like the list may has well be re-named, " Subject:
Rudolf Steiner was a dirty Nazi; talk amongst yourselves."
Even if it's true, it's about as interesting as watching curling on TV.
Same cast, same script...only the calendar has changed.
Yikes!"
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 03:01:02 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE:
Lemuria wrote:
)
) OK...so I've been lurking in the inky shadows for some time now, and, at
)
) the risk of seeming like I'm just in for a quick and dirty snipe, I just
)
) have to say that there was a time when there was a variety of people on
) this list discussing a variety of subjects, and there was the idea that
) some of what was happening here could have a positive effect on Waldorf
) education.
The idea is still there. But people in Waldorf education won't hear of
this from anyone posting to this list. Simply posting here allows them
to associate the poster with PLANS, and thereby invalidate even the most
well-founded discussions. If you're really interested in having a
positive effect on Waldorf, participate in the discussion here (instead
of lurking) or start your own discussions about the things that are
meaningful to you. Waldorf benefits from a critical review.
) Now it just seems like the list may has well be re-named, " Subject:
) Rudolf Steiner was a dirty Nazi; talk amongst yourselves."
Nobody that I know of, has ever said this (well, John Holland once
associated Steiner with Nazism, I think, but he was clearly mistaken).
I personally don't care if Steiner's ideas fueled the Nazis, I care if
his ideas fuel Waldorf (and they do).
) Even if it's true, it's about as interesting as watching curling on TV.
Some people must find that interesting too. What is interesting for
critics of Waldorf / Steiner is the efforts Anthroposophists will go to
in order to deny what is clearly historical fact. If it's really no big
deal (as interesting as curling) why make a big deal of denying it?
) Same cast, same script...only the calendar has changed.
) Yikes!
I would encourage you to develop the script as you go. This is
interactive theatre. You get to change the script by your own
participation.
Warm wishes,
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 23:35:23 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: Racism today, not to mention yesterday
Lemuria:
) Now it just seems like the list may has well be re-named, " Subject:
) Rudolf Steiner was a dirty Nazi; talk amongst yourselves."
Hi, Lemuria, is this what you got out of the "negro novel" question? Yeah?
I'd like to say that it is no less important to challenge racism, wherever
it appears, today than it ever was. I think you were last here last fall,
Lemuria (and incidentally, you aren't any more anonymous now than you were
then, I hope you realize). Do you suppose racism has gotten a lot better
since then?
We're getting estimates on having our living and dining room painted, and
had a contractor here tonight looking it over. He seemed like a reasonable
guy, a local guy and with good references etc., and very friendly. On his
way out the door, my husband asked him how much of a deposit he would need.
He gave us a figure and said that with regular customers, he wouldn't ask
for a deposit normally, but since he hadn't worked for us before . . . (etc
etc.) We were nodding in understanding and shaking hands etc.
On his way out the door, he turned back and actually said, "Of course, when
I go into black neighborhoods, I always ask for a deposit."
We froze, and said "Good night" and kind of shut the door quickly. Then
started yelling, all three of us, at each other for not saying anything
right on the spot. He isn't going to get the job, needless to say, and I'll
call him tomorrow to tell him why he isn't getting the job. I felt like I
was a poor role model to my child for not challenging him on the spot, but I
plan to make clear to him we would likely have hired him to paint our house
if he hadn't horrified and offended us with that remark.
I won't change the guy's attitude about black people, I'm sure. Plenty of
people still think this way. And won't likely give it up without quite a few
angry confrontations.
Now go back and watch TV, okay Lemuria?
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 23:42:42 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE:
Pete said to Lemuria:
)If you're really interested in having a positive effect on Waldorf,
)participate in the discussion here (instead of lurking)
And instead of complaining that we're criticizing Steiner's racism,
participate in *challenging* that racism.
Or don't you think it ought to help a school movement, to be sure racism is
challenged?
Diana
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 2117
-- Topica Digest --
RE: cast and script
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re:
By dan dandugan.com
New web site: postwaldorftutoring.com
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 08:26:25 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: cast and script
Hello L,
)OK...so I've been lurking in the inky shadows for some time now, and, at
)the risk of seeming like I'm just in for a quick and dirty snipe, I just
)have to say that there was a time when there was a variety of people on
)this list discussing a variety of subjects, and there was the idea that
)some of what was happening here could have a positive effect on Waldorf
)education.
I sometimes miss the old variety too, and even some members of the old cast.
But it sounds like your script, for one, hasn't changed over the years, even
though your name mysteriously has. And by the way...
The most recent variety of subject urging a more positive view of Waldorf on
this list was an anthroposophist holocaust denier. You thought it was
appropriate to continue lurking through that whole exchange? Because that
would maybe have a positive effect on Waldorf education? I can't help
wondering: Are there other Waldorf teachers on this list who think holocaust
denial is hunky dory?
)Now it just seems like the list may has well be re-named, " Subject:
)Rudolf Steiner was a dirty Nazi; talk amongst yourselves."
Lots of anthroposophists were Nazis (and a few still are today), but Steiner
obviously wasn't one of them. It seems to me that it would indeed have a
positive effect on Waldorf education if Waldorf teachers could bother to
learn a bit of basic history. But that's just my line in this script.
) Even if it's true, it's about as interesting as watching curling on TV.
)Same cast, same script...only the calendar has changed.
I think there is indeed a lot of repetition on email lists devoted to
anthroposophical subjects (whether critical or affirmative), though this
wouldn't explain why you suddenly find this uninteresting. As for the lack
of variety of people, it may have something to do with the remarkable
pattern of anthroposophists abandoning ship mid-discussion, as you did a few
months ago, complaining about "anonymity" (what was that about, anyway?); a
good way to counter this tendency is to speak up on topics that have to do
with your own relationship to Waldorf and anthroposophy. What do our
resident Waldorf promoters think about Steiner's pronouncements on the role
of black people in European culture? I eagerly await the next page in the
script.
Peter S.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 07:55:37 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re:
Lemuria, you wrote,
)there was a time when there was a variety of people on
)this list discussing a variety of subjects,
See the automatic footer on all messages--you're welcome to raise any
issue -you- would like to talk about.
)and there was the idea that
)some of what was happening here could have a positive effect on Waldorf
)education.
Some people might have that idea. I settle for having a positive
effect on parents considering Waldorf.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 09:25:16 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: New web site: postwaldorftutoring.com
There's a new outside-the-movement Waldorf web site:
http://www.postwaldorftutoring.com/
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 2118
-- Topica Digest --
RE:
By cffrey mindspring.com
Re: RE:
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE:
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE:
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 18:47:06 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE:
OK...not a Nazi...just a racist.
Yawn.
I can't get pulled into this one again.
I wish I thought I could do some good and chime in with another
perspective every day...in case somebody with a real interest in
Waldorf/Anthroposophy finds this site...but, then again, maybe not...I
think anybody who stumbles on this list would also see several others
and form a balanced opinion based on a range of information; and realize
that all they get here is the same 5 people talking about the same one
subject.
The bottom line is, I have met hundreds of Anthroposophists
Maybe I had to chime in because I, too was accused of
racism/anti-semitism by an angry crackpot with an agenda looking for a
fight at the "Waldorf" school I was fired from.
Sorry, guys...there's no racism in Waldorf schools...not built-in,
anyway. You're fighting something that doesn't exist, and it looks
silly.
Here's one of my favorite jokes:
A guy has been walking to work in NYC for 20 years, and, every day, he
sees the same guy constantly snapping his fingers on both hands.
"I have been watching you do that for 20 years...why do you snap your
fingers all the time?"
"It keeps the lions away"
"Lions?!? There are no lions in Manhattan."
"You see...it works!"
walden wrote:
)
) Lemuria,
)
) Gosh - where have I seen this type of misinformed post before? Hint:
) Steiner
) was not a Nazi. The timing is off for one thing. Have you actually been
) reading anything at this list? Ever?
)
) -Walden
)
) Lemuria wrote:
) "OK...so I've been lurking in the inky shadows for some time now, and,
) at
) the risk of seeming like I'm just in for a quick and dirty snipe, I just
) have to say that there was a time when there was a variety of people on
) this list discussing a variety of subjects, and there was the idea that
) some of what was happening here could have a positive effect on Waldorf
) education.
) Now it just seems like the list may has well be re-named, " Subject:
) Rudolf Steiner was a dirty Nazi; talk amongst yourselves."
) Even if it's true, it's about as interesting as watching curling on TV.
) Same cast, same script...only the calendar has changed.
) Yikes!"
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 12:50:28 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: RE:
Lemuria wrote:
)OK...not a Nazi...just a racist.
Now you're on the right track. Yes, Steiner held and wrote about his racist
beliefs.
)Yawn.
)I can't get pulled into this one again.
Who's pulling? Seems you opened the door all by yourself.
)I wish I thought I could do some good and chime in with another
)perspective every day...in case somebody with a real interest in
)Waldorf/Anthroposophy finds this site...but, then again, maybe not...I
)think anybody who stumbles on this list would also see several others
)and form a balanced opinion based on a range of information; and realize
)that all they get here is the same 5 people talking about the same one
)subject.
Hey - these types of discussions would not be happening if Waldorfian
Anthros learned to understand the history of their own movement and stopped
hiding when the topic is raised here and elsewhere. The Ford Motor Company
came to terms with Henry's anti-Semitism years ago and the company is alive
and relatively well today. You think Holocaust denial and "no comment" type
remarks in the year 2006 about blatant racist Steiner passages is an
indication of "real interest" in Waldorf/Anthroposophy? And was it not you
(or another pro-Waldorfer) who admitted to accountability problems vis a vis
disingenuous PR within the Waldorf movement?
)The bottom line is, I have met hundreds of Anthroposophists
)Maybe I had to chime in because I, too was accused of
)racism/anti-Semitism by an angry crackpot with an agenda looking for a
)fight at the "Waldorf" school I was fired from.
I suggest you deal with that particular fellow and explain some of Steiner's
racist beliefs to him. Calling him a "crackpot" will not help you or him.
Perhaps your refusal to deal with the issues he raised caused him to lump
you in with those racist beliefs. If this is not the case, a simple
explanation of how you see many racist quotes (about Negroes, etc.) as not
being racist might help this "crackpot" understand that his accusation is
unfounded? What d'ya think?
)Sorry, guys...there's no racism in Waldorf schools...not built-in,
)anyway. You're fighting something that doesn't exist, and it looks
)silly.
I did not see any racism in our former school either. Not overt racism.
Built in? Now there's another discussion.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 23:18:25 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE:
Lemuria wrote:
) The bottom line is, I have met hundreds of Anthroposophists
Sorry...this was an unfinished thought I didn't delete.
If it seems non sequitur, it's because it is.
cl
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 16:42:32 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE:
Lemuria, you wrote,
) Sorry, guys...there's no racism in Waldorf schools...not built-in,
)anyway. You're fighting something that doesn't exist, and it looks
)silly.
One of the three problems I had with our Waldorf school* was that
they were selling books containing typical 1920's German racist
ideology. Your denial is silly in the face of this fact.
Later I learned that the framework of ancient history in the fifth
and sixth grades was the Theosophical scheme of "sub-races of the
Aryan root-race." That was more subtle but also racist.
-Dan Dugan
*The other two problems were wacky science and quack medicine.
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 2119
-- Topica Digest --
RE:
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE:
By qrejy hotmail.com
RE:
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE:
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE:
By jaquesdm msn.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 13:50:44 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE:
Lemuria wrote:
) Maybe I had to chime in because I, too was accused of
) racism/anti-semitism by an angry crackpot with an agenda looking for a
) fight at the "Waldorf" school I was fired from.
) Sorry, guys...there's no racism in Waldorf schools...not built-in,
) anyway. You're fighting something that doesn't exist, and it looks
) silly.
Hi Keith,
Are you suggesting that Anthroposophists today reject the racial and
spiritual hierarchies that Steiner proposed - one of the tenets of
Anthroposophy? And are you further suggesting that Waldorf teacher
training does not introduce new Waldorf teachers - whether
Anthroposophists or not - to the concept of these hierarchies? Or are
you suggesting that a teacher who holds a belief system that elevates
one race above another needn't display this belief system when
interacting with students?
If you look at how teachers openly and consciously work with the
temperaments, it becomes clear that teachers hold these as spiritual
truths and that interaction with students is heavily influenced by the
teacher's perception of the individual child's temperament, based on the
overall concept, and Steiner's ideas, of the temperaments. The same
thing happens over large and small-headedness. It doesn't take a rocket
scientist to figure out that skin color is another criteria that Steiner
used to categorize (and make assumptions about) people. He was prolific
about this and what each skin color represented and it would be quite
astounding, since this information is in the required reading for
Waldorf teachers, if this is not a criteria by which Waldorf teachers
adjust their assumptions, assessments, expectations of and interactions
with children and their parents.
Calling it "silly", despite the evidence to the contrary, is just silly.
Unfortunately, you have to prove the negative, Keith, that racism does
not exist. And this is even more difficult, of course, because neither
Anthroposophy, nor Waldorf denounces Steiner's racist commentary.
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 16:15:05 +0000
From: DW's Mom (qrejy hotmail.com)
Subject: RE:
Lemuria wrote:
) Sorry, guys...there's no racism in Waldorf schools...not built-in,
) anyway. You're fighting something that doesn't exist
There isn't racism in Waldorf schools because "asian souls stole white
bodies" etc. Haven't you actually READ Steiner??
Now, because of this, the teachers get to whisper amongst themselves
about which children are more 'evolved' than others regardless of skin
color. Now it's just about what color their souls are. Is that any
better??
The issue isn't that Steiner was a racist, but he wrote about
educational methods. If it were, then I could agree with you that we
should leave this topic alone. The real issue here is that Steiner's
entire educational method INCLUDES the concept of racism because his way
of perceiving children's growth and learning is BASED ON a racist
assumption.
If you can't face this reality, then it seems to me that you are
conveniently omitting the facts you don't like to comfort yourself.
DW's Mom
"Minds are like parachutes; they only work when open."
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 06 May 2006 14:40:11 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE:
Lemuria wrote:
) Maybe I had to chime in because I, too was accused of
) racism/anti-semitism by an angry crackpot with an agenda looking for a
) fight at the "Waldorf" school I was fired from.
) Sorry, guys...there's no racism in Waldorf schools...not built-in,
) anyway. You're fighting something that doesn't exist, and it looks
) silly.
And Pete replied:
)Hi Keith,
That's not Keith. That's . . . you know. Pretending he's anonymous. I guess
it's sort of working.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 00:25:16 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE:
Pete Karaiskos wrote:
)
)
)
) If you look at how teachers openly and consciously work with the
) temperaments, it becomes clear that teachers hold these as spiritual
) truths and that interaction with students is heavily influenced by the
) teacher's perception of the individual child's temperament, based on the
)
) overall concept, and Steiner's ideas, of the temperaments. commentary.
)
) Pete
The study of the temperaments is, of course, among Steiner's greatest
gifts to teachers...Waldorf or not.
c
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 03:51:33 +0000
From: David Dodds (jaquesdm msn.com)
Subject: RE:
Lemuria wrote:
)
) The study of the temperaments is, of course, among Steiner's greatest
) gifts to teachers...Waldorf or not.
Yes.
And just so long as everyone ensures that they fit neatly into one of
the pigeon-holes, the poor teachers won't have to perform
quasi-intellectual contortions trying to relate to an individual.
Nor would anyone get booted out for non-compliance with the Steiner
Spec.
Davy
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 2120
-- Topica Digest --
RE:
By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
RE:
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE:
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE:
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE:
By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
Re:
By UsherPaulson aol.com
RE:
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE:
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: New web site: postwaldorftutoring.com
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: New web site: postwaldorftutoring.com
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: temperaments
By barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com
RE:
By jaquesdm msn.com
Re:
By UsherPaulson aol.com
Re:
By dan dandugan.com
RE: Charlie yawns
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: RE:
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Cultures, not sub-races
By labera gmx.de
Re: Re:
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 12:49:54 +0000
From: Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
Subject: RE:
Pete Karaiskos wrote:
)
)
) Lemuria wrote:
)
) ) Maybe I had to chime in because I, too was accused of
) ) racism/anti-semitism by an angry crackpot with an agenda looking for a
) ) fight at the "Waldorf" school I was fired from.
) ) Sorry, guys...there's no racism in Waldorf schools...not built-in,
) ) anyway. You're fighting something that doesn't exist, and it looks
) ) silly.
)
) Hi Keith,
Yeah, I'd just like to confirm that Lemuria is not me, and I am not
Lemuria. :)
Regards,
Keith
Tyranny begets tyranny.
- K Mclean
------
Our knowledge has made us cynical,
our cleverness hard and unkind.
We think too much and feel too little:
More than machinery we need humanity;
More than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness.
Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost.
- Charlie Chaplin ("The Great Dictator" [1940])
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 14:38:54 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE:
LOL! Yes, my goof. I know who it is...
Pete
Diana Winters wrote:
)
)
)
)
) Lemuria wrote:
)
) ) Maybe I had to chime in because I, too was accused of
) ) racism/anti-semitism by an angry crackpot with an agenda looking for a
) ) fight at the "Waldorf" school I was fired from.
) ) Sorry, guys...there's no racism in Waldorf schools...not built-in,
) ) anyway. You're fighting something that doesn't exist, and it looks
) ) silly.
)
) And Pete replied:
)
) )Hi Keith,
)
)
) That's not Keith. That's . . . you know. Pretending he's anonymous. I
) guess
) it's sort of working.
)
) Diana
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 14:50:45 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE:
Hi Lemuria,
Lemuria wrote:
)
)
) Pete Karaiskos wrote:
) )
) )
) )
) ) If you look at how teachers openly and consciously work with the
) ) temperaments, it becomes clear that teachers hold these as spiritual
) ) truths and that interaction with students is heavily influenced by the
) ) teacher's perception of the individual child's temperament, based on the
) )
) )
) ) overall concept, and Steiner's ideas, of the temperaments. commentary.
) )
) ) Pete
)
) The study of the temperaments is, of course, among Steiner's greatest
) gifts to teachers...Waldorf or not.
) c
If you say so. It's really another one of Steiner's stupid pigeonholing
concepts. He spent a lifetime (literally) figuring out ways to divide
people - in an era when dividing people was popular. And the way
separation by temperaments has manifested in Waldorf schools is
abominable - with the Greek games as the epitome of this silly idea.
Hitler had a "gift" for us too... we learned from his ideas.
Unfortunately, like Hitler, we learn from Steiner what causes harm.
Assessing children by their temperaments, or by their race is harmful,
and does NOTHING to promote the healthy education of children. But
then, education is not what Waldorf is about. What will it take to wake
you up, Lemuria?
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 14:53:01 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE:
Keith McLean wrote:
)
)
) Pete Karaiskos wrote:
) )
) )
) ) Lemuria wrote:
) )
) ) ) Maybe I had to chime in because I, too was accused of
) ) ) racism/anti-semitism by an angry crackpot with an agenda looking for a
) ) ) fight at the "Waldorf" school I was fired from.
) ) ) Sorry, guys...there's no racism in Waldorf schools...not built-in,
) ) ) anyway. You're fighting something that doesn't exist, and it looks
) ) ) silly.
) )
) ) Hi Keith,
)
)
) Yeah, I'd just like to confirm that Lemuria is not me, and I am not
) Lemuria. :)
)
)
)
) Regards,
)
) Keith
)
My apologies Keith. I've been thinking about you lately, and suffered a
momentary typing lapse.
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 15:11:29 +0000
From: Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
Subject: RE:
Pete Karaiskos wrote:
)
)
) Keith McLean wrote:
) )
) )
) ) Pete Karaiskos wrote:
) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) Lemuria wrote:
) ) )
) ) ) ) Maybe I had to chime in because I, too was accused of
) ) ) ) racism/anti-semitism by an angry crackpot with an agenda looking for a
) ) ) ) fight at the "Waldorf" school I was fired from.
) ) ) ) Sorry, guys...there's no racism in Waldorf schools...not built-in,
) ) ) ) anyway. You're fighting something that doesn't exist, and it looks
) ) ) ) silly.
) ) )
) ) ) Hi Keith,
) )
) )
) ) Yeah, I'd just like to confirm that Lemuria is not me, and I am not
) ) Lemuria. :)
) )
) )
) )
) ) Regards,
) )
) ) Keith
) )
)
) My apologies Keith. I've been thinking about you lately, and suffered a
)
) momentary typing lapse.
)
) Pete
No problem, Pete.
Tyranny begets tyranny.
- K Mclean
------
Our knowledge has made us cynical,
our cleverness hard and unkind.
We think too much and feel too little:
More than machinery we need humanity;
More than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness.
Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost.
- Charlie Chaplin ("The Great Dictator" [1940])
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 11:55:25 EDT
From: UsherPaulson aol.com
Subject: Re:
The question is why hasn't the Anthro Community denounced Steiner's racist
tenets? As long as that question is not addressed there is no credibility of
denial from them. I am a trained Waldorf teacher and I know that these tenets
are taught in teacher training.
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 19:34:27 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE:
UsherPaulson aol.com wrote:
)
)
) The question is why hasn't the Anthro Community denounced Steiner's
) racist
) tenets? As long as that question is not addressed there is no
) credibility of
) denial from them. I am a trained Waldorf teacher and I know that these
) tenets
) are taught in teacher training.
)
) --
) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
)
Many Waldorf trained teachers have expressed this to me. If you don't
mind me asking, were you trained in the US or elsewhere?
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 20:01:04 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE:
David Dodds wrote:
)
)
) Lemuria wrote:
) )
) ) The study of the temperaments is, of course, among Steiner's greatest
) ) gifts to teachers...Waldorf or not.
)
) Yes.
) And just so long as everyone ensures that they fit neatly into one of
) the pigeon-holes, the poor teachers won't have to perform
) quasi-intellectual contortions trying to relate to an individual.
) Nor would anyone get booted out for non-compliance with the Steiner
) Spec.
) Davy
Oh...cut it out.
Identifying a temperament is no more a pigeon-hole than acknowledging
that "this child learns better by seeing than by hearing," or "this
child is crabby when he is hungry."
It is a way to understand and help children.
I guess, in the land of the politically correct, it is wrong to say that
phlegmatics are different from cholerics and Masai are different from
Iowans.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 20:06:43 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: New web site: postwaldorftutoring.com
This is interesting.
I wonder where these tutors stand on Waldorf education.
It is true that switching from Waldorf to mainstream is often traumatic,
but well-educated Waldorf students who make the change (such as my
children), adjust very quickly, the vast majority of the time.
Remember...most American Waldorf schools do not have a high school, so
thousands make the switch every year.
I would say that this service would be good for people who don't have
the patience to wait a few weeks, or for people who had a sub-standard
teacher.
Dan Dugan wrote:
)
) There's a new outside-the-movement Waldorf web site:
)
) http://www.postwaldorftutoring.com/
)
) -Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 20:09:24 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: New web site: postwaldorftutoring.com
Also...if you notice the area code...this place is in NYC where, for
many parents, college prep begins in pre-school.
I can well imagine parents in this environment not wanting their
children to fall behind for several days...not to mention weeks or
months.
c
Dan Dugan wrote:
)
) There's a new outside-the-movement Waldorf web site:
)
) http://www.postwaldorftutoring.com/
)
) -Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 20:17:38 +0000
From: Barnaby McEwan (barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: temperaments
Lemuria wrote:
) I guess, in the land of the politically correct, it is wrong to say
) that phlegmatics are different from cholerics and Masai are different
) from Iowans.
There's the same tired threnody about political correctness we heard
most recently from the holocaust denier. It's not wrong to say stuff
about cholerics and phlegmatics, it's just stupid unless you're speaking
metaphorically, since there is no evidence that such categories exist
outside the imaginations of Steiner's admirers, much like the supposed
'missions' of different 'races'. I daresay there are Waldorf teachers
who believe that understanding these is also a way to 'understand and
help' children.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 20:33:43 +0000
From: David Dodds (jaquesdm msn.com)
Subject: RE:
Lemuria wrote:
)
)
) David Dodds wrote:
) )
) )
) ) Lemuria wrote:
) ) )
) ) ) The study of the temperaments is, of course, among Steiner's greatest
) ) ) gifts to teachers...Waldorf or not.
) )
) ) Yes.
) ) And just so long as everyone ensures that they fit neatly into one of
) ) the pigeon-holes, the poor teachers won't have to perform
) ) quasi-intellectual contortions trying to relate to an individual.
) ) Nor would anyone get booted out for non-compliance with the Steiner
) ) Spec.
) ) Davy
)
) Oh...cut it out.
) Identifying a temperament is no more a pigeon-hole than acknowledging
) that "this child learns better by seeing than by hearing," or "this
) child is crabby when he is hungry."
) It is a way to understand and help children.
) I guess, in the land of the politically correct, it is wrong to say that
)
) phlegmatics are different from cholerics and Masai are different from
) Iowans.
Oh dear. We do seem to touch Anthro nerves when we dare to mention
anything Rudi spouted crap on. Four temperaments. Period. Don't DARE to
carry bits of "temperaments" making a whole, and don't even think about
not fitting any of them.
What a hellish thought that is, but then I guess this is just me
"emphasising the negative" again, one of the reasons I was squeezed out,
and thank God for that.
Vive le difference! However many there may be.
Davy
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 17:28:27 EDT
From: UsherPaulson aol.com
Subject: Re:
Trained in U.S. I've posted here before. I have had litigation for racial
discrimination against NY Steiner School (posted on PLANS). I am not at liberty
to talk about outcome of case.
I can state my experience at teacher training. The truth is Waldorf teachers
understand that knowledge of the root races, temperaments, and other esoteric
insights given to us to "understand" the child is central to our training.
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 10:43:32 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re:
Charmaine Paulson, you wrote,
)The question is why hasn't the Anthro Community denounced Steiner's racist
)tenets? As long as that question is not addressed there is no credibility of
)denial from them. I am a trained Waldorf teacher and I know that these tenets
)are taught in teacher training.
Welcome to the list, Charmaine! Where did you take your training?
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 07 May 2006 22:43:59 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Charlie yawns
)OK...not a Nazi...just a racist.
)Yawn.
)I can't get pulled into this one again.
[...]
) Sorry, guys...there's no racism in Waldorf schools...not built-in,
)anyway. You're fighting something that doesn't exist, and it looks
)silly.
This is bound to look silly to anyone who can't tell the difference between
Nazism and racism. The distinction makes lots of anthroposophists sleepy, it
seems. So sleepy that some of them apparently think Steiner invented the
theory of the four humors... And these are folks who think they're
providing superior education to children. Go figure.
Phlegmatic greetings to all,
Peter S.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 07 May 2006 15:29:15 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: RE:
Lemuria wrote:
)Oh...cut it out.
)Identifying a temperament is no more a pigeon-hole than acknowledging
)that "this child learns better by seeing than by hearing," or "this
)child is crabby when he is hungry."
Absolutely false. The temperament thing bothered me at a gut level in my
very pro-Waldorf Daze and should be of concern to all parents and students
today. Yes, a teacher or teachers could come to realize that a child might
learn better experientially or by "seeing" as opposed to "hearing." And yes,
many children could be cranky when hungry.
To liken these instances to some hidden occult knowledge the Waldorf teacher
might have gleaned via Anthro teacher training or meditation in which the
teacher then decides how to divide a group of children into 4 personality
groups is just plain crazy. In our case, one of our kids was always
considered "choleric" and the class teacher spoke in those terms during our
meetings. The pigeon hole was very real. A couple of years later . . .after
that teacher suffered a nervous breakdown and was replaced by another Anthro
inspired teacher, the same child became "melancholic" and was placed into
another convenient pigeon hole. The kids are treated according to their
temperament. Skin colour, temparaments - same old same old and still very
old. Wake up. People are individuals and deserve respect based on that fact.
)It is a way to understand and help children.
In what way?
)I guess, in the land of the politically correct, it is wrong to say that
)phlegmatics are different from cholerics and Masai are different from
)Iowans.
A person from Iowa is aware of their roots. No need for an occultist to
decide and treat them differently than someone from elsewhere. You really do
not see the problem with your analogies? Who gives you the right to decide
in which of the 4 boxes to place my child?
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 08:59:08 +0200 (MEST)
From: "Lea" (labera gmx.de)
Subject: Cultures, not sub-races
Dan Dugan wrote:
) One of the three problems I had with our Waldorf school* was that
) they were selling books containing typical 1920's German racist
) ideology. Your denial is silly in the face of this fact.
)
) Later I learned that the framework of ancient history in the fifth
) and sixth grades was the Theosophical scheme of "sub-races of the
) Aryan root-race." That was more subtle but also racist.
Like you, Steiner critiziced the theosophical concepts you mention at
least as early as 1909 according to
http://www.waldorfanswers.org/RSOnInvalidityOfRace.htm He commented on
the use of them for the time after the last glacial ages, that in
theosophy is called "the Aryan Root Race", as an expression of a
childhood illness of the theosophical movement. So, he would agree with
you on that one.
And according to http://www.waldorfanswers.org/ThreeConcepts.htm he did
not use them when he developed anthroposophy increasingly separate from
theosophy. Waldorf education is much based on anthroposophy, not
theosophy.
According to http://www.thebee.se/comments/PS/Staudenmaier.html the cultures
of ancient history described in the fifth and sixth grades are,
... the cultures of classical history. Some surprise.
Pity the Waldorf teacher at the school did not tell you that.
Lea
--
"Feel free" - 10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS/Monat ...
Jetzt GMX TopMail testen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 00:12:12 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Re:
Hi Charmaine,
You wrote:
)The question is why hasn't the Anthro Community denounced Steiner's racist
)tenets? As long as that question is not addressed there is no credibility
of
)denial from them. I am a trained Waldorf teacher and I know that these
tenets
)are taught in teacher training.
Bingo. Not only is that THE question, we also see that Anthro Press STILL
publishes and promotes Steiner's racist drivel AS WELL AS racist books from
other anthro authors, as Peter Staudenmaier recently demonstrated at this
list. Denial is only an excuse in some circles where the doctor can try to
help. In the real world racism is racism and no amount of biodynamic perfume
can kill the stench. Keep shining that light.
-Walden
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 2121
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Charlie yawns
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: RE:
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: RE:
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: RE:
By barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com
RE: Charlie yawns
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: RE:
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: Charlie yawns
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: Cultures, not sub-races
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: RE:
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Charlie yawns
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: RE:
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: RE:
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Cultures, not sub-races
By barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com
RE: RE:
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: Cultures, not sub-races
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: RE:
By pkcompany netzero.net
Re: RE:
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: Charlie yawns
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: RE:
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: RE:
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: Charlie yawns
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: Charlie yawns
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: RE: The phlegmatic
By diana.winters verizon.net
Re: Charlie yawns
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: RE: The phlegmatic
By cffrey mindspring.com
Re:
By UsherPaulson aol.com
RE: RE:
By pkcompany netzero.net
Re:
By UsherPaulson aol.com
Re: Charlie yawns
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: RE:
By cffrey mindspring.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 12:59:29 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Charlie yawns
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
)
) )OK...not a Nazi...just a racist.
) )Yawn.
) )I can't get pulled into this one again.
) [...]
) ) Sorry, guys...there's no racism in Waldorf schools...not built-in,
) )anyway. You're fighting something that doesn't exist, and it looks
) )silly.
)
)
) This is bound to look silly to anyone who can't tell the difference
) between
) Nazism and racism. The distinction makes lots of anthroposophists
) sleepy, it
) seems. So sleepy that some of them apparently think Steiner invented the
)
) theory of the four humors... And these are folks who think they're
) providing superior education to children. Go figure.
)
) Phlegmatic greetings to all,
)
) Peter S.
)
)
The methodical nature of your research could definitely be a sign of
phlegma.
Or are you a pitbull choleric?
Do you eat fast food in the car, or do you wait to get home and spread
it out on the table?
c
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 08:48:20 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: RE:
Lemuria:
)Identifying a temperament is no more a pigeon-hole than acknowledging
)that "this child learns better by seeing than by hearing," or "this
)child is crabby when he is hungry."
Walden:
)Absolutely false. The temperament thing bothered me at a gut level in my
)very pro-Waldorf Daze
)A person from Iowa is aware of their roots. No need for an occultist to
)decide and treat them differently than someone from elsewhere.
Walden is definitely right. The real problem with the temperaments in my
view is proposing correlations between personality (or "temperament" itself,
which is, in its usual definition, a useful concept) and PHYSICAL
characteristics. This always struck me as dubious (and it compatibility with
racism is obvious). Even in my own "Waldorf Daze," I too felt uneasy that it
was asserted that a child with a particular personality was always going to
*look* a certain way or have a certain body type, and vice versa. I remember
the parents of Asian children, strongly pro-Waldorf, loved everything about
the school, commenting that the temperaments thing was just useless, as they
felt it made no sense with their children. (They seemed to accept that it
might make sense with European-American children.)
So stocky, muscular children are pegged as quick to anger ("choleric").
Thin, pale children are "melancholic," and they get to sit on the teacher's
lap if they get hurt, because that's good for melancholics.
"Well-proportioned" children are supposed to be "sanguine." What does this
mean besides stereotypically physically attractive in the accepted Western
sense?
My child was labeled "phlegmatic" and I always suspected it was a quick
judgment on body type. He was the youngest child in the school the first
year we were there, at 3 1/2 years old, and still a pudgy round guy with all
his baby fat. They basically looked at him and decided he was going to be
fat, thus sluggish and lazy and mainly interested in food. I recall they
were perplexed that he was in fact a picky eater. This was their
sophisticated "child development" theory. Of course, a couple of years later
he lost his baby fat, and soon became slim as a bean pole.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 13:21:08 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: RE:
walden wrote:
)
) Lemuria wrote:
)
) )Oh...cut it out.
) )Identifying a temperament is no more a pigeon-hole than acknowledging
) )that "this child learns better by seeing than by hearing," or "this
) )child is crabby when he is hungry."
)
) Absolutely false. The temperament thing bothered me at a gut level in my
) very pro-Waldorf Daze and should be of concern to all parents and
) students
) today.
You should, of course, listen to your gut, but please excuse us (Waldorf
teachers) if we don't use your gut to guide our teaching.
Yes, a teacher or teachers could come to realize that a child might
) learn better experientially or by "seeing" as opposed to "hearing." And
) yes,
) many children could be cranky when hungry.
And is this different from saying, "One should not attempt to reason
with this child until long after her tantrum subsides (choleric)?
)
) To liken these instances to some hidden occult knowledge the Waldorf
) teacher
) might have gleaned via Anthro teacher training or meditation in which
) the
) teacher then decides how to divide a group of children into 4
) personality
) groups is just plain crazy. In our case, one of our kids was always
) considered "choleric" and the class teacher spoke in those terms during
) our
) meetings. The pigeon hole was very real. A couple of years later . .
) .after
) that teacher suffered a nervous breakdown
I don't think an indictment of a technique as practiced by somebody with
a mental illness is too useful.
and was replaced by another Anthro
) inspired teacher, the same child became "melancholic" and was placed
) into
) another convenient pigeon hole. The kids are treated according to their
) temperament. Skin colour, temparaments - same old same old and still
) very
) old. Wake up. People are individuals and deserve respect based on that
) fact.
)
) )It is a way to understand and help children.
)
) In what way?
The point is not, of course, to pigeon-hole. The point is to acknowledge
that people are different, and treating them with regard to their
differences is appropriate.
And... it is clear that nobody is in a box; it's just that one
temperament predominates. Hopefully, a good teacher can still be allowed
to notice and acknowledge an imbalance in a child and attempt to lead
that child toward equilibrium.
)
) )I guess, in the land of the politically correct, it is wrong to say that
) )phlegmatics are different from cholerics and Masai are different from
) )Iowans.
)
) A person from Iowa is aware of their roots. No need for an occultist to
) decide and treat them differently than someone from elsewhere.
No? Try feeding an Iowan cow milk mixed with cow blood (a Masai staple)
and see how far you get.
Also, "a" person from Iowa cannot be a "they". It is still correct to
write, "A person from Iowa is aware of HIS roots."
Political correctness can even be detrimental to one's grammar.
You really do
) not see the problem with your analogies? Who gives you the right to
) decide
) in which of the 4 boxes to place my child?
I guess teachers should just deliver information and stay out of the
children's lives. Public school is doing a great job at this.
When we are no longer able to acknowledge different flavors, we will all
be stuck with vanilla.
My sincerest apologies, of course, to those who actually do like
vanilla best...maybe I should have said chocolate...but that could be
seen as racist....Man, this is difficult...
c
)
) -Walden
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 13:45:29 +0000
From: Barnaby McEwan (barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: RE:
Lemuria wrote:
) You should, of course, listen to your gut, but please excuse us
) (Waldorf teachers) if we don't use your gut to guide our teaching.
The fantasies of a dead occultist being, of course, the sine qua non of
pedagogy.
) The point is not, of course, to pigeon-hole. The point is to
) acknowledge that people are different, and treating them with
) regard to their differences is appropriate.
Gosh, how on earth does everyone else manage to do that without relying
on ideas that should be left in the middle ages where they belong?
) And... it is clear that nobody is in a box; it's just that one
) temperament predominates.
No, it's clear that Waldorf teachers are trained to *imagine* that.
) I guess teachers should just deliver information and stay out of
) the children's lives. Public school is doing a great job at this.
How do you know this about public schools and teachers everywhere?
Psychic powers?
) When we are no longer able to acknowledge different flavors, we
) will all be stuck with vanilla.
You'd have us believe there are only four, imaginary, flavours, and call
that acknowledging diversity! D'oh!
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 09:05:15 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Charlie yawns
)The methodical nature of your research could definitely be a sign of
)phlegma.
Lemuria, don't be a nut. Research *is* methodical. Are all college
professors, or anyone who's ever gotten a PhD, phlegmatic?
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 14:45:52 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: RE:
Diana Winters wrote:
)
)
) Lemuria:
) )Identifying a temperament is no more a pigeon-hole than acknowledging
) )that "this child learns better by seeing than by hearing," or "this
) )child is crabby when he is hungry."
)
) Walden:
) )Absolutely false. The temperament thing bothered me at a gut level in my
) )very pro-Waldorf Daze
)
) )A person from Iowa is aware of their roots. No need for an occultist to
) )decide and treat them differently than someone from elsewhere.
)
) Walden is definitely right. The real problem with the temperaments in my
) view is proposing correlations between personality (or "temperament"
) itself,
) which is, in its usual definition, a useful concept) and PHYSICAL
) characteristics. This always struck me as dubious (and it compatibility
) with
) racism is obvious). Even in my own "Waldorf Daze," I too felt uneasy
) that it
) was asserted that a child with a particular personality was always going
) to
) *look* a certain way or have a certain body type, and vice versa. I
) remember
) the parents of Asian children, strongly pro-Waldorf, loved everything
) about
) the school, commenting that the temperaments thing was just useless, as
) they
) felt it made no sense with their children. (They seemed to accept that
) it
) might make sense with European-American children.)
)
) So stocky, muscular children are pegged as quick to anger ("choleric").
) Thin, pale children are "melancholic," and they get to sit on the
) teacher's
) lap if they get hurt, because that's good for melancholics.
) "Well-proportioned" children are supposed to be "sanguine." What does
) this
) mean besides stereotypically physically attractive in the accepted
) Western
) sense?
)
) My child was labeled "phlegmatic" and I always suspected it was a quick
) judgment on body type. He was the youngest child in the school the first
) year we were there, at 3 1/2 years old, and still a pudgy round guy with
) all
) his baby fat. They basically looked at him and decided he was going to
) be
) fat, thus sluggish and lazy and mainly interested in food. I recall they
) were perplexed that he was in fact a picky eater. This was their
) sophisticated "child development" theory. Of course, a couple of years
) later
) he lost his baby fat, and soon became slim as a bean pole.
)
) Diana
)
I never said that all Waldorf teachers apply these ideas properly.
I hope you don't find out that many doctors have made mistakes and stop
going to them.
So many of you think we live by such hard and fast rules.
If that were so, it would be so much easier to stick with them.
One of the great and terrible things about Waldorf education is that it
allows our weaknesses and strengths to shine through.
There is a LOT of room to make mistakes, and freedom can be a dangerous
thing if not practiced mindfully.
This is what makes the "Waldorf" school I last taught at a brutal and
horrendous place to be.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 14:53:11 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Charlie yawns
Diana Winters wrote:
)
)
)
) )The methodical nature of your research could definitely be a sign of
) )phlegma.
)
) Lemuria, don't be a nut.
Would you have me give up my defining characteristic?
Research *is* methodical. Are all college
) professors, or anyone who's ever gotten a PhD, phlegmatic?
I was having a bit of fun...I know that folks ae unaccustomed to Anthros
doing this.
It's what we have in common with PLANS people.
)
)
) Diana
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 15:05:44 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Cultures, not sub-races
Thank you for this, Lea.
The first link shows what was, clearly, Steiner's intention for
Anthroposophy and Anthroposophists.
Anybody who can't see that has obviously chosen not to, and is just
itchin' for a fight.
Probably cholerics....
Har!
c
Lea wrote:
)
) Dan Dugan wrote:
)
) ) One of the three problems I had with our Waldorf school* was that
) ) they were selling books containing typical 1920's German racist
) ) ideology. Your denial is silly in the face of this fact.
) )
) ) Later I learned that the framework of ancient history in the fifth
) ) and sixth grades was the Theosophical scheme of "sub-races of the
) ) Aryan root-race." That was more subtle but also racist.
)
) Like you, Steiner critiziced the theosophical concepts you mention at
) least as early as 1909 according to
) http://www.waldorfanswers.org/RSOnInvalidityOfRace.htm He commented on
) the use of them for the time after the last glacial ages, that in
) theosophy is called "the Aryan Root Race", as an expression of a
) childhood illness of the theosophical movement. So, he would agree with
) you on that one.
)
) And according to http://www.waldorfanswers.org/ThreeConcepts.htm he did
) not use them when he developed anthroposophy increasingly separate from
) theosophy. Waldorf education is much based on anthroposophy, not
) theosophy.
)
) According to http://www.thebee.se/comments/PS/Staudenmaier.html the
) cultures
) of ancient history described in the fifth and sixth grades are,
) ... the cultures of classical history. Some surprise.
)
) Pity the Waldorf teacher at the school did not tell you that.
)
) Lea
)
) --
) "Feel free" - 10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS/Monat ...
) Jetzt GMX TopMail testen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 09:57:27 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: RE:
Lemuria:
)I guess teachers should just deliver information and stay out of
)the children's lives. Public school is doing a great job at this.
My proposal would be, you don't need to stay out of their lives, but please
do stay out of their SOULS.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 11:07:11 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Charlie yawns
)Lemuria, don't be a nut.
)Would you have me give up my defining characteristic?
Sorry. Been spending too much time on the AT list, where you can say
absolutely anything to anybody. (Except to Sophia.)
)I was having a bit of fun...I know that folks ae unaccustomed to Anthros
)doing this.
Exactly. Witness the recent discussion about Steiner and the "negro novels."
Steiner must have been joking at some times in his life, and
anthroposophists sometimes make jokes, too. The problem is the jokes, if
they're there, are indistinguishable from other pronouncements, unless
perhaps one is physically present for the wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no
more.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 15:21:47 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: RE:
Lemuria wrote:
)
) The point is not, of course, to pigeon-hole. The point is to acknowledge
)
) that people are different, and treating them with regard to their
) differences is appropriate.
) And... it is clear that nobody is in a box; it's just that one
) temperament predominates. Hopefully, a good teacher can still be allowed
)
) to notice and acknowledge an imbalance in a child and attempt to lead
) that child toward equilibrium.
Like this?
"If you put on a play, you should cast the characters according to the
temperaments of your students. You might, for example, ask your
cholerics to play Julius Caesar, and you might cast your sanguines as
the messengers, since they would enjoy running in and out with the news.
The melancholics love philosophical roles. ... The phlegmatics, on the
other hand, like the parts where they can sit and think, removed from
the central action of the play."
(From "Waldorf Education - A Family Guide" - p. 65-66 The Role of
Temperament in Understanding the Child by Rene Querido)
This is shameful, Lemuria. You really think you are doing children a
favor by treating them in this way? Amazing.
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 09:56:02 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: RE:
Lemuria:
)Also, "a" person from Iowa cannot be a "they". It is still correct to
)write, "A person from Iowa is aware of HIS roots."
Putting on my copy editing hat, Lemuria, I must inform you that "A person
from Iowa is aware of his roots" is considered incorrect usage, as it
excludes more than 50% of the population (of Iowa, or anywhere else).
It is better to rephrase with "his or her roots," and in some circles the
use of "they" as indefinite, even in referring to a singular person, is
considered acceptable. Some style manuals maintain the musty notion that
"his or her" is "awkward" and should be rephrased because it in some way
calls attention to itself, but I don't agree with this, I think we've all
been used to it since about 1975 already.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 16:33:11 +0000
From: Barnaby McEwan (barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Cultures, not sub-races
Lea wrote:
) He commented on the use of them for the time after the last glacial
) ages, that in theosophy is called "the Aryan Root Race", as an
) expression of a childhood illness of the theosophical movement. So,
) he would agree with you on that one.
At that time Steiner was interested in distinguishing himself from his
former colleagues in order to build his own organisation. Substituting
"cultural epoch" for "racial epoch" was mere rhetoric. He continued
using the concept of root-races after this date. For example, in the
"Mission of Folk Souls", lectures given in 1910, he talks about "what we
know as the five root-races who inhabit the Earth." (The Mission of Folk
Souls, London, Anthroposophical Publishing Company, 1929, p.72).
Then there's Steiner's 1923 lecture at Dornach titled "Colour and the
Races of Humankind":
"One can only understand history and all of social life, including
today's social life, if one pays attention to people's racial
characteristics."
http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/Staudenmaier%20AFF%200410.html#_edn85
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 16:55:05 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: RE:
Pete Karaiskos wrote:
)
)
) Lemuria wrote:
)
) )
) ) The point is not, of course, to pigeon-hole. The point is to acknowledge
) )
) )
) ) that people are different, and treating them with regard to their
) ) differences is appropriate.
) ) And... it is clear that nobody is in a box; it's just that one
) ) temperament predominates. Hopefully, a good teacher can still be allowed
) )
) )
) ) to notice and acknowledge an imbalance in a child and attempt to lead
) ) that child toward equilibrium.
)
) Like this?
)
) "If you put on a play, you should cast the characters according to the
) temperaments of your students. You might, for example, ask your
) cholerics to play Julius Caesar, and you might cast your sanguines as
) the messengers, since they would enjoy running in and out with the news.
)
) The melancholics love philosophical roles. ... The phlegmatics, on the
) other hand, like the parts where they can sit and think, removed from
) the central action of the play."
)
) (From "Waldorf Education - A Family Guide" - p. 65-66 The Role of
) Temperament in Understanding the Child by Rene Querido)
)
) This is shameful, Lemuria. You really think you are doing children a
) favor by treating them in this way? Amazing.
)
) Pete
I'm sorry...I can't recall having mentioned casting a play according to
temperament.
c
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 12:37:02 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Cultures, not sub-races
Hi Lea, thanks for your post. I'm guessing from your email address that you
speak German; that would make you a very helpful interlocutor on the
subjects you address, and I encourage you to stick with the discussion here.
I would be delighted to have a real conversation about these topics, even if
your role doesn't develop past that of stand-in for Sune Nordwall; for the
next ten days I'm in the midst of prelims, but I'll do my best to keep up.
You wrote:
)Pity the Waldorf teacher at the school did not tell you that.
Perhaps she or he didn't know the slightest thing about it. Perhaps she or
he also believed that Steiner came up with the theory of the four humors.
Who knows. In any case, I think your own familiarity with the topics you
address could be improved; you are substantively mistaken on each count:
)Like you, Steiner critiziced the theosophical concepts you mention at
)least as early as 1909 according to
)http://www.waldorfanswers.org/RSOnInvalidityOfRace.htm He commented on
)the use of them for the time after the last glacial ages, that in
)theosophy is called "the Aryan Root Race", as an expression of a
)childhood illness of the theosophical movement. So, he would agree with
)you on that one.
Steiner's relationship to the root race theory was much more complicated
than that. What Steiner rejected about classical theosophical race thinking
was its cyclical emphasis, because in his view this contradicted his own
progressivist take on racial evolution. He continued to use the same racial
categories well after 1909, as you can see from his published works. Indeed
the continuities between mainstream theosophical race theory and Steiner's
anthroposophical race theory are so pronounced that even sympathetic
commentators have remarked on them. You needn't take it from me; I recommend
a look at any of the following for confirmation of this:
Bruce Campbell, Ancient Wisdom Revived: A History of the Theosophical
Movement (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980), p. 158; Richard
Smoley and Jay Kinney, Hidden Wisdom: A Guide to the Western Esoteric
Tradition (New York: Arkana, 1999), p. 279; Dan Burton and David Grandy,
Magic, Mystery, and Science: The Occult in Western Civilization
(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2004), p. 224.
For more thorough historical treatments of exactly this question from a
variety of perspectives I recommend these articles:
Helmut Zander, “Sozialdarwinistische Rassentheorien aus dem okkulten
Untergrund des Kaiserreichs” in Uwe Puschner, Walter Schmitz, and Justus
Ulbricht, Handbuch zur ‘Völkischen Bewegung’ 1871-1918 (Munich: Saur, 1996)
Helmut Zander, “Der Weltgeist auf dem Weg durch die Rassengeschichte.
Anthroposophische Rassentheorie” in Stefanie von Schnurbein and Justus
Ulbricht, Völkische Religion und Krisen der Moderne (Würzburg: Königshausen
& Neumann, 2001)
Carla Risseuw, “Thinking Culture Through Counter-culture: The Case of
Theosophists in India and Ceylon and their Ideas on Race and Hierarchy
(1875-1947)” in Antony Copley, ed., Gurus and Their Followers: New Religious
Reform Movements in Colonial India (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000),
pp. 180-205 (see p. 192 in particular on the continuity between theosophical
and anthroposophical race theory).
You continue:
)And according to http://www.waldorfanswers.org/ThreeConcepts.htm he did
)not use them when he developed anthroposophy increasingly separate from
)theosophy. Waldorf education is much based on anthroposophy, not
)theosophy.
Anthroposophy is an offshoot of Theosophy, just as Ariosophy is. Steiner's
major anthroposophical works were written while he was General Secretary of
the German branch of the Theosophical Society, and they employ theosophical
vocabulary throughout, even well after the formal break with the rest of the
Theosophical movement. The conceptual continuities are unmistakable. Once
again, you needn't take my word on this; there is quite a bit of scholarship
available on the matter. Three examples that come to mind are:
Anthony Faivre, Theosophy, Imagination, Tradition: Studies in Western
Esotericism (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2000)
Maria Carlson, 'No Religion Higher than Truth': A History of the
Theosophical Movement in Russia (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1993)
Wouter Hanegraaff, New Age Religion and Western Culture: Esotericism in the
Mirror of Secular Thought (Leiden: Brill, 1996)
If you'd like a sense of Steiner's own attitude toward classical Theosophy,
one passage worth checking out is Die Welträtsel und die Anthroposophie p.
119.
You continue:
)According to http://www.thebee.se/comments/PS/Staudenmaier.html the
)cultures
)of ancient history described in the fifth and sixth grades are,
)... the cultures of classical history. Some surprise.
It isn't clear what you mean by "classical history" (Greek and Roman
history? Nineteenth century German history? Standard historiography today?),
but Steiner's succession of cultural epochs shows marked differences from
non-occult versions of historical periodization. In any case, Steiner quite
explicitly tied culture to sub-races; the point of his schema is that in
each epoch a different people carries the lead in cosmic evolution and
determines the predominant culture of that time. You seem to think that
Steiner abandoned this framework, but many of his followers continued to
rely on it long after his death, and some still do so today. For just a few
examples (out of a myriad of choices) I recommend taking a look at any of
the following:
The 1929 Völkerkunde issue of Gäa-Sophia: Jahrbuch der
Naturwissenschaftlichen Sektion der Freien Hochschule für
Geisteswissenschaft am Goetheanum Dornach, edited by Guenther Wachsmuth
Richard Karutz, "Zur Frage von Rassebildung und Mischehe", Die Drei May 1930
Richard Karutz, "Über Rassenkunde", Das Goetheanum January 4, 1931
Richard Karutz, “Einbein und Einaug”, Das Goetheanum vol. 4 no. 27 (1925),
pp. 212-214
Harry Köhler, "Menschheits-Entwickelung und Völkerschicksale im Spiegel der
Historie", Das Goetheanum August 21, 1932
Wolfgang Moldenhauer, “Die Wanderungs-Atlantier und das Gesetz des Manu”,
Das Goetheanum June 26, 1938
Guenther Wachsmuth, Mysterien- und Geistesgeschichte der Menschheit
(Dresden: Emil Weise, 1938)
Ernst Uehli, Nordisch-Germanische Mythologie als Mysteriengeschichte
(Stuttgart: Mellinger, 1965; originally 1926)
Ernst Uehli, Atlantis und das Rätsel der Eiszeitkunst (Stuttgart: Hoffmann,
1957; originally 1936)
Sigismund von Gleich, Der Mensch der Eiszeit und Atlantis (Stuttgart:
Mellinger, 1990; originally 1936)
Sigismund von Gleich, Siebentausend Jahre Urgeschichte der Menschheit
(Stuttgart: Mellinger, 1987; originally 1950)
Fred Poeppig, Das Zeitalter der Atlantis und die Eiszeit (Freiburg: Die
Kommenden, 1962)
On the other hand, even if you do not have ready access to any of those
sources, I would be interested to hear more of your thoughts on the themes
you raised.
Peter Staudenmaier
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 18:24:23 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: RE:
Lemuria wrote:
)
)
) Pete Karaiskos wrote:
) )
) )
) ) Lemuria wrote:
) )
) ) )
) ) ) The point is not, of course, to pigeon-hole. The point is to acknowledge
) ) )
) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) that people are different, and treating them with regard to their
) ) ) differences is appropriate.
) ) ) And... it is clear that nobody is in a box; it's just that one
) ) ) temperament predominates. Hopefully, a good teacher can still be allowed
) ) )
) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) to notice and acknowledge an imbalance in a child and attempt to lead
) ) ) that child toward equilibrium.
) )
) ) Like this?
) )
) ) "If you put on a play, you should cast the characters according to the
) ) temperaments of your students. You might, for example, ask your
) ) cholerics to play Julius Caesar, and you might cast your sanguines as
) ) the messengers, since they would enjoy running in and out with the news.
) )
) )
) ) The melancholics love philosophical roles. ... The phlegmatics, on the
) ) other hand, like the parts where they can sit and think, removed from
) ) the central action of the play."
) )
) ) (From "Waldorf Education - A Family Guide" - p. 65-66 The Role of
) ) Temperament in Understanding the Child by Rene Querido)
) )
) ) This is shameful, Lemuria. You really think you are doing children a
) ) favor by treating them in this way? Amazing.
) )
) ) Pete
)
) I'm sorry...I can't recall having mentioned casting a play according to
) temperament.
)
) c
No, but I believe you did mention seating children according to
temperaments. Not much difference.
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 09:49:36 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: RE:
Lemuria wrote:
)I don't think an indictment of a technique as practiced by somebody with
)a mental illness is too useful.
To be clear, I never inferred this. Dividing people into 4 personality
groups is a "technique" with obvious problems. It's a pretend power trip,
Lemuria but not a game for the kids or their parents. FOUR groups. In my
early twenties I studied astrology - *real* astrology, complete with many
books and lotsa math.
I despised tabloid "astrologers" because they simply divided humanity into
12 groups (sun signs). When doing natal charts I would only ever start to
think I was getting a bit of a picture when I had info of the sun *and* the
moon *and* then I would really need the rising sign before moving on to all
the other variables. Pigeon Hole? Yes but much deeper (at least a couple
hundred holes!) than 4 temperaments. One reason I quit astrology had to do
with . . . power. Too many people were willing to hand me too much power.
Although it was good way to meet women, it got more than a little weird.
"Tell me about me!" And they were serious. Too serious.
Like some Waldorf teachers with temperaments. That "technique" is best left
for archeologists and occultists and has no place in a school in the year
2006.
)The point is not, of course, to pigeon-hole. The point is to acknowledge
)that people are different, and treating them with regard to their
)differences is appropriate.
Of course people are different and those differences can be acknowledged.
But why do you need to believe in FOUR personality types in order to
acknowledge that each person is different? Makes no sense.
)And... it is clear that nobody is in a box; it's just that one
)temperament predominates.
Danger. If you - as a teacher - convince yourself that one "temperament"
predominates in a certain child and then go about dividing the students into
FOUR groups based on these assertions, what have you really accomplished as
a teacher? What has happened in the classroom? I encourage you to shed these
old and divisive ideas and begin treating treating children as individuals
where no "temperament predominates."
)Hopefully, a good teacher can still be allowed
)to notice and acknowledge an imbalance in a child and attempt to lead
)that child toward equilibrium.
While I am tempted to use the word "megalomania" I will take the high road
and ask a question: Do you see your task as being one where you "lead" the
child into all 4 temperaments? What is this "equilibrium?"
Walden wrote:
)) A person from Iowa is aware of their roots. No need for an occultist to
)) decide and treat them differently than someone from elsewhere.
Lemuria replied:
)No? Try feeding an Iowan cow milk mixed with cow blood (a Masai staple)
)and see how far you get.
That's my point, Lemuria. A Masai staple is reality. Pigeon holing people
into 4 ancient personality types is fantasy. See?
)Also, "a" person from Iowa cannot be a "they". It is still correct to
)write, "A person from Iowa is aware of HIS roots."
)Political correctness can even be detrimental to one's grammar.
lol. Maybe you are a decent teachers after all!
Walden wrote:
))You really do
)) not see the problem with your analogies? Who gives you the right to
)) decide
)) in which of the 4 boxes to place my child?
Lemuria replied:
)I guess teachers should just deliver information and stay out of the
)children's lives. Public school is doing a great job at this.
Sarcasm but off the mark. I remember the "us and them" dynamic of our old
Waldorf school - "we are so fortunate to be in Waldorf - away from the evil,
materialistic public schools, etc." I bought that nonsense for years. The
myth of the evil public schools was part of our Waldorf Daze. And very
insulting to public school teachers but hey - we were better and more
enlightened and pity those who have not seen fit to take the only path worth
taking, a path that leads to salvation on the road to a happy tomorrows in
this life and beyond . . . .
)When we are no longer able to acknowledge different flavors, we will all
)be stuck with vanilla.
The irony is priceless. Vanilla? As in kids not allowed to wear certain
clothes to school? As in kids being forced to chant the morning prayer loud
and in unison each and every day? As in mandatory eurythmy every day in
every Waldorf school? As in copying, copying and more copying of the same
thing - exactly the same thing - from the teacher for years on end? As in
parents scrambling to throw a silk blanket over the TV because the teacher
decided to visit an hour early and one cannot risk being a bad Waldorf
parent? As in everyone eating the same healthy snack on certain days? As in
opening every meeting with a palatable Steiner "verse" and NEVER questioning
anything Steiner said about "race," etc.?
Waldorf is all about one flavour. Interesting you choose "vanilla."
)My sincerest apologies, of course, to those who actually do like
)vanilla best...maybe I should have said chocolate...but that could be
)seen as racist....Man, this is difficult...
Only when you try too hard.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 11:54:37 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Charlie yawns
Personally, I'm phlegmatic because I'm getting over a cold.
Since Waldorf teachers (or perhaps former Waldorf teachers; when did you get
booted, Charlie? What for?) are evidently the last people on earth who are
unaware of this, it may be worth pointing out that colds, like temperaments,
are passing phenomena, a condition that one can have for a specific period
of time, not a permanent and static category into which individuals can be
placed for the entire course of their lives.
That is why Charlie's pronouncements on this topic are completely
preposterous:
)Identifying a temperament is no more a pigeon-hole than acknowledging
)that "this child learns better by seeing than by hearing," or "this
)child is crabby when he is hungry."
)It is a way to understand and help children.
That is an astonishing thing for a teacher, even a former teacher, to say.
Of the hundreds of children I have worked with, not a single one could
possibly be characterized in those ways. None of them always learned better
by seeing than by hearing, for example; this depends entirely on the subject
matter, the room we're in, the time of day, the season, who else is around,
the kind of day the kid is having, and dozens of other independently
operative factors. Nor is any child across-the-board crabby when hungry; a
particular child may get crabby because of hunger in the morning, then the
very same afternoon may get wired and hyperactive because of hunger, and the
next day may get drowsy because of hunger. It is difficult to see how this
extraordinarily simple situation could possibly have escaped the notice of a
professional teacher. One of the wonderful and maddening things about
children in an educational environment is how thoroughly unpredictable and
susrprising they are, how they change radically over the course of a year, a
month, a day, how their habits and patterns and moods shift and develop and
complexify.
And Waldorfers think they've come up with an alternative to the ostensibly
cookie-cutter nature of those dreaded mainstream schools? I think I'll go
blow my nose now.
Melancholic greetings to all,
Peter S.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 13:06:57 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: RE:
) " ... The phlegmatics, on the other hand, like the parts where they can
)sit and think, removed from the central action of the play."
Isn't that insulting! Phlegmatic means fat, and stupid.
Diana
(the phlegmatic's mother)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 19:22:45 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: RE:
Pete Karaiskos wrote:
)
)
) Lemuria wrote:
) )
) )
) ) Pete Karaiskos wrote:
) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) Lemuria wrote:
) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) The point is not, of course, to pigeon-hole. The point is to acknowledge
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) that people are different, and treating them with regard to their
) ) ) ) differences is appropriate.
) ) ) ) And... it is clear that nobody is in a box; it's just that one
) ) ) ) temperament predominates. Hopefully, a good teacher can still be allowed
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) to notice and acknowledge an imbalance in a child and attempt to lead
) ) ) ) that child toward equilibrium.
) ) )
) ) ) Like this?
) ) )
) ) ) "If you put on a play, you should cast the characters according to the
) ) ) temperaments of your students. You might, for example, ask your
) ) ) cholerics to play Julius Caesar, and you might cast your sanguines as
) ) ) the messengers, since they would enjoy running in and out with the news.
) ) )
) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) The melancholics love philosophical roles. ... The phlegmatics, on the
) ) ) other hand, like the parts where they can sit and think, removed from
) ) ) the central action of the play."
) ) )
) ) ) (From "Waldorf Education - A Family Guide" - p. 65-66 The Role of
) ) ) Temperament in Understanding the Child by Rene Querido)
) ) )
) ) ) This is shameful, Lemuria. You really think you are doing children a
) ) ) favor by treating them in this way? Amazing.
) ) )
) ) ) Pete
) )
) ) I'm sorry...I can't recall having mentioned casting a play according to
) ) temperament.
) )
) ) c
)
) No, but I believe you did mention seating children according to
) temperaments. Not much difference.
)
) Pete
Actually...I didn't.
But please continue inventing your own reality.
c
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 19:40:34 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Charlie yawns
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
)
)
) Personally, I'm phlegmatic because I'm getting over a cold.
)
) Since Waldorf teachers (or perhaps former Waldorf teachers; when did you
) get
) booted, Charlie? What for?)
I was fired because some thought that adhering to the decades-old
culture of the school was more important than working with the needs of
a particular child (or class) in the here and now (or the 'there' and
'then').
I was hauled in by my "colleagues" and reprimanded for being "forward
thinking".
Very Kafka-esque.
I was booted a day-and-a-half before the end of school last year;
probably to mitigate potential damage I could inflict, while still being
able to get the parents in one place to tell them before they scattered
for the summer.
The damage it did to me, my wife and my 2 children (who no longer attend
the school) was crippling.
are evidently the last people on earth who are
) unaware of this, it may be worth pointing out that colds, like
) temperaments,
) are passing phenomena, a condition that one can have for a specific
) period
) of time, not a permanent and static category into which individuals can
) be
) placed for the entire course of their lives.
It's true.
Melancolics become cholerics; cholerics become sanguine; sanguines
become phlegmatic; and phlegmatics become melancholic.
)
) That is why Charlie's pronouncements on this topic are completely
) preposterous:
)
) )Identifying a temperament is no more a pigeon-hole than acknowledging
) )that "this child learns better by seeing than by hearing," or "this
) )child is crabby when he is hungry."
) )It is a way to understand and help children.
)
) That is an astonishing thing for a teacher, even a former teacher, to
) say.
) Of the hundreds of children I have worked with, not a single one could
) possibly be characterized in those ways. None of them always learned
) better
) by seeing than by hearing, for example; this depends entirely on the
) subject
) matter, the room we're in, the time of day, the season, who else is
) around,
) the kind of day the kid is having, and dozens of other independently
) operative factors. Nor is any child across-the-board crabby when hungry;
) a
) particular child may get crabby because of hunger in the morning, then
) the
) very same afternoon may get wired and hyperactive because of hunger, and
) the
) next day may get drowsy because of hunger. It is difficult to see how
) this
) extraordinarily simple situation could possibly have escaped the notice
) of a
) professional teacher. One of the wonderful and maddening things about
) children in an educational environment is how thoroughly unpredictable
) and
) susrprising they are, how they change radically over the course of a
) year, a
) month, a day, how their habits and patterns and moods shift and develop
) and
) complexify.
)
) And Waldorfers think they've come up with an alternative to the
) ostensibly
) cookie-cutter nature of those dreaded mainstream schools? I think I'll
) go
) blow my nose now.
)
) Melancholic greetings to all,
)
) Peter S.
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 16:20:08 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Charlie yawns
Peter S.:
)That is an astonishing thing for a teacher, even a former teacher, to say.
)Of the hundreds of children I have worked with, not a single one could
)possibly be characterized in those ways.
Thank you. I personally think the way these things work is quite akin to the
way the horoscopes in the newspaper work: they are so vague and general that
naturally they easily apply to almost anyone or everyone once you've simply
convinced yourself that they do. Then you see what you expect to see. Basing
it on body type gives you an easy handle. You *expect* the stocky muscular
child to be quicker tempered, you expect him to get angry and throw the
chairs around, and you *expect* the pale thin child to snivel and cry and
it's certainly easy to notice that the chubby child enjoys her food! Well
that proves it. Children rapidly adjust to meet our expectations -
self-fulfilling prophecy. The parts that don't work, the cases where the
label never seems to quite apply, or the parents protest, you just tell
yourself that other people don't understand, because they haven't "done the
work" to understand Rudolf Steiner.
)Melancholic greetings to all,
I'm glad you've switched temperaments since this morning, Peter, as I was
thinking I might need to explain to folks that I've met you in "real life,"
and you weren't fat or stupid :)
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 16:07:13 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: RE: The phlegmatic
I noted that my own child had been dubbed "phlegmatic," based I suspected on
body type (body type of a 3 year old, which of course changes a few months
later).
Lemuria replied:
)I never said that all Waldorf teachers apply these ideas properly.
No, they were applying the idea properly; the idea is stupid.
Here's A.C. Harwood from "Recovery of Man in Childhood":
"Lastly, we must picture that rather rare child - the phlegmatic. He is fat
and dumpy, with a round and rather expressionless face, and he has 'no
speculation in his eye'. He is quite content to be left alone, and will even
go on sitting in his seat when the whole class has gone out to recess or to
another lesson, because 'nobody told me to go'. He seems to take very little
interest in any of his lessons and very rarely contributes. He is fond of
his food, likes to eat candy and sleeps heavily. The Fat Boy in 'The
Pickwick Papers' ('Drat that boy, he's asleep again') is a good example of a
phlegmatic. To some extent he is asleep even when he is awake and you have
to rattle on his desk when you want his special attention for something."
(New York: Myrin Institute of New York; 1958; p. 165)
(Jesus Christ! I'd forgotten just how insulting that description was. I used
to *suspect* phlegmatic meant fat, but there it really is.)
So what exactly was the teacher misunderstanding, Lemuria? Please tell us
what the great subtlety is here that my son's teacher "misapplied." It's
nothing but an idiotic and truly offensive stereotype.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 13:28:11 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Charlie yawns
Lemuria wrote:
)I was fired because some thought that adhering to the decades-old
)culture of the school was more important than working with the needs of
)a particular child (or class) in the here and now (or the 'there' and
)'then').
)I was hauled in by my "colleagues" and reprimanded for being "forward
)thinking".
)Very Kafka-esque.
)I was booted a day-and-a-half before the end of school last year;
)probably to mitigate potential damage I could inflict, while still being
)able to get the parents in one place to tell them before they scattered
)for the summer.
)The damage it did to me, my wife and my 2 children (who no longer attend
)the school) was crippling.
Very sorry to hear that. Not sure if it helps to hear that some of us can
relate. The same scene has played many times before. I remember a Waldorf
teacher at our school being "forbidden" to meet with parents when a meeting
was absolutely required to deal with important issues. We all met and
wondered what on earth the message from the teacher was all about on the
answering machine at a parent's house.? She is not *allowed* to meet with
us?!! Exact same thing happened a couple of years later with another class
where somebody needed to do *something* about a certain "teacher" and as we
tried to arrange a meeting all we found were heads in sand from teachers and
admin. Amazing. Karma is often convenient for those who "live into
Anthroposophy."
I sincerely hope your family is on the mend and I gotta say - I hope that
healing can happen outside of Anthro circles. Humanity is there when we take
the time to find it. Real connections. Real people.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 21:33:39 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: RE: The phlegmatic
Diana Winters wrote:
)
) So what exactly was the teacher misunderstanding, Lemuria? Please tell
) us
) what the great subtlety is here that my son's teacher "misapplied." It's
) nothing but an idiotic and truly offensive stereotype.
)
) Diana
)
Sounds like a loser's game to me.
I won't bite.
c
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 18:30:01 EDT
From: UsherPaulson aol.com
Subject: Re:
Trained at Steiner training in Detroit before the "old guard" Werner Glas,
Hans Gerbet, took teacher training to Spring Valley, NY. I also took
extensive course work in Sacremento and Kimberton, PA. throughout the years.
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 23:12:04 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: RE:
Lemuria wrote:
)
)
) Pete Karaiskos wrote:
) )
) )
) ) Lemuria wrote:
) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) Pete Karaiskos wrote:
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) Lemuria wrote:
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) The point is not, of course, to pigeon-hole. The point is to acknowledge
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) that people are different, and treating them with regard to their
) ) ) ) ) differences is appropriate.
) ) ) ) ) And... it is clear that nobody is in a box; it's just that one
) ) ) ) ) temperament predominates. Hopefully, a good teacher can still be allowed
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) to notice and acknowledge an imbalance in a child and attempt to lead
) ) ) ) ) that child toward equilibrium.
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) Like this?
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) "If you put on a play, you should cast the characters according to the
) ) ) ) temperaments of your students. You might, for example, ask your
) ) ) ) cholerics to play Julius Caesar, and you might cast your sanguines as
) ) ) ) the messengers, since they would enjoy running in and out with the news.
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) The melancholics love philosophical roles. ... The phlegmatics, on the
) ) ) ) other hand, like the parts where they can sit and think, removed from
) ) ) ) the central action of the play."
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) (From "Waldorf Education - A Family Guide" - p. 65-66 The Role of
) ) ) ) Temperament in Understanding the Child by Rene Querido)
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) This is shameful, Lemuria. You really think you are doing children a
) ) ) ) favor by treating them in this way? Amazing.
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) Pete
) ) )
) ) ) I'm sorry...I can't recall having mentioned casting a play according to
) ) ) temperament.
) ) )
) ) ) c
) )
) ) No, but I believe you did mention seating children according to
) ) temperaments. Not much difference.
) )
) ) Pete
)
) Actually...I didn't.
) But please continue inventing your own reality.
) c
You're quite right to correct me here. You didn't say it here (although
I sincerely believe you have said this in the past). My original
comment, about the shamefulness of casting children according to their
temperaments was directed at the practice of doing so - not at you
personally. I assume, of course, that you are defending the practice of
dividing or interacting with children according to their temperaments.
Am I incorrect in this assumption? Maybe you would like to take this
opportunity to denounce the assigning of temperaments to children, and
instead treating them as individuals. Please help me to comprehend
reality in the right way.
So, for the record, do you believe Waldorf teachers seat children
according to their temperaments? Have you seated children according to
their temperaments? Do you believe in casting children in a play
according to their temperaments? Have you cast children in a play
according to their temperaments? Have you assigned other work to
children according to their temperaments? Do you select the plegmatic
child to run a message to the office, or do you select a sanguine child?
Do you believe in separating children in the 5th grade Greek olympics
according to their temperaments? Have you done this? Do you see
nothing wrong with children having to wear a tee shirt that is the color
associated with their temperament when they participate in these
olympics? Do you understand how closely this resembles racism?
Maybe it's time for you to set me straight on what you actually believe,
Lemuria. I've assumed you think like a Waldorf teacher, and that was
wrong of me. Show me how you think differently.
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 19:17:27 EDT
From: UsherPaulson aol.com
Subject: Re:
Although there are many heartfelt individuals teaching and working with the
right intent within the Waldorf Schools, the lack of will to denounce
Steiner's overt racist indications from the Movement reveal the acceptance of these
tenets on a systemic level.
Steiner's spiritual indications of the "lack" of some groups of people, are
taken by many as spirituals truths and skew the way many teachers perceive
children of color.
The curriculum is set up to trumpet the achievements of an obscure Aryan race
and show how that race long ago led to the rise of civilization.
Africa was not taught at all in the past. I believe now that because of the
politically correct tenor in the US, African tales and civilization is touched
upon in some schools, but that would depend on the discretion of an
individual teacher.
Remember, the teacher is the authority or "textbook."
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 16:30:36 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Charlie yawns
Peter S wrote:
)Personally, I'm phlegmatic because I'm getting over a cold.
lol. If you're feeling like a melon-cholic you might consider eating honey
dew. (g)
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 00:54:24 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: RE:
Pete Karaiskos wrote:
)
)
) Lemuria wrote:
) )
) )
) ) Pete Karaiskos wrote:
) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) Lemuria wrote:
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) Pete Karaiskos wrote:
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) Lemuria wrote:
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) ) The point is not, of course, to pigeon-hole. The point is to acknowledge
) ) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) ) that people are different, and treating them with regard to their
) ) ) ) ) ) differences is appropriate.
) ) ) ) ) ) And... it is clear that nobody is in a box; it's just that one
) ) ) ) ) ) temperament predominates. Hopefully, a good teacher can still be allowed
) ) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) ) to notice and acknowledge an imbalance in a child and attempt to lead
) ) ) ) ) ) that child toward equilibrium.
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) Like this?
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) "If you put on a play, you should cast the characters according to the
) ) ) ) ) temperaments of your students. You might, for example, ask your
) ) ) ) ) cholerics to play Julius Caesar, and you might cast your sanguines as
) ) ) ) ) the messengers, since they would enjoy running in and out with the news.
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) The melancholics love philosophical roles. ... The phlegmatics, on the
) ) ) ) ) other hand, like the parts where they can sit and think, removed from
) ) ) ) ) the central action of the play."
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) (From "Waldorf Education - A Family Guide" - p. 65-66 The Role of
) ) ) ) ) Temperament in Understanding the Child by Rene Querido)
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) This is shameful, Lemuria. You really think you are doing children a
) ) ) ) ) favor by treating them in this way? Amazing.
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) Pete
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) I'm sorry...I can't recall having mentioned casting a play according to
) ) ) ) temperament.
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) c
) ) )
) ) ) No, but I believe you did mention seating children according to
) ) ) temperaments. Not much difference.
) ) )
) ) ) Pete
) )
) ) Actually...I didn't.
) ) But please continue inventing your own reality.
) ) c
)
)
) You're quite right to correct me here. You didn't say it here (although
)
) I sincerely believe you have said this in the past). My original
) comment, about the shamefulness of casting children according to their
) temperaments was directed at the practice of doing so - not at you
) personally. I assume, of course, that you are defending the practice of
)
) dividing or interacting with children according to their temperaments.
) Am I incorrect in this assumption?
No.
Maybe you would like to take this
) opportunity to denounce the assigning of temperaments to children, and
) instead treating them as individuals.
I do both.
Please help me to comprehend
) reality in the right way.
)
) So, for the record, do you believe Waldorf teachers seat children
) according to their temperaments?
Yes
Have you seated children according to
) their temperaments?
Yes
Do you believe in casting children in a play
) according to their temperaments?
Yes...with or opposite to...depending on the individual.
Have you cast children in a play
) according to their temperaments?
Yes.
Have you assigned other work to
) children according to their temperaments?
Yes.
Do you select the plegmatic
) child to run a message to the office, or do you select a sanguine child?
)
I don't use temperament for that...I use other factors.
) Do you believe in separating children in the 5th grade Greek olympics
) according to their temperaments?
Never done it. I probably wouldn't.
Have you done this? Do you see
) nothing wrong with children having to wear a tee shirt that is the color
)
) associated with their temperament when they participate in these
) olympics?
I don't. But I wouldn't do it.
Do you understand how closely this resembles racism?
No.
)
) Maybe it's time for you to set me straight on what you actually believe,
)
) Lemuria.
Maybe.
Is it important to you?
I've assumed you think like a Waldorf teacher, and that was
) wrong of me. Show me how you think differently.
I think differently from just about everybody.
It gets me in trouble.
Fortunately, I have recently found a group of Anthros who appreciate me
for my unpredictability, and they have offered me a job.
)
)
) Pete
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 2122
-- Topica Digest --
RE:
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: RE:
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: RE: The phlegmatic
By lisa.ercolano comcast.net
RE: RE: The phlegmatic
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: RE: The phlegmatic
By diana.winters verizon.net
More on the Four Temperments or Humours
By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
Re: More on the Four Temperments or Humours
By lisa.ercolano comcast.net
Peter et al - the infamous Bet lives!
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Peter et al - the infamous Bet lives!
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: More on the Four Temperments or Humours
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Peter et al - the infamous Bet lives!
By pstaud hotmail.com
Bondarev = Peter S
By pkcompany netzero.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 08:01:31 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE:
Thank you very much, Charmaine. After what you've been through, please know
that a lot of people really appreciate your willingness to go on speaking
out, to the extent that you can.
I think this sums it right up:
)Although there are many heartfelt individuals teaching and working with the
)right intent within the Waldorf Schools, the lack of will to denounce
)Steiner's overt racist indications from the Movement reveal the acceptance
)of these tenets on a systemic level.
)Steiner's spiritual indications of the "lack" of some groups of people, are
)taken by many as spirituals truths and skew the way many teachers perceive
)children of color.
)The curriculum is set up to trumpet the achievements of an obscure Aryan
)race and show how that race long ago led to the rise of civilization.
)Africa was not taught at all in the past. I believe now that because of the
)politically correct tenor in the US, African tales and civilization is
)touched upon in some schools, but that would depend on the discretion of an
)individual teacher.
)Remember, the teacher is the authority or "textbook."
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 13:10:48 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: RE:
It appears, then, that the reality you accuse me of having invented is
indeed the truth.
Lemuria wrote:
) ) ) ) ) I'm sorry...I can't recall having mentioned casting a play according to
) ) ) ) ) temperament.
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) c
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) No, but I believe you did mention seating children according to
) ) ) ) temperaments. Not much difference.
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) Pete
) ) )
) ) ) Actually...I didn't.
) ) ) But please continue inventing your own reality.
) ) ) c
) )
) )
) ) You're quite right to correct me here. You didn't say it here (although
) )
) )
) ) I sincerely believe you have said this in the past). My original
) ) comment, about the shamefulness of casting children according to their
) ) temperaments was directed at the practice of doing so - not at you
) ) personally. I assume, of course, that you are defending the practice of
) )
) )
) ) dividing or interacting with children according to their temperaments.
) ) Am I incorrect in this assumption?
)
) No.
)
) Maybe you would like to take this
) ) opportunity to denounce the assigning of temperaments to children, and
) ) instead treating them as individuals.
)
) I do both.
And you see benefit in assigning a label to each child, that will stick
with this child throughout his schooling - based on your perceptions.
And the child will be forced to wear this label. What a tremendous
responsibility it must be to discern the exact character of the child.
) Please help me to comprehend
) ) reality in the right way.
) )
) ) So, for the record, do you believe Waldorf teachers seat children
) ) according to their temperaments?
)
) Yes
)
) Have you seated children according to
) ) their temperaments?
)
) Yes
)
) Do you believe in casting children in a play
) ) according to their temperaments?
)
) Yes...with or opposite to...depending on the individual.
)
) Have you cast children in a play
) ) according to their temperaments?
)
) Yes.
)
) Have you assigned other work to
) ) children according to their temperaments?
)
) Yes.
So, it seems to me, you have attempted to reinforced your imagined
perceptions on the children themselves.
) Do you select the plegmatic
) ) child to run a message to the office, or do you select a sanguine child?
) )
) )
)
) I don't use temperament for that...I use other factors.
I see. What factors?
) ) Do you believe in separating children in the 5th grade Greek olympics
) ) according to their temperaments?
)
) Never done it. I probably wouldn't.
You're hedging here. How would you avoid doing it? It is part of the
curriculum.
) Have you done this? Do you see
) ) nothing wrong with children having to wear a tee shirt that is the color
) )
) )
) ) associated with their temperament when they participate in these
) ) olympics?
)
) I don't. But I wouldn't do it.
So despite your expressed belief in the value of assigning children a
temperament, and the fact that (you now admit) you have assigned
children their seating and their characters in a play based on
temperaments, you suggest that you would NOT separate them into
temperaments as part of their 5th grade curriculum and NOT require them
to wear a tee shirt which is colored based on their temperament. So,
let me get this straight, you would draw the line here and put the
school in the position of having to fire you because...? Why do you
suggest you "wouldn't do it"?
) Do you understand how closely this resembles racism?
)
) No.
I think you do - but won't admit it, perhaps even to yourself. Why else
would you draw the line at making children wear a tee-shirt that
expresses their temperament?
) )
) ) Maybe it's time for you to set me straight on what you actually believe,
) )
) )
) ) Lemuria.
)
) Maybe.
) Is it important to you?
Yes, if you are teaching children, your attitude and beliefs are
important to me. I think people should protect children from harmful
ideas whenever possible.
) I've assumed you think like a Waldorf teacher, and that was
) ) wrong of me. Show me how you think differently.
)
) I think differently from just about everybody.
) It gets me in trouble.
Yes, I can see this (not really).
) Fortunately, I have recently found a group of Anthros who appreciate me
) for my unpredictability, and they have offered me a job.
Well, that should be interesting. I'll check next year's roster at my
kid's school. It sounds like you might fit in well there.
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 13:03:09 +0000
From: lisa.ercolano comcast.net
Subject: RE: RE: The phlegmatic
Hey, how come it's suddenly OK to call Lemuria "Charlie?" Did I miss something? Sometime back, I or someone else referred to Charlie as "Charlie" and were told, quite sharply, that we were not to address that person by that name, as he had adopted the email name "Lemuria" and we had to use that.
Lisa, whose daughter was categorized as "melancholic."
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
) Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
) -------------------------------------------------------------------
) Is your computer freezing up or slowing down?
) Repair corrupt files and harmful errors - protect your PC
) Take a 2-minute PC health check-up at no charge!
) http://click.topica.com/caaeKAPb1dkiGbRwSCGa/PC Powerscan
) -------------------------------------------------------------------
)
)
) Diana Winters wrote:
) )
) ) So what exactly was the teacher misunderstanding, Lemuria? Please tell
) ) us
) ) what the great subtlety is here that my son's teacher "misapplied." It's
) ) nothing but an idiotic and truly offensive stereotype.
) )
) ) Diana
) )
) Sounds like a loser's game to me.
) I won't bite.
) c
)
)
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New
) threads are always welcome.
)
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 09:37:25 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: RE: The phlegmatic
Lemuria:
)Sounds like a loser's game to me.
)I won't bite.
It's a loser's game because I made my point. Here's the passage again:
"Lastly, we must picture that rather rare child - the phlegmatic. He is fat
and dumpy, with a round and rather expressionless face, and he has 'no
speculation in his eye'. He is quite content to be left alone, and will even
go on sitting in his seat when the whole class has gone out to recess or to
another lesson, because 'nobody told me to go'. He seems to take very little
interest in any of his lessons and very rarely contributes. He is fond of
his food, likes to eat candy and sleeps heavily. The Fat Boy in 'The
Pickwick Papers' ('Drat that boy, he's asleep again') is a good example of a
phlegmatic. To some extent he is asleep even when he is awake and you have
to rattle on his desk when you want his special attention for something."
(New York: Myrin Institute of New York; 1958; p. 165)
An "expressionless" face. A completely out-of-it person with nothing going
on inside.
Am I incorrect this is merely an offensive stereotype, judging on body type
that a child is worth less than another, more conventionally attractive
child? The fat child makes no contribution? I think you have children -
would you have wanted a child of yours labeled this way?
Our teachers used the notion that you motivate the phlegmatic by talking
about food quite literally, and told me explicitly to do this. If you want
to distract them, you can say, "Gee, it's nearly lunch time" or, "Soon we
will have our oatmeal." Then you wonder why this child talks about food, or
lights up at the prospect of a meal, and the prophecy fufills itself.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 09:40:23 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: RE: The phlegmatic
)Hey, how come it's suddenly OK to call Lemuria "Charlie?" Did I miss
)something? Sometime back, I or someone else referred to Charlie as
)"Charlie" and were told, quite sharply, that we were not to address that
)person by that name, as he had adopted the email name "Lemuria" and we had
)to use that.
Who knows. Everyone can see it is him because his email address is his NAME
for chrissake, but he threw a little tantrum about it last fall when someone
who didn't even know he was trying to be "anonymous" inadvertently used his
name.
Diana
P.S. Good to see you, Lisa!
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 15:24:06 +0000
From: Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
Subject: More on the Four Temperments or Humours
Some interesting info on the Four Temperments or Humours:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_humours
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanguine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Temperaments
Regards,
Keith
Tyranny begets tyranny.
- K Mclean
------
Our knowledge has made us cynical,
our cleverness hard and unkind.
We think too much and feel too little:
More than machinery we need humanity;
More than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness.
Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost.
- Charlie Chaplin ("The Great Dictator" [1940])
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 15:44:38 +0000
From: lisa.ercolano comcast.net
Subject: Re: More on the Four Temperments or Humours
Notice that most of these entries note that these were used in the middle ages.
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
) Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
) -------------------------------------------------------------------
) Is your computer freezing up or slowing down?
) Repair corrupt files and harmful errors - protect your PC
) Take a 2-minute PC health check-up at no charge!
) http://click.topica.com/caaeKAPb1dkiGbRwSCGa/PC Powerscan
) -------------------------------------------------------------------
)
) Some interesting info on the Four Temperments or Humours:
)
) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_humours
)
) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanguine
)
) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Temperaments
)
)
) Regards,
)
) Keith
)
)
) Tyranny begets tyranny.
)
) - K Mclean
) ------
)
) Our knowledge has made us cynical,
) our cleverness hard and unkind.
) We think too much and feel too little:
) More than machinery we need humanity;
) More than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness.
)
) Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost.
)
) - Charlie Chaplin ("The Great Dictator" [1940])
)
)
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New
) threads are always welcome.
)
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 14:25:05 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Peter et al - the infamous Bet lives!
Blast from the Past:
http://www.defendingsteiner.com/wc/archives/2006/05/the_bet_chapter.html
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 15:19:13 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Peter et al - the infamous Bet lives!
What fascinates me about these folks is their inability to grasp or discuss
the issues. So much time is spent on perception of details as opposed to
actually discussing the topic. It's like sitting beside someone at a hockey
game and trying to discuss the game but the discussion never really gets off
the ground (ice):
A: Quite an exciting game, eh?
B: Do you think the coach has gel in his hair?
A: I'm not sure but I'm glad our goalie is healthy again
B: The goalie's jersey seems a slightly different shade of blue compared
with the other players
A: Never noticed. OH! Did you see that body check?! Must have hurt!
B: The zamboni is a useful machine although I wonder why they don't just
call it an "ice cleaner?"
A: Right. So, you come to many hockey games?
B: Football is an interesting game . . . .
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 17:53:12 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: More on the Four Temperments or Humours
I haven't had a chance to look at Keith's links, but the schema of four
humors that Steiner adopted goes back at least to Galen, a mere eighteen
centuries before Steiner, which is why I tweaked Charlie, the Elusive Master
of Disguises, about the matter in the first place.
Now on to an equally exciting topic that stretches back not eighteen
centuries, but a good eight months...
Peter S.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 18:08:29 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Peter et al - the infamous Bet lives!
Now that was interesting. It sounds like Linda thinks I have insulted her
intelligence, and Deborah's, by correcting their various mistakes. I'm sorry
to say there's more correcting to do. Linda says, for starters, that she had
to work real hard to find this post from me:
http://lists.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1719463953&sort=d&start=28932
In fact she didn't need to work at all to find that post. Linda was of
course an active member of the list (and I was not) when that post appeared,
on September 22, 2005, and she posted several messages herself that very
same day, in fact just three messages prior to the above post is a post from
Linda. This is all quite easily accessible in the list archives, even if for
some reason Linda cannot manage to find it in her inbox.
Linda was moreover reminded of this initial post several times in the course
of the subsequent months, when she occasionally dropped in here, complaining
that no reply had been submitted; for one example, which contains a
perfectly functional link to the original post, see here:
http://lists.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1719631751&sort=d&start=30182
After I rejoined the list, and Linda re-appeared ever so briefly once again,
I took the opportunity to remind her one more time, and ask what her
response might be (alas, there was none); that reminder can be found here:
http://lists.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1720030890&sort=d&start=30911
As all readers can see, I do not say anything at all there about Linda
"ducking the bet". I have no idea whether the conditions of the bet have
been met by anybody, since I was not a party to the bet and don't know what
its conditions were. The bet is of no interest to me, and I haven't said
anything about it all along.
What is of interest to me is why Linda and Deborah thought I had cited the
wrong lecture series by Rudolf Steiner. Now that they have been informed of
their mistake several times over, I am curious to know which lecture series
they thought I *had* cited, and why they thought this in the first place.
A further very interesting point is that Linda now claims that the original
post from me was "half e-jibberish". This is untrue. The post, as everybody
can see by simply clicking on the link and viewing it in its cozy little
topica archive, is perfectly legible, and even formatted properly (something
I don't know how to do, but Dan is the one who forwarded it here). In
addition, at one point Linda writes that either she or Deborah (the sentence
is unclear) "never heard another word from either of them" after some sort
of correspondence. By "them" she appears to mean me and Dan. I did not have
any correspondence with Linda, Deborah, or anybody else about this post; all
I did was send it to Dan in reply to a post he sent me.
But for those able to work their through Linda's latest remarkably obtuse
narrative, in her conclusion she does ask a very good question:
"Why do you need to submit a twenty
page long, 7000 word explanation to validate this One
Single Paragraph of your article?"
As it happens, my post totals fewer than 2800 words (Linda appears to be
genuinely confused on this point; she says that my post is "longer than
every one of Steiner’s Christiana lectures, save the last one"; I think she
might want to re-check her word processing software...), and it does not
validate anything, it simply responds to the several questions Deborah
posed. But there is indeed a good point here: Why does it take a relatively
long reply to explain a rather straightforward affair to two people who
somehow concluded that I had cited the wrong lecture cycle?
The reason is that Deborah's and Linda's queries were based on a series of
misconceptions about Rudolf Steiner's published works, about citation
practices, about what lying means, about basic aspects of the German
language, and a variety of other matters (indeed I had to point out that
there was not one quote at issue, but five separate quotes, which had
somehow escaped Linda's and Deborah's notice), and part of the reason I
engage in public discussion on these issues in the first place is to educate
other people about how to make sense of historical topics, so that
non-historians can weigh in on issues like this on a more level footing with
historians. Thus while it may well have kept things shorter to simply give
the page references for each of the quotes without explaining the context
for the dispute in the first place, this procedure would be of little
benefit to any readers other than Linda and Deborah -- and in retrospect
would have been of little benefit to the two of them, either, since they
still seem not have grasped which lecture cycle I cited to begin with.
If there is anything at all about this episode that Linda or Deborah or
anyone else thinks I have somehow failed to clarify adequately, I welcome
their reply in any forum of their choosing. And any sort of explanation from
Linda or from Deborah about what they think of the racial doctrines laid out
in Steiner's "folk souls" book would be most welcome as well; that, after
all, is precisely what I encouraged in the original post that Linda thinks
she never received. I also very much welcome substantive discussion of any
of the themes raised in that earlier exchange from other admirers of
anthroposophy, so that we can finally, as Walden says, get the game off the
ground: here is a prime chance, for any and all defenders of Steiner, to
deal a defeat, in Linda's phrase, to yours truly on a topic directly related
to anthroposophical racism. I very much look forward to a reply.
Sanguine greetings to all,
Peter Staudenmaier
)
)Blast from the Past:
)http://www.defendingsteiner.com/wc/archives/2006/05/the_bet_chapter.html
)
)-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 01:10:44 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: Bondarev = Peter S
Steven Hale wrote on AT:
"Really Dottie, have you looked at the Bondarev essays, or are you
working off of emotion and old rhetorical impulses? People have a
right to their opinions just as they have a right to speak their own
name. Don't confuse Bondarev with Staudenmaier; it would be too easy."
I've been having trouble keeping people straight lately - maybe it's
spreading... LOL!
Pete
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 2123
-- Topica Digest --
Walden = Ecenteer
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: Walden = Ecenteer
By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
Re: Peter et al - the infamous Bet lives!
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 15:17:05 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: Walden = Ecenteer
Keith Wrote:
) Terence
)
) PS: BTW, who is Walden?
)
"Walden is currently channelling a powerful magician known by the name
of Ecenteer. Walden is therefore a loyal, if unconscious, vassal for
the personality of this Master from another dimension. No one would
ever know this, because Ecenteer keeps his presence so well hidden.
Pretty good, huh?"
Hey guys on AT, if you're assigning us all new identities, I want one
too... and witness protection.
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 16:08:22 +0000
From: Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
Subject: RE: Walden = Ecenteer
Pete Karaiskos wrote:
)
) Keith Wrote:
)
)
) ) Terence
) )
) ) PS: BTW, who is Walden?
) )
)
)
) "Walden is currently channelling a powerful magician known by the name
) of Ecenteer. Walden is therefore a loyal, if unconscious, vassal for
) the personality of this Master from another dimension. No one would
) ever know this, because Ecenteer keeps his presence so well hidden.
) Pretty good, huh?"
)
) Hey guys on AT, if you're assigning us all new identities, I want one
) too... and witness protection.
But...but no-one is safe from Ecenteer, his tentacles stretch into the
furthest reaches... :0
;)))
Regards,
Keith
Tyranny begets tyranny.
- K Mclean
------
Our knowledge has made us cynical,
our cleverness hard and unkind.
We think too much and feel too little:
More than machinery we need humanity;
More than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness.
Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost.
- Charlie Chaplin ("The Great Dictator" [1940])
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 09:56:10 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Peter et al - the infamous Bet lives!
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)Now that was interesting. It sounds like Linda thinks I have insulted her
)intelligence, and Deborah's, by correcting their various mistakes. I'm
sorry
)to say there's more correcting to do. (snip)
I hope Linda can return and we can clear up her confusion. Even if people
agree to disagree, it seems she is actually more confused now and needs
clarity on some issues. I just checked at the AT list where she wrote:
"The conditions of the bet were quite clear, and I repeated them at least
once to Dan. And the blog was largely abandoned because there's nothing
worth talking about. PLANS LOST the case, and the critics left on that
ridiculous list are simply running on fumes. Like nearly everyone else on
the planet, we've grown bored with the few of you left there, trading the
same tired complaints a thousand times."
The "bet" only adds more confusion so perhaps she will understand things if
she actually sticks to the issues surrounding the "bet." Peter Staudenmaier
clearly dealt with those issues - including another post yesterday. As for
the latest confusion, the "blog" Linda speaks of is:
http://www.defendingsteiner.com/wc/archives/2006/05/the_bet_chapter.html and
far be for me to say if there is nothing worth talking about. Whatever. But
she makes the mistake of mixing "critics" with PLANS and that group's
lawsuit (assuming this is "the case"). She seems to be confusing "the bet"
regarding an article by Peter Staudenmaier (nothing to do with PLANS) and
the PLANS lawsuit. I suspect the vast majority of people on this list do not
belong to PLANS. While some folks would probably like to think that
"everybody on the planet" reads this list, I doubt this is the case. But
then she states that a there are only a few members left at the list (talk
about extremes - nearly the population of the planet to a few people!) when
a simple search tells us that there are currently 172 members of this list.
As for the "same tired complaints a thousand times," some recent topics
include interesting discussions about temperaments from various viewpoints
as well as the issue of racist beliefs in Anthroposophy and how those
beliefs might find their way into Waldorf schools. One member of the
discussion was trained and worked as a Waldorf teacher and was involved in
racial discrimination litigation at a Waldorf school.
And Linda finds this subject boring. Sad.
-Walden
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 2124
-- Topica Digest --
Frog in the Water
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: Frog in the Water
By barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 03:10:34 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: Frog in the Water
When Serena wrote this today on AT, I thought she had switched sides and
had become a critic of Waldorf:
"People with common interests/goals who are willing to use
any and all means to gain and keep power and who do this
away from the scrutinizing eyes of the public...it's not terribly
complicated or even surprising that they exist. Of course they
know how to make ruthless use of willing confederates as well
as loyal people of good will who think they are doing their duty,
helping, etc.
...
But there's not much outrage -- yet -- due to frog in cold water
slowly heating