return to WCA Archive Index
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Truth or not?
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Truth or not?
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: Truth or not?
By pkcompany netzero.net
Re: Unredeemed thinking vs Christlike wisdom [Part 3]
By jmnguyen wanadoo.fr
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 11:39:36 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Truth or not?
Dottie wrote:
)With Peter S. he has been told many times and showed
)many times that he had a wrong connection to a book
)and just like the way he is stubbornly sticking to the
)idea that The Philosophy of Freedom has nothing to do
)with Anthroposphy even though time and time again Jean
)Marc, Charlie and others have brought forth work that
)disagrees clearly with his understanding, he sticks
)his head in the sand.
Don't know what others make of this, but I think Jean-Marc and Charlie keep
bringing forth work that agrees with my understanding and disagrees with
their own. My position is that PoF is a philosophical work, and not an
anthroposophical or even generally esoteric one, and that after 1900 Steiner
changed his mind about this and presented PoF as not just an esoteric work
but an anthroposophical one. Charlie's posts consistently confirm my
position regarding the philosophical and non-esoteric nature of PoF, and
Jean-Marc's posts consistently confirm my position regarding Steiner's
post-1900 re-interpretation of the book. Charlie has said virtually nothing
about Steiner's post-1900 perspective, and Jean-Marc has said virtually
nothing about PoF itself.
)The boys have shown him time and time again about the
)root race understanding in line with epochs and how
)that is related to Rudolf Steiners understandings.
Since Sune hasn't said anything on the topic in five years, I'm guessing
Dottie has Joel et al in mind here. Joel's understanding of the root race
doctrine and the racial-ethnic epochs isn't significantly different from
mine, as the exchange from this summer showed. What we disagree about is not
whether Steiner propagated these teachings, but whether some of these
teachings are racist.
)Detlef Hardcorp checkmated him clearly but just like
)Sune showing him where he had gone wrong on that book
)he was trying to use to show a thing his own way, he
)stubbornly sticks to the idea that it existed.
I do think that PoF exists, and that Steiner's racial and ethnic doctrines
exist as well. It's also true that Detlef Hardorp explicitly defends
Steiner's racial teachings, including the ones about whites as the
spiritually creative race of the future and so forth. I agree that Steiner
said these things. Where Detlef and I disagree is whether these things are
racist.
Greetings to all,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Get FREE Web site and company branded e-mail from Microsoft Office Live
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 23:33:51 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Truth or not?
Hi Peter,
I think Dottie is still stuck on the reference to the lecture that Sune
has been accusing you of forging... i.e. the "wrong connection to a
book" and that you are stubborn for not admitting that you invented a
lecture and then to cover your tracks forged the lecture yourself.
Personally, I can't see why you don't just admit to doing all of this
(sarcasm of course). I guess in the spirit world, repetition of a good
lie is as good as truth. Now, you are being equally stubborn by not
admitting, despite no actual evidence, that you are wrong about PoF and
that underlying Anthroposophy is "thinking" and Steiner talks about
thinking in PoF - therefore he was talking about Anthroposophy. The
boys have shown this to be true - as well as that Steiner couldn't have
been a racist because root-races don't count.
I think Dottie directed a post to me a ways back... beings as I don't
have a lot to do right now, I'll have a look at it.
Thanks for patiently wading through all this stuff Peter.
Pete
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
)
)
)
) Dottie wrote:
)
)
) )With Peter S. he has been told many times and showed
) )many times that he had a wrong connection to a book
) )and just like the way he is stubbornly sticking to the
) )idea that The Philosophy of Freedom has nothing to do
) )with Anthroposphy even though time and time again Jean
) )Marc, Charlie and others have brought forth work that
) )disagrees clearly with his understanding, he sticks
) )his head in the sand.
)
)
) Don't know what others make of this, but I think Jean-Marc and Charlie
) keep
) bringing forth work that agrees with my understanding and disagrees with
)
) their own. My position is that PoF is a philosophical work, and not an
) anthroposophical or even generally esoteric one, and that after 1900
) Steiner
) changed his mind about this and presented PoF as not just an esoteric
) work
) but an anthroposophical one. Charlie's posts consistently confirm my
) position regarding the philosophical and non-esoteric nature of PoF, and
)
) Jean-Marc's posts consistently confirm my position regarding Steiner's
) post-1900 re-interpretation of the book. Charlie has said virtually
) nothing
) about Steiner's post-1900 perspective, and Jean-Marc has said virtually
) nothing about PoF itself.
)
)
) )The boys have shown him time and time again about the
) )root race understanding in line with epochs and how
) )that is related to Rudolf Steiners understandings.
)
)
) Since Sune hasn't said anything on the topic in five years, I'm guessing
)
) Dottie has Joel et al in mind here. Joel's understanding of the root
) race
) doctrine and the racial-ethnic epochs isn't significantly different from
)
) mine, as the exchange from this summer showed. What we disagree about is
) not
) whether Steiner propagated these teachings, but whether some of these
) teachings are racist.
)
)
) )Detlef Hardcorp checkmated him clearly but just like
) )Sune showing him where he had gone wrong on that book
) )he was trying to use to show a thing his own way, he
) )stubbornly sticks to the idea that it existed.
)
)
) I do think that PoF exists, and that Steiner's racial and ethnic
) doctrines
) exist as well. It's also true that Detlef Hardorp explicitly defends
) Steiner's racial teachings, including the ones about whites as the
) spiritually creative race of the future and so forth. I agree that
) Steiner
) said these things. Where Detlef and I disagree is whether these things
) are
) racist.
)
)
) Greetings to all,
)
)
) Peter S.
)
) _________________________________________________________________
) Get FREE Web site and company branded e-mail from Microsoft Office Live
) http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/
)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 01:02:38 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Truth or not?
dottie zold wrote:
)
) Pete:
) ) Not obvious to me.
)
) Well, maybe if you stepped back from the mirror you
) might be able to see if there was anyone else that met
) that discription or if it was the one staring back at
) you.
Ooo... what if my double was staring at me through the mirror - that
could get really confusing.
) Pete:
) ) You have lost me. What underaged person? You have
) ) been stalking
) ) underaged persons who participate on this list?
)
) See, that's what I love about you Pete, you always
) show your true colors.
Apparently, my true colors are shown when I ask you a simple question.
Who are you talking about? Alex? If so, you say you contacted "him" -
Alex is not a "him".
) Thank you thank you thank you:)
You're welcome.
) You just never seem to know how to keep your foot out
) of your mouth: lucky for those that you slime with
) slanderous gossip.
I'm still lost. How have I put my foot in my mouth. I've never
slandered anyone that I know of.
) Pete:
) ) I should hope so. If I thought I came across
) ) sounding the way Sune
) ) does, I'd shoot myself.
)
) I know, being an honorable man of integrity just
) doesn't seem to suit your personality to well it
) seems.
You're right - we're talking about two different people. My integrity
is without question.
) Pete:
) My accusations are true,
) ) Dottie, every single
) ) one of them. Sune's simply are not.
)
) Yeah, Pete, from your writings here and your hiding on
) the other list I don't really know if you can separate
) what is true from what is false in your experiences
) anymore. They seem to be so clouded by anger.
Nope. Perfectly clear - and each one documented. I don't have the
fuzzies - unlike some people. I don't know what other list you seem to
think I am hiding on. You didn't address the dishonesty of Sune's
accusations. Do you contend that his accusations are honest?
) I'm starting to wonder when the real Pete will stand
) up and leave this other one behind.
It has already happened. The Waldorf Dazed Pete is no longer with us.
Others here have experienced the same feeling of freedom and finding
themselves on the other side of Waldorf. If you think the real Pete is
waiting to find Anthroposophy, I'll ask you nicely to please give up on
that idea. I've climbed out of that hole forever.
) Everyone can see
) through their dealings with you and with Sune, who the
) real gentleman is. Sune has always been well regarded
) by those he has debated even if they disagreed.
Somehow I doubt this. Nobody has had "dealings" with me that have not
been honest and straightforward. Sune, BTW, has publicly threatened me
with physical violence. You may want to ask him about that one. I
don't know where you get your gentlemen, but you should try a different
source.
) Pete:
) ) Well, its not surprising that you believe this.
) ) Maybe integrity has a
) ) meaning I'm not familiar with.
)
) I think you would be bored with integrity Pete. It's
) just not your style.
It's exactly my style Dottie. That's why I can't do Waldorf - I can't
lie through my teeth to people. That's apparently a prerequisite for
Waldorf people, lying to others. Lying is not my style.
) Dottie:
) ) ) One need not look any
) ) ) further than many of your own posts for low
) ) standards on the internet in
) ) )
) ) ) a discussion.
Feel free to point them out.
) Pete:
) ) That would also depend on who you ask, I suppose.
)
) Ah, not really. Your flippant, raging, bullying posts
) are pretty clear to see even with those that agree
) with you on the issues. It's pretty much seen by
) everyone.
I'm not the one who got booted for namecalling, dear.
) Dottie:
) ) ) Good. So where is he dishonest Pete.
)
) Pete:
) ) For one thing, his label of PLANS as a "hate group".
) ) For another, his
) ) claims of "forgery" against Peter Staudenmaier.
)
) Ahhh, so here we go. He is lying if he says that PLANS
) is a hate group?
Yes - he is. AWSNA says it too. That's just plain dishonest. PLANS
has never done anything CLOSE to an activity that would be considered a
hate-motivated activity. It's just a lie - and it comes from the top of
Waldorf.
) Or can that be his opinion through
) watching the fear mongering that has gone on at PLANS
) headquarters on this list?
Nope. It can't be just his opinion, because he ascribes that opinion to
Americans for Waldorf Education - and indeed the claim is also on their
website. So clearly it is not just Sune's opinion - it is a libelous
statement from Sune, to AWE, to AWSNA - and frankly, it seems to
represent more "hate-group" activity than PLANS has ever been accused
of. Falsely labeling a group as a "hate group" and comparing them to
"Jew Watch" is pretty hateful stuff. And it's coming from your side of
the fence.
) I mean it gets to be like
) Jew Watch with Dan posting the things he does about
) anthros.
There you go! Join in. What in the world do you believe Dan or PLANS
has ever said about the Anthros that is comparable to Jew Watch - or any
hate group? Frankly, I'm surprised at Dan's patience in allowing you
back in just a week.
) He's not concerned whether or not a thing is
) true, as long as its anti waldorf or anthroposophy he
) puts it up.
Can you support that statement?
) He's connected a young man who killed
) someone who was a jewish boy, if my memory serves me,
) to the Nazis because his parents were anthroposophists
) or waldorf teachers.
So the parents weren't Waldorf teachers or Anthroposophists?
) PLANS seems committed through Dan
) to connect Steiner's teachings to a racist cosmology
) that Walden brings forth and says the words 'spiritual
) genocide'.
They can't make a case where there isn't one. Problem is - that's where
all the arrows are pointing. The only unbelieveable part is that you
and others don't see it.
) One can see where one might hold that
) opinion due to the outragious claims against Waldorf
) that include being called a cult to having people on
) this list connect it to these former hippies who were
) wanted for molesting children.
Sometimes reading your posts is like having someone else control the
remote. What former hippies?
) I mean it is a disgrace
) to have allowed this type of demon/hate bating to
) occur.
Wait... wasn't Steiner the demon guy? What's more of a disgrace -
pretending none of this happened, or pointing out that it did?
) Dan's work is found along side a group that
) speaks about waldorf in line with children stealing.
I don't know who you are talking about.
) With Peter S. he has been told many times and showed
) many times that he had a wrong connection to a book
) and just like the way he is stubbornly sticking to the
) idea that The Philosophy of Freedom has nothing to do
) with Anthroposphy even though time and time again Jean
) Marc, Charlie and others have brought forth work that
) disagrees clearly with his understanding, he sticks
) his head in the sand.
Peter has answered this one for himself. Sune is mistaken about the
"connection" and I have pointed it out to him - but he never gets tired
of telling the tale.
) The boys have shown him time and time again about the
) root race understanding in line with epochs and how
) that is related to Rudolf Steiners understandings.
So, they agree that Steiner was a racist?
) Detlef Hardcorp checkmated him clearly but just like
) Sune showing him where he had gone wrong on that book
) he was trying to use to show a thing his own way, he
) stubbornly sticks to the idea that it existed.
You're right. I think the right thing to do is to jump off the nearest
bridge if someone makes a point in a debate. How dare Peter not shrivel
up and die. I read where Peter explained ad nauseum, to Sune about the
article you are referring to. If there is someone being stubborn about
this subject, it's Sune.
) If that's what you have for a case of Sune lying I
) think your in a wee bit of quick sand there. Ooops
) there you go.
That's one of many - but one of the most serious ones. To be quite
honest, I can't follow what Sune is talking about half the time and
having followed some of his long-winded discussions to their eventual
point, it is pretty clear to me that taking the time to follow them is a
clear waste of time.
) Pete:
) ) Actually, no. People who support Waldorf truthfully
) ) have my
) ) appreciation.
)
) Your full of baloney Pete. You got this jeckly and
) hide personality that just bullys people.
It's my double, I keep telling you.
) THose that
) are sweet to your face and let you keep on talking are
) okay in your book, those that call you on your shit
) are liars.
No, not at all. There are lots of people who call me on my shit.
Baandje is one, Keith is another. I don't recall calling them liars.
One reason is that they haven't lied. But, in any case, we do do
name-calling here - it's against the rules.
) Pete:
) No, he has brought a spotlight on himself, not this
) list.
)
) Nope, again you were not on this list to know so Pete.
) You've only been here for a few years since your
) separation. Sune goes back almost 8 or so years now.
I read this list for a long time before participating. I've been
separated/divorced seven years. Thing is, he has shown the world what
Anthroposophy has to offer... and that's what I keep telling people -
look at Anthroposophists and tell me if they seem happy to you. They
don't seem very happy to me.
) He was kicked off by Dan on a false charge way back
) when.
I know what you mean. I was kicked off of AT on false charges.
) He was fine to be on this list and had been so.
Yeah, it would be great if he were back here - with every third word a
reference to his own research. Those were the good ole days.
) From there he created a really good informative
) website that looks to highlight the inconsistancies of
) PLANS.
Yeah, his website is the greatest. Just the place for people to get
straight information. His offshoot - AWE is also a good one.
) Pete:
) He has shown
) ) the extremes (hopefully) to which Waldorf teachers
) ) will go to convince
) ) people away from the truth.
)
) Not really Pete.
Too bad then - I guess the extremes are yet to be found.
) People can double check all of his
) work to see where it is met by PLANS propaganda.
Amazingly, all his references are TO HIMSELF. It's very easy to check
his work - just ask him and he'll tell you. Makes perfect sense to me.
) If PLANS had stuck to their original state against church
) point of view there would of been regular debates.
But then there wouldn't be as much public discussion would there.
) Once they started talking about Steiner as a
) forerunner to the nazis and believing in karma means
) its okay if your child dies, waldorf as a cult due to
) school fundraising and so forth, battle lines were
) drawn. And rightly so.
Sometimes, I think there's a game of "telephone" going on between your
computer screen and your brain. Who has said Steiner is a forerunner to
the Nazis? Who has said believing in karma means it's ok of your child
dies? Who has said Waldorf is a cult due to fundraising? If this is
what you get when you read the posts here, then it's no wonder you are
so filled with hate. Nobody has said these things Dottie. I know what
you are referring to and what was actually said in each case was NOTHING
like what you have presented here. Feel free to produce references to
what you believe you read.
)
) His site is a really good clean site that shows
) timelines of things that happened here.
Incredible. If that's what you truly believe, there will never be any
common ground. Sune is an extremist who has twisted what was actually
said and pointed out how his twisted version is not true. Look at his
"myths" page, for example. It is a page full of strawman arguments.
) I know good
) and clean don't appeal to you and that you find it
) boring, but that has always been the way Sune has
) brought his self. Even the girls here were complaining
) all the time how boring he was with his facts.
Not a fact in there anywhere - Dottie. And judging by what you have
said above, you don't seem to know the facts either. I deal with Sune
every single day - and his appetite for distorting the truth is
insatiable. Don't even get me started. Facts are just some things that
get in the way of the story he is trying to present.
)
) Pete:
) His page of "Myths" or
) ) his Q&A page for
) ) example, should send any parent screaming away from
) ) Waldorf. He doesn't
) ) realize how much he is hurting the Waldorf movement.
)
) Good, thanks for that. I shall check to see what you
) are commenting on.
Good - take your time.
) Pete:
) ) And AWSNA is
) ) supporting this nonsense. That's where the problems
) ) with Waldorf start
) ) - AWSNA. They are too closed-minded to see that
) ) lying isn't work FOR
) ) Waldorf - it is exactly what keeps critics going.
)
) Oh, okay, so their all lying but you guys right? OKay
) yeah we get the story.
Gee... is it so hard to believe. It's not like they are some hugely
diverse organization. They are nothing more than hard-nosed Anthropops
- they are pretty much all cut from the same cloth. They are very
motivated (financially and spiritually) to ensure that a particular view
of history is more popular. They are very motivated (financially and
spiritually) to ensure that evidence about the problems in Waldorf is
covered up. They are very motivated (financially and spiritually) to
stick to their guns - lest their guru be shown for a fraud, their
schools shown to be cultish, their spiritual philosophy shown to be
racist. There is NO such motivation on this side of the fence to make
stuff up - or to cover stuff up.
) Pete:
) ) If Waldorf would stop
) ) lying about everything, they wouldn't have the
) ) problems they have.
)
) Waldorf is doing really fine Pete.
No, not really. Several reports have come back showing Waldorf schools
to be racist, doing poorly in science, Waldorf students to be having
problems getting into college. There is a huge turn-over rate (25% per
year at Highland Hall) and lots of parents are becoming very vocal about
Waldorf's problems - not just here but all over the internet. They are
not doing fine.
) It is growing and
) growing and people are looking for ways for more
) schools and more highschools to be created.
Actually, the growth isn't that great. There aren't that many more
schools than there were 15 years ago.
) Whereas
) this list seems not to be growing. In fact it still
) has the same 4 or 5 people, or maybe that is 3 or 4
) people criticizing.
This list doesn't recruit anyone.
) So if we have to look at the
) static numbers of this list with that which is
) happening out there in the real world I think we can
) have a pretty good idea that Waldorf is doing well.
The comparison is ridiculous.
) And it can only get better. There is a want for
) schools like Waldorf. It is also recognized that
) Waldorf has problems as any school will.
No, people want Waldorf without the Anthroposophy. They don't want
Waldorf. They want what Waldorf SAYS it is, not what it really is. Big
difference. That's why Waldorf hides the Anthroposophy - they know
people don't want it. And that's why they have problems - they are
trying to sugar-coat a very nasty tasting pill - and people are spitting
it out when they get a taste of the truth.
) Pete:
) ) I don't think I ever accused anyone of child
) ) stealing. I don't think
) ) all Anthroposophists are racist either. There are
) ) many who have
) ) discarded Steiner's racist ideas.
)
) Boy oh boy Pete. Do you not recall the story that you
) shared here when you were just beginning or a little
) afterwords that said a Waldorf teacher was trying to
) take your kid from you? Do you remember that?
No - you're confused (as I thought). The teacher very inappropriately
told my child that she wanted to adopt her. This was during a difficult
divorce. It was not about "child stealing" - it was about making
inappropriate suggestions to a child. You are running around claiming
that I said a teacher tried to steal my child from me? Amazing...
) And you
) haven't related that because Waldorf is teaching a
) racist agenda and that Steiner is a racist according
) to your mind that we are all in that boat who follow
) him? You must be kidding.
I think you're the one who must be kidding - except I sense you are
serious. Waldorf DID teach a racist agenda to my child. And Steiner's
teachings ARE a racist. You are free to follow him or not - to
acknowledge his racism or not - it's your choice.
) Pete:
) ) (giggle)... Yes, Anthroposophists should strive to
) ) be like Sune.
)
) I think many do. I know I do.
Good - I think you've got his communication skills down. I'm sure many
are just like him. That's how I know I would never want to be an
Anthroposophist.
) He has always held
) himself above the nasty name calling that goes on here
) at PLANS headquarters. Always. He is a great model of
) integrity and how to maintane equalibrium when dealing
) with bullies like you.
)
) Pete:
) ) We should erect a statue or something...
)
) You wouldn't be having people say these things about
) you now would you Pete?
People say nice things about me all the time. I don't expect to get any
recognition from Highland Hall, but it has become a much better school
through my sacrifice. The honest people there will admit it - the
dishonest ones, the "undercurrent" as I like to call them, will continue
to gossip and say horrible things about me. Again, I suggest it depends
on who you ask. I get people coming up to me all the time telling me
they admire my courage for standing up to the undercurrent at Highland
Hall. I'm actually well-respected by everyone except the few who have
their heads stuck up their asses.
) Yeah, you picked the wrong guy
) to make a statement about lack of integrity.
Naw... I know him for what he is. But it's been a very interesting post
by you. I guess you guys have to stick together.
) But hey,
) that came from Dan putting up a stupid accusation from
) people he hasn't even interacted with and doesnt' even
) know if what they are saying is true or even who they
) are. More unsubstantiated accusations that are used
) here for nothing other than to create a lie about
) waldorf.
I haven't a clue what you're talking about here Sune... Um... I mean
Dottie...
Happy New Year to you...
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 05:52:49 +0100
From: "Jean-Marc Nguyen" (jmnguyen wanadoo.fr)
Subject: Re: Unredeemed thinking vs Christlike wisdom [Part 3]
Dan Dugan wrote:
) Jean-Marc Nguyen quoted Steiner:
)
))And this is why the fate of the *Philosophy of Freedom* was that
))it was too intellectual to the mystics: too many thoughts, from
))their perspective. The others on the other hand, who were the
))contemporary rationalists and scientists and also philosophers,
))couln't do anything with it either, because it led to the domain of
))clairvoyance [das Gebiet des Schauens] that they did not want
))to enter (...)
)
) Sorry, Jean-Marc, but that sounds to me like a really lame excuse
) that his devotees would believe, but other philosophers would simply
) laugh at. Of course he wouldn't have cared, having withdrawn from the
) real world.
)
) -Dan Dugan
Well Dan, I guess the *living dead* are inherently doomed to perceive
the truly living spirit - as a mere unholy ghost haunting the graveyard
they
blasphemously refer to as the real world...
But since you seem to be concerned for people who are out of touch
with reality, I'm sure that you and other members of this Waldorf-Critics
list will be especially delighted by the following...
Rudolf Steiner [GA 172 - Dornach, 27 November 1916]:
(At one point of his lecture, Steiner is talking about exorcism and demons,
but I'll skip that part - it would sound too spooky to some of you guys :-)
"That which the ancient Christian rituals pursued symbolically must seize
hold of the entire world; that which was accomplished on the altar must
seize hold of the entire world. Mankind must learn to handle nature the
way the Gods themselves handled nature: not to build machines without
interest, but to carry out all deeds as a service, to bring sacramentalism
into everything.
One will be able to get started in various fields. Nowadays, people
can begin developing sacramentalism in two fields above all. The first
field is that of teaching and education. When we regard each person
born in the world as someone coming with his power of Christ [seine
Kraft des Christus] and we therefore hold in proper respect the being
growing up, and consequently arrange the entire education and
particularly teaching, i.e. realize sacramentalism in teaching - more
precisely, when we realize a sacramental, when we not only consider
education and teaching as a service - but perform them as a service,
then we are beginning to spiritualize what the religions call: baptism.
And when we attempt to bring to our consciousness that which we
call our knowledge, when our soul is filled with ideas about the spiritual
world and we are fully aware that the spiritual is penetrating us, that we
are merging with the spiritual - when we consider that as a communion,
when we are able to realize true knowledge --- *thinking is the true
communion of mankind*, (...), when we are able to realize that, then
that which was the symbolic sacrament on the altar becomes a common
sacramental experience of knowledge [zu einem allgemeinen
sakramentalen Erleben der Erkenntnis]. The Christianization of man
must go in that direction; you will then become aware that everywhere
in life, and for everything Christ-related, reality indeed penetrates Maya
[illusion] - and that to view reality as modern science does with its
worldview - is unchristian, eminently unchristian."
Now, I'm sincerely hoping that our atheistic expert in anthroposophical
spiritual science - Peter Staudenmaier, who else? - will not fall off from
the precarious pile of philosophical treatises he is sitting on --- but I
simply must add, for the sake of accuracy: Rudolf Steiner put this
absolutely essential and central anthroposophical truth into words long
before the year 1916, actually long before 1900...
"The perception of the idea in reality [Merriam-Webster: the totality of
real things and events] is the true communion of man.
[Das Gewahrwerden der Idee in der Wirklichkeit ist die wahre
Kommunion des Menschen.]
Rudolf Steiner wrote that in 1887...in his Introduction(s) to the scientific
papers of Goethe. [GA 1]
Er...that's seven years before the publication of his *Philosophy of
Freedom*. 1887 + 7 = 1894 :-)
Jean-Marc
PS [postscriptum]: You're welcome, Deborah! ;-)
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 2409
-- Topica Digest --
Re: The Philosophy of Freedom and Archangel Michael
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Waldorf succeeding across the board
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 10:14:35 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: The Philosophy of Freedom and Archangel Michael
Franky, you wrote:
)Thanks for describing a process towards universal truth.
)
)Seeing how much one is influenced by society, and the value of
)thinking by oneself.
)
)I quite agree that being a Steiner critic or a Steiner follower can
)be a very intellectual trip with apparently no end in view. It is
)very important to take a similar journey towards truth. It can be
)done out of life experience: grief brought Joan Didion somewhere to
)some knowledge she can feel at home with.
)
)Life in sorrow or grief brings us to reconsider our concepts, and
)also puts us in front of perceptions, 'life-experience, which
)becomes a starting point for knowledge, for a knowledge we make
)ourselves.
Yes, a traumatic experience often inspires life changes. I became
interested in philosophy after our family was expelled from our
Waldorf school, in which we had a significant investment.
)The interesting thing for me is that the lesson of life is that
)starting points exist for me to get free in my thinking about things.
)
)Now if I do not want to be a slave of my biography, of what life
)brings to me, I can also decide I will take a starting point myself,
)I will create it. I can take a percept, a thought as my starting
)point. And give it all the attention that the prodding of life urges
)me to have when life confronts me.
)
)When life urges me relentlessly to do this or that according to life
)timetable, or to my job timetable, I can also decide to apply the
)same rigour to time table myself to do an act of my own choosing,
)relentlessly, rhythmically.
Acting, rather than reacting. Admirable, if the outcome is viewed as
beautiful or useful; foolish, if one goes "off on a tangent" and
one's work has no impact on society.
)Could it be that if I admire or criticise the intellectual games of
)anthroposophists, I only join in the societatal game of
)intellectualising when I only criticise or admire with the power of
)my intellect and playful reasoning., all too happy to categorise
)what I am thinking about.
I'm certainly guilty of trivial criticism of Anthroposophy. It has so
many absurd beliefs that it's easy to make fun of it rather than
engage it seriously.
)Or do I take in a disgusting or appealing thought and chew it up to
)the end, going through all the motions and the consequences it could
)have if it was true or not, exercising a lot of mental force. Then I
)can also observe that mental force that grinds and cultivates the
)thought, and see where it takes me, what concept I can unite with
)that object of attention. How other concepts come to link with this
)evolving force in my own consciousness. Then I will have to find
)words for these concepts, these truths. They will not be politically
)correct or not words; they will be truths, not assumptions.
)Assumptions grow stales or sterile, truths grow towards universality.
I don't agree that an intense individual study of anything leads to
universal or even particular truths. I think the path to truth is
found better through testing of ideas against the physical world
and/or against the opinions of peers.
This is where 19th-century philosophers like Steiner got lost,
spending too much time in their own heads and not recognizing the
communal and external nature of knowledge.
)Truth do nit mind if a human consciousness found their seeds in
)assumptions found in a dump or in a revered writing,
Agreed. It doesn't matter where a proposition comes from; its
validity is determined by testing it.
)truths are created by an individual who take the time, effort and
)reflection to cultivate/create them. Once we have created a truth,
)regarding something, or our own perception of ourselves, we can also
)perceive the same truth living as truth, not as assumption in some
)one else, etc The road for that truth to become universal?
No, what you're describing is too individual a process to be a
reliable path to knowledge.
)I do not think that the famous mythological battle is between
)different truths and to find which one is universal. I think the
)question is what will prevail Truth or assumptions. Truth are very
)weak by nature and need to be created and strengthen by individual
)consciousnesses. Assumptions are very prevalent by nature, and in
)some cases rule entire societies and groups of societies.
That last is unfortunately true, but I don't see truth as weak. Truth
is what's left when you've tested the ideas and discarded those that
fail. Truthful propositions are the stronger propositions, not frail
at all. And I have to add, any "truth" is subject to revision in the
light of new evidence.
Now to my view the Anthroposophical Society is ruled by a false
assumption: that Rudolf Steiner had supernatural abilities.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 19:14:54 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf succeeding across the board
Franky, you wrote:
)Dear Dan, and all,
)To follow the argument of Dan, just in keeping with the quote of the
)academic report chosen by Dan.
)
)1-'This brief note addressing..Issue .the reality of racism in
)Waldorf education as well as, apparently, in the teachings of Rudolf
)Steiner.'
)
)A brief note: not at all on the same level as the academic study.
)The question of the reality in the School: and only apparently in
)the teaching. It would require much more investigation to bring the
)reality of the existence of racism in Rudolf Steiner work, and it is
)not part of the remit of a note, which is brought as a note, not as
)an element of the report.
Agreed. It wasn't a deep study. It was occasioned by racism having
hit them in the face. Some of the scholars felt it would be dishonest
to not include that in the report. The majority, being strongly
enough in favor of Waldorf to bend the truth, ruled against it. A
compromise was struck, a minority report would be published in an
obscure journal.
)2- 'One of our team members, on the basis of her time at the Urban
)Waldorf School, has written glowingly about the promise of Waldorf
)education for African American children (Dillard, 1996).
)
)It is not said if this writing was part of the final report, or
)written in a separate article where the colleague, while expressing
)an assessment.
No, it's clear from the reference (Dillard, 1996) that a separate
publication is being referred to.
)But the emphasis here is that only that colleague was present for a
)relevant time in the Urban School and that no other member of the
)team did go to that school. So they point out that this assessment
)is based on the only person who was there and is not a team
)assessment.
No, that's not what the article said at all. They were all there.
Please read the article before rendering your opinion!
)2-'If that promise is to be realized, all members of the Waldorf
)community will have to appraise critically whatever racism might be
)inherent in their world view.'
)
)'whatever racism might be inherent' further studies need to be don
)to see if it is or is not inherent., and it was not felt important
)for this report to do them.
They're properly not drawing conclusions beyond their evidence.
)It also points out that instance of racism could be due to the
)individual teacher and has nothing to do with Rudolf Steiner
Of course, but then they go on to illustrate how the observed
attitudes were completely consistent with what Steiner taught.
)4-"In an early version of the large report, we included an account
)of a racially charged discussion brought to the school by visiting
)representatives of the international Waldorf community. In a
)conversation in an office at the school (for which no one from the
)school was present), Steiner's racist speculations about Africans as
)close to the body and new to the rational and spiritual heights
)achieved by whites on the evolutionary ladder were cited as possibly
)relevant to the education of African American children in Milwaukee.
)There, in a school using Steiner's ideas in the best possible way,
)we were treated to a full display of what we would have to worry
)about if we were to invoke Waldorf without reservation as a model
)for American education."'
)
)What was said was not said by members of the school, was not said
)with school members present. It had nothing to do with the present
)report.
It did, too. What representatives of the international Waldorf
movement said certainly had relevance to a school founded on the
movement's principles. That's what the scholars said--watch out, this
stuff will bite you.
)The authors of the report left it at that with some personal
)questions. They did not follow in investigating how the school
)community would react to the way Rudolf Steiner sayings were
)reported. They did not assess at the time or afterwards the
)relevance of the Rudolf Steiner few sentences quoted..
They didn't report precisely what the visiting Waldorf teachers said,
there's no mention of a quotation. They did indeed address the
relevance of it; read the article.
)5- '"[I]t is time to consider the possibility that some naive forms
)of racism are endemic to those who embrace anthroposophy without a
)strong critical sense for the real possibility that Steiner's
)speculations about the racial organization of culture and
)consciousness were wrong."
)
)Possibility used twice here means that is it not an affirmation of
)the racism. These researchers are only asking for some one to be
)commissioned a further or separate report.
So you're going to use the cautious academic language as an excuse to
ignore what they said. That, indeed, is what the Waldorf movement did
and continues to do--ignore it's race problem.
)Dear Dan, could you be reading this report without the sense of how
)academic people write?
I think that applies more to you.
)According to some it seems that they warned that their academic way
)of writing was not being read on it sown merit, but used for polemic
)purposes.
That's what Ray McDermott said after the report had been publicized
by PLANS. He should be ashamed for trying to weasel out of something
so important.
Of course we used it for polemic purposes. It cries out for wider
exposure, if you have a sense of morality.
-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 2410
-- Topica Digest --
RE: www.waldorfcritics.org feedback
By Diana.Winters verizon.net
Re: Waldorf succeeding across the board
By eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk
Re: Unredeemed thinking vs Christlike wisdom [Part 3]
By eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk
the idiom of German Idealism
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Waldorf succeeding across the board
By pkcompany netzero.net
Admin: quirks of list server
By dan dandugan.com
RE: waldorf for homeschool?
By dan dandugan.com
RE: www.waldorfcritics.org feedback
By dan dandugan.com
RE: I think, therefore I am.
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 14:35:18 +0000
From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: www.waldorfcritics.org feedback
Sgreen, if you don't mind my asking, are you a Wesleyan student? (I'm an
alum.)
Diana
sgreen wesleyan.edu wrote:
)To Dan,
)Scroll down for a few responses.
)Thanks.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 13:22:26 -0000
From: "eurythmy" (eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Waldorf succeeding across the board
2007-01-02
Dear Dan, and all,
The whole school report was a rather hot topic and I merely wanted to bring
a sober pedestrian reading of your quotes of it. Thanks for your comments
and clarification. I appreciate the extent of your efforts to further your
convictions.
Franky:))What was said was not said by members of the school, was not said
with school members present. It had nothing to do with the present report.
Dan:)It did, too. What representatives of the international Waldorf movement
said certainly had relevance to a school founded on the movement's
principles. That's what the scholars said--watch out, this stuff will bite
you.
Franky: 'will bite you' a comment, about a future which they assert is not
certain at all. They do not urge for a new report on that topic. Of course
common sense on the ground should prevail anyway.
)From my experience of Waldorf Schools on the continent, they rarely delegate
authority, if ever. My guess: Some people from abroad turned up, with no
authority on the school. Most probably to collect information on the school?
They were never asked by the inspected school to talk to the researchers,
etc, etc. Nothing too official in what they say.
This does not mean that I am trying to water own the issues. I am only
trying to read the parts of the document you most often quote. It is now
clear what they say, how they asses the school, that some of the researchers
wanted to quote outside publication, and out of remit remarks. They call for
further study, and seem to hope to get further funding themselves, as it is
usually the case.
I would be very interested to know if any one else found further study worth
funding?
What happened next at the school? You have been watchful, has anyone else?
Has anything happened at the school which would bring concern?
Kind Regards,
Franky
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Dugan" (dan dandugan.com)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Monday, January 01, 2007 3:14 AM
Subject: Re: Waldorf succeeding across the board
)
) Franky, you wrote:
))Dear Dan, and all,
)
))To follow the argument of Dan, just in keeping with the quote of the
))academic report chosen by Dan.
))
))1-'This brief note addressing..Issue .the reality of racism in Waldorf
))education as well as, apparently, in the teachings of Rudolf Steiner.'
))
))A brief note: not at all on the same level as the academic study. The
))question of the reality in the School: and only apparently in the
))teaching. It would require much more investigation to bring the reality of
))the existence of racism in Rudolf Steiner work, and it is not part of the
))remit of a note, which is brought as a note, not as an element of the
))report.
)
) Agreed. It wasn't a deep study. It was occasioned by racism having hit
) them in the face. Some of the scholars felt it would be dishonest to not
) include that in the report. The majority, being strongly enough in favor
) of Waldorf to bend the truth, ruled against it. A compromise was struck, a
) minority report would be published in an obscure journal.
)
))2- 'One of our team members, on the basis of her time at the Urban Waldorf
))School, has written glowingly about the promise of Waldorf education for
))African American children (Dillard, 1996).
))
))It is not said if this writing was part of the final report, or written in
))a separate article where the colleague, while expressing an assessment.
)
) No, it's clear from the reference (Dillard, 1996) that a separate
) publication is being referred to.
)
))But the emphasis here is that only that colleague was present for a
))relevant time in the Urban School and that no other member of the team did
))go to that school. So they point out that this assessment is based on the
))only person who was there and is not a team assessment.
)
) No, that's not what the article said at all. They were all there. Please
) read the article before rendering your opinion!
)
))2-'If that promise is to be realized, all members of the Waldorf community
))will have to appraise critically whatever racism might be inherent in
))their world view.'
))
))'whatever racism might be inherent' further studies need to be don to see
))if it is or is not inherent., and it was not felt important for this
))report to do them.
)
) They're properly not drawing conclusions beyond their evidence.
)
))It also points out that instance of racism could be due to the individual
))teacher and has nothing to do with Rudolf Steiner
)
) Of course, but then they go on to illustrate how the observed attitudes
) were completely consistent with what Steiner taught.
)
))4-"In an early version of the large report, we included an account of a
))racially charged discussion brought to the school by visiting
))representatives of the international Waldorf community. In a conversation
))in an office at the school (for which no one from the school was present),
))Steiner's racist speculations about Africans as close to the body and new
))to the rational and spiritual heights achieved by whites on the
))evolutionary ladder were cited as possibly relevant to the education of
))African American children in Milwaukee. There, in a school using Steiner's
))ideas in the best possible way, we were treated to a full display of what
))we would have to worry about if we were to invoke Waldorf without
))reservation as a model for American education."'
))
))What was said was not said by members of the school, was not said with
))school members present. It had nothing to do with the present report.
)
) It did, too. What representatives of the international Waldorf movement
) said certainly had relevance to a school founded on the movement's
) principles. That's what the scholars said--watch out, this stuff will bite
) you.
)
))The authors of the report left it at that with some personal questions.
))They did not follow in investigating how the school community would react
))to the way Rudolf Steiner sayings were reported. They did not assess at
))the time or afterwards the relevance of the Rudolf Steiner few sentences
))quoted..
)
) They didn't report precisely what the visiting Waldorf teachers said,
) there's no mention of a quotation. They did indeed address the relevance
) of it; read the article.
)
))5- '"[I]t is time to consider the possibility that some naive forms of
))racism are endemic to those who embrace anthroposophy without a strong
))critical sense for the real possibility that Steiner's speculations about
))the racial organization of culture and consciousness were wrong."
))
))Possibility used twice here means that is it not an affirmation of the
))racism. These researchers are only asking for some one to be commissioned
))a further or separate report.
)
) So you're going to use the cautious academic language as an excuse to
) ignore what they said. That, indeed, is what the Waldorf movement did and
) continues to do--ignore it's race problem.
)
))Dear Dan, could you be reading this report without the sense of how
))academic people write?
)
) I think that applies more to you.
)
))According to some it seems that they warned that their academic way of
))writing was not being read on it sown merit, but used for polemic
))purposes.
)
) That's what Ray McDermott said after the report had been publicized by
) PLANS. He should be ashamed for trying to weasel out of something so
) important.
)
) Of course we used it for polemic purposes. It cries out for wider
) exposure, if you have a sense of morality.
)
) -Dan Dugan
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 14:49:35 -0000
From: "eurythmy" (eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Unredeemed thinking vs Christlike wisdom [Part 3]
2007-01-02
Dear Jean-Marc,
Thanks to bring us back to everyday simple experience with these quotes,
away from the boredom of intellectualism..
I had them in mind but could not find the time to look them up in books.
Bonne année,
Franky
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jean-Marc Nguyen" (jmnguyen wanadoo.fr)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 4:52 AM
Subject: Re: Unredeemed thinking vs Christlike wisdom [Part 3]
)
)
) Dan Dugan wrote:
)
)
)) Jean-Marc Nguyen quoted Steiner:
))
)))And this is why the fate of the *Philosophy of Freedom* was that
)))it was too intellectual to the mystics: too many thoughts, from
)))their perspective. The others on the other hand, who were the
)))contemporary rationalists and scientists and also philosophers,
)))couln't do anything with it either, because it led to the domain of
)))clairvoyance [das Gebiet des Schauens] that they did not want
)))to enter (...)
))
)) Sorry, Jean-Marc, but that sounds to me like a really lame excuse
)) that his devotees would believe, but other philosophers would simply
)) laugh at. Of course he wouldn't have cared, having withdrawn from the
)) real world.
))
)) -Dan Dugan
)
)
) Well Dan, I guess the *living dead* are inherently doomed to perceive
) the truly living spirit - as a mere unholy ghost haunting the graveyard
) they
) blasphemously refer to as the real world...
)
) But since you seem to be concerned for people who are out of touch
) with reality, I'm sure that you and other members of this Waldorf-Critics
) list will be especially delighted by the following...
)
) Rudolf Steiner [GA 172 - Dornach, 27 November 1916]:
)
) (At one point of his lecture, Steiner is talking about exorcism and
) demons,
) but I'll skip that part - it would sound too spooky to some of you guys
) :-)
)
) "That which the ancient Christian rituals pursued symbolically must seize
) hold of the entire world; that which was accomplished on the altar must
) seize hold of the entire world. Mankind must learn to handle nature the
) way the Gods themselves handled nature: not to build machines without
) interest, but to carry out all deeds as a service, to bring sacramentalism
) into everything.
) One will be able to get started in various fields. Nowadays, people
) can begin developing sacramentalism in two fields above all. The first
) field is that of teaching and education. When we regard each person
) born in the world as someone coming with his power of Christ [seine
) Kraft des Christus] and we therefore hold in proper respect the being
) growing up, and consequently arrange the entire education and
) particularly teaching, i.e. realize sacramentalism in teaching - more
) precisely, when we realize a sacramental, when we not only consider
) education and teaching as a service - but perform them as a service,
) then we are beginning to spiritualize what the religions call: baptism.
) And when we attempt to bring to our consciousness that which we
) call our knowledge, when our soul is filled with ideas about the spiritual
) world and we are fully aware that the spiritual is penetrating us, that we
) are merging with the spiritual - when we consider that as a communion,
) when we are able to realize true knowledge --- *thinking is the true
) communion of mankind*, (...), when we are able to realize that, then
) that which was the symbolic sacrament on the altar becomes a common
) sacramental experience of knowledge [zu einem allgemeinen
) sakramentalen Erleben der Erkenntnis]. The Christianization of man
) must go in that direction; you will then become aware that everywhere
) in life, and for everything Christ-related, reality indeed penetrates Maya
) [illusion] - and that to view reality as modern science does with its
) worldview - is unchristian, eminently unchristian."
)
)
)
)
) Now, I'm sincerely hoping that our atheistic expert in anthroposophical
) spiritual science - Peter Staudenmaier, who else? - will not fall off from
) the precarious pile of philosophical treatises he is sitting on --- but I
) simply must add, for the sake of accuracy: Rudolf Steiner put this
) absolutely essential and central anthroposophical truth into words long
) before the year 1916, actually long before 1900...
)
) "The perception of the idea in reality [Merriam-Webster: the totality of
) real things and events] is the true communion of man.
)
) [Das Gewahrwerden der Idee in der Wirklichkeit ist die wahre
) Kommunion des Menschen.]
)
) Rudolf Steiner wrote that in 1887...in his Introduction(s) to the
) scientific
) papers of Goethe. [GA 1]
)
) Er...that's seven years before the publication of his *Philosophy of
) Freedom*. 1887 + 7 = 1894 :-)
)
)
) Jean-Marc
)
) PS [postscriptum]: You're welcome, Deborah! ;-)
)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 09:15:46 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: the idiom of German Idealism
Hello listmates,
one of the disputed points in the exchange over Steiner's early
philosophical works is whether these works display clear affinities with the
established philosophical discourse of the time or are instead previews of
the later esoteric style that marks Steiner's mature teachings. (This
needn't be an either-or question, but that is how it has developed in the
course of the exchange, and this simplified contrast may be a useful way of
determining which position makes more sense.) My argument is that Steiner's
early philosophical works are written in the idiom of nineteenth century
German Idealism. Jean-Marc and others deny this, and insist that Steiner's
pre-1900 writings are not conventional philosophical treatises and are not
cast in the established idiom of nineteenth century German Idealism, and
that his viewpoint before 1900 was emphatically esoteric.
These claims can be examined against the background of 19th century
philosophical texts from other German thinkers, as well as Steiner's own
post-1900 works. For this purpose, Jean-Marc's latest post provides a
helpful comparison of two strikingly different passages from Steiner. One of
these passages, Jean-Marc tells us, is from a 1916 discussion of demons and
exorcism (for those who are able to do so, it's worth reading Jean-Marc's
excerpt in context; Steiner's following paragraph, for example, discusses
"esoteric exercises" etc.). Here Steiner adresses sacramentalism, merging
with the spiritual, the world of Maya or illusion, the Christianization of
humanity, and so forth.
None of these themes is present in the other Steiner passage, from 1887.
That passage, in Jean-Marc's rendering, reads as follows:
)"The perception of the idea in reality [Merriam-Webster: the totality of
)real things and events] is the true communion of man.
)
)[Das Gewahrwerden der Idee in der Wirklichkeit ist die wahre
)Kommunion des Menschen.]
Here the context is once again helpful; see pp. 125-126 of Steiner's
Einleitungen zu Goethes Naturwissenschaftlichen Schriften. There is no
mention here (or anywhere in the book) of Maya, demons, sacramentalism, the
power of Christ, and so on. There are no esoteric teachings in the 1887
text. What there is in abundance is 19th century German Idealist philosophy,
and the sentence Jean-Marc quotes is a prime example. The book is about
Goethe's scientific works, and its terminology is throughout drawn directly
from that of Hegel et al.; it is a classic instance of the idiom of German
Idealism, with a bit of Romanticism mixed in. Indeed without too much
trouble the above sentence could, mutatis mutandis, find a comfortable home
in Fichte's collected works, and it wouldn't even be terribly out of place
in Marx's 1844 manuscripts.
If there are folks out there who genuinely believe that the above sentence
from Steiner in 1887 is *not* an example of the idiom of German Idealism, I
heartily encourage them to speak up.
New Year's greetings to all,
Peter Staudenmaier
)
)Rudolf Steiner [GA 172 - Dornach, 27 November 1916]:
)
)(At one point of his lecture, Steiner is talking about exorcism and demons,
)but I'll skip that part - it would sound too spooky to some of you guys :-)
)
)"That which the ancient Christian rituals pursued symbolically must seize
)hold of the entire world; that which was accomplished on the altar must
)seize hold of the entire world. Mankind must learn to handle nature the
)way the Gods themselves handled nature: not to build machines without
)interest, but to carry out all deeds as a service, to bring sacramentalism
)into everything.
)One will be able to get started in various fields. Nowadays, people
)can begin developing sacramentalism in two fields above all. The first
)field is that of teaching and education. When we regard each person
)born in the world as someone coming with his power of Christ [seine
)Kraft des Christus] and we therefore hold in proper respect the being
)growing up, and consequently arrange the entire education and
)particularly teaching, i.e. realize sacramentalism in teaching - more
)precisely, when we realize a sacramental, when we not only consider
)education and teaching as a service - but perform them as a service,
)then we are beginning to spiritualize what the religions call: baptism.
)And when we attempt to bring to our consciousness that which we
)call our knowledge, when our soul is filled with ideas about the spiritual
)world and we are fully aware that the spiritual is penetrating us, that we
)are merging with the spiritual - when we consider that as a communion,
)when we are able to realize true knowledge --- *thinking is the true
)communion of mankind*, (...), when we are able to realize that, then
)that which was the symbolic sacrament on the altar becomes a common
)sacramental experience of knowledge [zu einem allgemeinen
)sakramentalen Erleben der Erkenntnis]. The Christianization of man
)must go in that direction; you will then become aware that everywhere
)in life, and for everything Christ-related, reality indeed penetrates Maya
)[illusion] - and that to view reality as modern science does with its
)worldview - is unchristian, eminently unchristian."
)
)
)"The perception of the idea in reality [Merriam-Webster: the totality of
)real things and events] is the true communion of man.
)
)[Das Gewahrwerden der Idee in der Wirklichkeit ist die wahre
)Kommunion des Menschen.]
)
)Rudolf Steiner wrote that in 1887...in his Introduction(s) to the
)scientific
)papers of Goethe. [GA 1]
_________________________________________________________________
Your Hotmail address already works to sign into Windows Live Messenger! Get
it now
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://get.live.com/messenger/overview
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 16:18:59 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Waldorf succeeding across the board
eurythmy wrote:
)
) 2007-01-02
)
I've tried to stay out of this, but...
) Dear Dan, and all,
)
)
)
) The whole school report was a rather hot topic and I merely wanted to
) bring
) a sober pedestrian reading of your quotes of it. Thanks for your
) comments
) and clarification. I appreciate the extent of your efforts to further
) your
) convictions.
Boy, passive agressiveness at its best...
)
) Franky:))What was said was not said by members of the school, was not
) said
) with school members present. It had nothing to do with the present
) report.
)
) Dan:)It did, too. What representatives of the international Waldorf
) movement
) said certainly had relevance to a school founded on the movement's
) principles. That's what the scholars said--watch out, this stuff will
) bite
) you.
)
) Franky: 'will bite you' a comment, about a future which they assert is
) not
) certain at all. They do not urge for a new report on that topic. Of
) course
) common sense on the ground should prevail anyway.
)
)
)
) From my experience of Waldorf Schools on the continent, they rarely
) delegate
) authority, if ever. My guess: Some people from abroad turned up, with no
)
) authority on the school. Most probably to collect information on the
) school?
) They were never asked by the inspected school to talk to the
) researchers,
) etc, etc. Nothing too official in what they say.
You understand that your "guess" is absolutely meaningless - right?
There is nothing AT ALL to support it. Is it your experience that
Waldorf schools generally allow strangers to walk their hallways? Sit
in on classes?
) I would be very interested to know if any one else found further study
) worth
) funding?
I think studies to determine the extent to which racism is rampant in
Waldorf schools are well worth funding. I think the funding should come
from Waldorf as it behooves them to get this under control.
) What happened next at the school? You have been watchful, has anyone
) else?
Well, the first, and most obvious thing that happened next was that the
school and other Anthroposophists pressured McDermott to suppress the
report and recant his findings. That seems pretty clear. This is
consistent with what I know of the behavior of Waldorf people - so I
don't find it too surprising.
) Has anything happened at the school which would bring concern?
)
Besides promoting racism?
Pete
)
)
)
)
) ----- Original Message -----
)
) From: "Dan Dugan" (dan dandugan.com)
)
) To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
)
) Sent: Monday, January 01, 2007 3:14 AM
)
) Subject: Re: Waldorf succeeding across the board
)
)
)
) )
) ) Franky, you wrote:
) ))Dear Dan, and all,
) )
) ))To follow the argument of Dan, just in keeping with the quote of the
) ))academic report chosen by Dan.
) ))
) ))1-'This brief note addressing..Issue .the reality of racism in Waldorf
) ))education as well as, apparently, in the teachings of Rudolf Steiner.'
) ))
) ))A brief note: not at all on the same level as the academic study. The
) ))question of the reality in the School: and only apparently in the
) ))teaching. It would require much more investigation to bring the reality
) ))of
) ))the existence of racism in Rudolf Steiner work, and it is not part of
) ))the
) ))remit of a note, which is brought as a note, not as an element of the
) ))report.
) )
) ) Agreed. It wasn't a deep study. It was occasioned by racism having hit
) ) them in the face. Some of the scholars felt it would be dishonest to not
) )
) ) include that in the report. The majority, being strongly enough in favor
) )
) ) of Waldorf to bend the truth, ruled against it. A compromise was struck,
) ) a
) ) minority report would be published in an obscure journal.
) )
) ))2- 'One of our team members, on the basis of her time at the Urban
) ))Waldorf
) ))School, has written glowingly about the promise of Waldorf education for
) ))
) ))African American children (Dillard, 1996).
) ))
) ))It is not said if this writing was part of the final report, or written
) ))in
) ))a separate article where the colleague, while expressing an assessment.
) )
) ) No, it's clear from the reference (Dillard, 1996) that a separate
) ) publication is being referred to.
) )
) ))But the emphasis here is that only that colleague was present for a
) ))relevant time in the Urban School and that no other member of the team
) ))did
) ))go to that school. So they point out that this assessment is based on
) ))the
) ))only person who was there and is not a team assessment.
) )
) ) No, that's not what the article said at all. They were all there. Please
) )
) ) read the article before rendering your opinion!
) )
) ))2-'If that promise is to be realized, all members of the Waldorf
) ))community
) ))will have to appraise critically whatever racism might be inherent in
) ))their world view.'
) ))
) ))'whatever racism might be inherent' further studies need to be don to
) ))see
) ))if it is or is not inherent., and it was not felt important for this
) ))report to do them.
) )
) ) They're properly not drawing conclusions beyond their evidence.
) )
) ))It also points out that instance of racism could be due to the
) ))individual
) ))teacher and has nothing to do with Rudolf Steiner
) )
) ) Of course, but then they go on to illustrate how the observed attitudes
) ) were completely consistent with what Steiner taught.
) )
) ))4-"In an early version of the large report, we included an account of a
) ))racially charged discussion brought to the school by visiting
) ))representatives of the international Waldorf community. In a
) ))conversation
) ))in an office at the school (for which no one from the school was
) ))present),
) ))Steiner's racist speculations about Africans as close to the body and
) ))new
) ))to the rational and spiritual heights achieved by whites on the
) ))evolutionary ladder were cited as possibly relevant to the education of
) ))African American children in Milwaukee. There, in a school using
) ))Steiner's
) ))ideas in the best possible way, we were treated to a full display of
) ))what
) ))we would have to worry about if we were to invoke Waldorf without
) ))reservation as a model for American education."'
) ))
) ))What was said was not said by members of the school, was not said with
) ))school members present. It had nothing to do with the present report.
) )
) ) It did, too. What representatives of the international Waldorf movement
) ) said certainly had relevance to a school founded on the movement's
) ) principles. That's what the scholars said--watch out, this stuff will
) ) bite
) ) you.
) )
) ))The authors of the report left it at that with some personal questions.
) ))They did not follow in investigating how the school community would
) ))react
) ))to the way Rudolf Steiner sayings were reported. They did not assess at
) ))the time or afterwards the relevance of the Rudolf Steiner few sentences
) ))
) ))quoted..
) )
) ) They didn't report precisely what the visiting Waldorf teachers said,
) ) there's no mention of a quotation. They did indeed address the relevance
) )
) ) of it; read the article.
) )
) ))5- '"[I]t is time to consider the possibility that some naive forms of
) ))racism are endemic to those who embrace anthroposophy without a strong
) ))critical sense for the real possibility that Steiner's speculations
) ))about
) ))the racial organization of culture and consciousness were wrong."
) ))
) ))Possibility used twice here means that is it not an affirmation of the
) ))racism. These researchers are only asking for some one to be
) ))commissioned
) ))a further or separate report.
) )
) ) So you're going to use the cautious academic language as an excuse to
) ) ignore what they said. That, indeed, is what the Waldorf movement did
) ) and
) ) continues to do--ignore it's race problem.
) )
) ))Dear Dan, could you be reading this report without the sense of how
) ))academic people write?
) )
) ) I think that applies more to you.
) )
) ))According to some it seems that they warned that their academic way of
) ))writing was not being read on it sown merit, but used for polemic
) ))purposes.
) )
) ) That's what Ray McDermott said after the report had been publicized by
) ) PLANS. He should be ashamed for trying to weasel out of something so
) ) important.
) )
) ) Of course we used it for polemic purposes. It cries out for wider
) ) exposure, if you have a sense of morality.
) )
) ) -Dan Dugan
) )
) )
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 17:12:16 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Admin: quirks of list server
Franky, you wrote,
)I sent the message
)http://lists.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1720732908&sort=d&start=35969
)
)On 10th December and it appears in the list 21 Dec. Can you tell me
)how it is possible?
)
)It is not the first time that messages are delayed, some list
)members complain that some do not appear at all.
Long delays seem to happen often to certain posters, e.g. Diana. It's
been going on for years and I have no idea why.
)If it is due to the way topica runs its course, have you considered
)changing to a reliable system like yahoo!?
Yes.
-Dan Dugan
Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 17:12:35 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: waldorf for homeschool?
Frank Smith wrote:
)This is hardly the place to go to get any kind of reliable information
)about Waldorf education, home schooling or otherwise.
I'd like to think that this is a more reliable place to get
information about Waldorf education. Here the controversies are
acknowledged, and you can hear both sides.
The Waldorf establishment initially discouraged homeschooling; of
course they think education is done best by Waldorf-trained teachers
in approved Waldorf schools. But the homeschooling movement can't be
held back, and its constituency overlaps Waldorf's. The reality has
to be acknowledged and embraced. Besides, it's a market for Waldorf
products.
)Try instead:
)http://www.waldorfhomeschoolers.com/
Rahima Baldwin writes on http://www.waldorfhomeschooling.org/ (a
different site from that noted above):
)Dates for the Spring Waldorf in the Home conference are April 21-22,
)2007 in Fair Oaks, California (near Sacramento).
)
)Keynote speakers include: Joseph Cornell, internationally known
)author of Sharing Nature with Children; Suzanne Down, master
)storyteller and puppeteer and founder of Juniper Tree School of
)Storytelling and Puppetry; Cythia Hoven, Eurythmist and frequent
)conference presenter on Anthroposophy; and Betty Peck, master
)kindergarten teacher and gardener, with over 50 years experience
)working with young children and consulting on children's gardening
)in the schools.
)A full brochure and secure online registration will be available in
)January, 2007.
)
)Audio and video recordings from the fall 2006 conferences in both
)Fair Oaks and Boulder are available for sale and listed below. More
)can be found in our online store--simply click on the botton on the
)right, a bit below the conference brochures.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 17:12:43 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: www.waldorfcritics.org feedback
DAN DUGAN:
) ) Shawn Green, thanks for writing feedback on the PLANS web site. I'm
)) responding to you on the waldorf-critics discussion list. Please
)) subscribe to the list if you wish to continue the dialogue.
))
)) you wrote:
))
)) )What's wrong with teaching about planetary influences on plants?
))
)) Because it's nonsense.
SHAWN GREEN:
)--------If something is not recognized by current mainstream science,
)that makes it nonsense???
If it's about the natural world, yes. Science is the way to make sense of it.
) ) Isn't there a lot about nature spirits in the lower grades? Gnomes,
) ) for example?
)--------------------How would you teach imagination?
Teach art and literature.
) ) )The moon causes the tides!
))
)) The sun and the moon. Tides aren't what Anthroposophy is talking
)) about with "planetary influences."
)
)-------------------My point is that if the moon and the sun can effect
)the movement of water here on earth, why is it so unfathomable that the
)other celestial bodies (planets) can also affect things.
The effect of celestial bodies on the earth is predictable and
measurable. The planets are too far away to affect natural processes
on the earth.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 17:12:19 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: I think, therefore I am.
Dottie Zold, you wrote,
)Anthroposophy kind of works by itself and doesn't have
)this social impulse to be taken out to man yet. Not as
)a whole. It does from individuals but as far as from
)an authoritave position or one that is decided by
)higher ups for the rest of the world, this doesn't
)exist.
What do you think the departments of the Goetheanum do? What does the
Pedagogical Section do? The Medical Section?
)And if it did I wouldn't be a part of it
)either. It really is all individualistic in all ways.
)That's why the term cult can't be applied to
)Anthroposophy.
Better get your resignation letter ready.
KEITH:
)This is
)) more than inner
)) dvelopment of the individual self, but a social
)) program for change that
)) claims to bring the spiritual world into social
)) consciousness.
DOTTIE:
)You would think so wouldn't you, but it's actually not
)a truth as far as I have experienced. And that is
)really what makes it so different than the other
)groups. Those who join are doing this for their own
)selves and not something they look to put onto the
)world per se. However just like any single person
)looking for enlightment of self they recognize that it
)is through the world that this is able to happen
)through their relations with others.
Your personal experience may be limited. Active work intended to
reform society distinguishes Anthroposophy from most other occultist
groups.
-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 2411
-- Topica Digest --
RE: anthroposophy by association 1
By charlie morrison5.fsnet.co.uk
RE: "it should not call itself anthroposophy"
By charlie morrison5.fsnet.co.uk
RE: anthroposophy by association 1
By charlie morrison5.fsnet.co.uk
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 23:20:32 +0000
From: charles morrison (charlie morrison5.fsnet.co.uk)
Subject: RE: anthroposophy by association 1
Charlie M:
Hi Peter and all. I hope everyone had a good Christmas and that the new
year brings happy times.
You.Peter, say, "anthroposophy is merely one branch of occultism", then
you say, "anthroposophy really is among other things a branch of
occultism". So which is it, merely one branch of occultism or more than
that? You admit that anthroposophy doesn't just consist of esotericism,
but, you stipulate that in order for someone to prove that P of F is
anthroposophical it must have esoteric content.You're not being very
consistant.
I made an analogy between anthroposophy and mathematics.
"Esotericism is related to anthroposophy in a similar way that algebra
is related to mathematics."
I do not think that substituting algebra for mathematics in the analogy
makes anywhere near as good an analogy, and you argue as if this was the
analogy that I was making.
I see you are still arguing that PoF does not contain esotericism.
Here's a quote from God is my Adventure by Rom Landau:
"Both ordinary and occult knowledge were for Steiner necessities,
designed to enrich each other, but also to be used only in their proper
places. When Dr. Rittlemeyer asked him one day: 'Why was it that in
spite of all you must have known, even in your early years, you were so
completely silent about occult matters until your forthieth year?'
Steiner replied: 'I had to make a certain position for myself in the
world first. People may say nowadays that my writings are mad, but my
earlier work is also there, and they cannot ignore it. And moreover, I
had to bring things to a certain clarity in myself, to a point where I
could give them form, before it was possible to talk about them. That
was not easy. And then - I admit it frankly - it needed courage to speak
openly about such things. I had first to aquire that courage.'"
Slainte,
Charlie M.
Original message:
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
)
)
) Hi Charlie,
)
)
) )In that quote, did I say what
) )that relationship was?
)
)
) The later Steiner says quite a lot about what that relationship was
) (aside
) from the passages I've shown you, Jean-Marc has compiled lots and lots
) of
) quotes on the matter); I think this exchange would make more sense if
) you
) could pay a little more attention to that material. Your argument is
) that
) this relationship was one of identity: PoF is an anthroposophical work,
) in
) your view. My argument is that the relationship was one of development
) and
) difference: PoF is not an anthroposophical work, in my view, it is a
) philosophical work that Steiner later adopted into anthroposophy.
)
)
) )The fact that
) )they are both linked to Steiner provides some sort of relationship.
) )Wouldn't you agree?:)
)
)
) Yes, a relationship of association, which is exactly how this thread
) began.
) You believe that the mere fact that Steiner wrote PoF somehow makes it
) an
) anthroposophical work. That is the logic of anthroposophy by
) association. It
) makes no sense historically. Not just in Steiner's case, but in the case
) of
) many, many authors, whether the worldview in question is anthroposophy,
) theosophy, atheism, existentialism, marxism, etc.
)
)
) )
) )(PS):
) ) ) Indeed, anthroposophy is merely one branch of occultism, and there are
) ) ) lots and lots of non-anthroposophical branches of occultism.
) )
) )Charlie M:
) )Wrong. Anthroposophy contains occultism sure enough. But anthroposophy
) )is not contained by occultism.
)
)
)
) Sorry, Charlie, anthroposophy really is among other things a branch of
) occultism. You could just look it up.....
)
)
) )
) )(CM):
) ) ) )and because I happen to agree with him, I don't need to search for any
) ) ) )occult or esoteric terms in the P of F in order to class it as
) ) ) )anthroposophical.
) )
) )(PS):
) ) ) Not terms, just content. If you can't find any anthroposophical content,
) ) ) it isn't an anthroposophical work.
) )
) )Charlie M:
) )There is plenty of anthroposophical content.
)
)
) Strangely, you can't point to any of it. Not a single passage. Not a
) single
) page. Where exactly is this content hiding? Have you, like Franky, mixed
) up
) PoF with The Da Vinci Code?
)
)
) )How about thinking beyond
) )the senses as a first step on the path?
)
)
) Okay with me. A first step on the path isn't the end of the path, or
) even
) the middle. Several of Hegel's works and several of Adam Smith's and
) David
) Ricardo's works can be seen as first steps on the path toward marxism.
) This
) scarcely turns Hegel, Smith or Ricardo into marxists, much less makes
) their
) books marxist books.
)
)
) )Charlie M:
) )By your logic, if it doesn't hold up that the human body (
) )anthroposophy) is an organ such as the heart (esoteric belief system),
) )then the lungs, kidneys, etc (Leading Thoughts, etc) cannot be part of
) )the human body ( anthroposophy).
)
)
) I'm not sure what that means, but it sounds like you are saying that an
) esoteric belief system is the heart of anthroposophy, which sounds
) accurate
) enough to me, though you also seem to be saying that Anthroposophical
) Leading Thoughts is not an esoteric work, which is goofy. In any case,
) the
) body of anthroposophy has many parts. The bodies of more general
) categories,
) such as philosophy or esotericism, have even more parts. To find out
) whether
) a specific book belongs to one or two or three or more of these
) categories,
) you need to look at the content of the book itself.
)
)
) )I've argued that anthroposophy is a path of knowledge. It doesn't
) )require anyone to believe anything they have not experienced for
) )themselves.
)
)
) And you thought that other belief systems required this? Belief systems
) are
) just belief systems. They're not prisons. People move back and forth
) among
) them all the time (even people like Rudolf Steiner, amazingly enough).
) That
) anthroposophy is a belief system says nothing about anthroposophists
) being
) required to believe things they haven't experienced for themselves etc.
) If
) this for some reason trips you up, just replace "esoteric belief system"
)
) with "esoteric path of knowledge"; to many of the rest of us, those are
) the
) same thing.
)
)
) )Don't forget there are many, many
) )anthroposophists working in various communities who work quietly away
) )without drawing any attention to themselves.
)
)
) You mean without writing or saying anything in public about their
) beliefs,
) er, knowledge? Those aren't the people we're discussing here. We're
) talking
) about the public phenomenon of anthroposophy.
)
)
) )Can you say what their
) )beliefs are without just guessing?
)
)
) One very good way to tell what other people's beliefs are is to read
) what
) they write. There are hundreds and hundreds of books, articles, essays,
) lectures etc etc by many many anthroposophists, for a hundred years now,
) not
) to mention public discourse of all kinds. That's the anthroposophy under
)
) discussion in any public exchange about anthroposophy.
)
)
) )CM:
) )Math guru: "There [in the arithmetic text book) I wanted to show how
) )mathematical novice must practice arithmetic if he wants to gradually
) )learn algebra.
)
)
) Uh, Charlie? If it's an arithmetic text book, and contains no algebra,
) then
) it really and truly isn't an algebra textbook. If PoF is a philosophical
)
) text and contains no anthroposophy, then it really and truly isn't an
) anthroposophical text. Despite the fact that arithmetic plays a big role
) in
) algebra. Despite the fact that philosophy plays a big role in
) anthroposophy.
) Is something unclear about that?
)
)
) )Peter Studymore (famous historian of mathematics ;)):
) )To test that claim, all you need to do is find any reference to algebra
) )in the arithmetic book.
)
)
) Yes indeed, if the claim in question is that the book is an algebra
) textbook
) rather than an arithmetic book that includes general stuff that shows up
) in
) algebra too. Your claim is that PoF is an anthroposophical book. My
) claim is
) that PoF is a philosophical book that includes general stuff that later
) shows up in anthroposophy.
)
)
) )Math guru: Excuse me! Why would that be necessary?
)
)
) Because you just claimed that the book was an algebra textbook, not an
) arithmetic textbook. I claimed that it was an arithmetic textbook, not
) an
) algebra textbook. If the content of the book is arithmetic and not
) algebra,
) then the math guru's claim is mistaken.
)
)
) )Surely a better test
) )would be to observe someone practicing algebra to see if they use
) )arithmetic whilst doing so.
)
)
) No, that would be a foolish way to 'test' the content of the book
) itself.
) The way to 'test' that is to look at the text. We weren't talking about
) your
) practice of anthroposophy, Charlie. We were talking about the content of
)
) PoF.
)
)
) )Getting back to my original mathematical analogy. You (PS) said (RE:
) )Steiner vs Staudenmaier (round 1) 12/18/2006.
) )
) )That's a fine analogy. Algebra is a branch of mathematics. It is thus
) )different from, say, geometry or calculus, though these are certainly
) )'related', to use Frank's newfound term. It is also different from
) )non-mathematical fields, although some of these fields also use
) )mathematical concepts. Anthroposophy is a branch of western esotericism
) )in very much the same way. To conflate it with German Idealism because
) )they both use the vocabulary of spirit and thinking is to make a
) )straightforward classification error.
) )
) )Charlie M:
) )To put my analogy (which you turned on its head) back on its feet, I was
) )talking about anthroposophical esotericism and not esotericism in
) )general.
)
)
) Western esotericism is a broad category ("esotericism in general " is
) broader still), and anthroposophy is only one of its elements, albeit an
)
) important one, particularly in Germanophone Europe. If you want to
) distinguish anthroposophy from other forms of esotericism, not to
) mention
) from non-esoteric belief systems/paths of knowledge, you'll need to pay
) attention to the concrete characteristics of anthroposophy.
)
)
) )"Anthroposophy is a branch of western esotericism". Only someone with
) )very little understanding of anthroposophy is could make this assertion.
)
)
) That makes sense if you mean 'Charlie's personal practice of
) anthroposophy'
) rather than actually existing anthroposophy, the kind that has a public
) face
) and a concrete history and numerous publications and so forth. Actually
) existing anthroposophy is in fact a branch of western esotericism. You
) can
) check this for yourself by consulting pretty much any study of western
) esotericism, many of which are in English. I'll offer some good starting
)
) points in my following post.
)
)
) )Anthroposophy contains esotericism, yes: Anthroposophy is esotericism,
) )no.
)
)
) I'm glad to agree that anthroposophy contains esotericism; what you seem
) to
) be missing is that PoF does not contain esotericism. Anthroposophy isn't
)
) just an esoteric worldview -- belief system -- path of knowledge, it's
) also
) a movement, a set of social institutions, a historical phenomenon, a
) constellation of ideas and an ensemble of practical endeavors, including
)
) Waldorf, biodynamic farming, and others. PoF is not a movement or an
) institution, it's a book, and you can find out whether it's
) anthroposophical
) (and whether it was anthroposophical when it appeared) by looking at the
)
) content of the book, by looking at the text itself.
)
)
) Cheers,
)
)
) Peter S.
)
) _________________________________________________________________
) The MSN Entertainment Guide to Golden Globes is here. Get all the
) scoop.
) http://tv.msn.com/tv/globes2007/
)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 23:34:55 +0000
From: charles morrison (charlie morrison5.fsnet.co.uk)
Subject: RE: "it should not call itself anthroposophy"
Charlie M:
I don't think anyone would dispute the fact that anthroposophy plays a
part, some would say a large part, in western esotericism.
You, Peter, say that we should confine ourselves to a descriptive
conception of anthroposophy, anthroposophy as it actually is. So I had a
quick look through some of the non-anthroposophical books in my
possession to see what they say about anthroposophy. Below I've quoted
from a variety of sources some more worthwhile than others.
Here's a summary of how the writers of these books view anthroposophy:
A "philosophy of life", "a spiritual philosophy and set of teachings ",
"a kind of mystical humanism", "a structured admixture of spiritualism,
oriental and pseudo-scientific myth", something that is "structurally
similar to Western esotericism", a "social philosophy" and a "spiritual
system".
The New Caxtons Encyclopedia (1977):
German philosopher, writer and educationalist (1861-1925). Rudolf
Steiner was at one time leader of the theosophical movement in Germany
but, later initiated his own philosophy of life which he called
"anthroposophy" This presented human perception and experience as
central to human understanding and the growth of personality. Spiritual
development was seen as springing from man himself, and the nourishment
of spiritual development, in this sense, as fundamental to all good
education.
A Dictionary of Mind and Spirit by Donald Watson (1993):
Under "Anthroposophy":
As a spiritual philosophy and set of teachings anthroposophy was founded
by Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925).
Rhythms of Vision, The Changing Patterns of Belief by Lawrence Blair
(1976).
In this book Blair divides believers into six groups. These are 1.
Empirical/scientific. 2. Magical/occult. 3. Philosophical/systematic. 4.
Spiritualist. 5. Orientalist. 6. Eclectic/submissive. He classes
anthroposophy under number 3. Philosophical/systematic.
I would be careful about accepting anything this man says at face value
as he introduces Steiner thus:
"...another remarkable man, an Austrian Jew named Rudolf Steiner, rose
from the ranks of Theosophy to challenge its world-view. Reacting
against its 'God-oriented' other-worldliness, Steiner sought to see
things from a more practical, man-oriented perspective, and he led the
breakaway movement of Anthroposophy, a kind of mystical humanism which
sought to find God within man himself, rather than seeking man in God.
"Steiner accepted, and sought to integrate into his spiritual system,
every step which science had taken...
"As a structured admixture of spiritualism, oriental and
pseudo-scientific myth, Anthroposophy - like Theosophy, the 'work' and
other movements - now fall into this heading of Philosophical/Systematic
groups."
The Occult Establishment by James Webb
P67
"What is important to notice is that Steiner could find in such diverse
quarters as Theosophy, philosophical idealism, and the possibly Tantric
magic of the O.T.O., material for his hoped-for revolution in
consciousness."
P68
"If his sources were varied, his applications were equally so. For he
intended Anthroposophy to be an all-embracing science that would provide
answers both spiritually and materially satisfying in every branch of
life."
P349
"Nothing, he felt, should remain unconscious. Steiner's deduction was
that he should find some way of making conscious the unconscious
processes - which is what his 'spiritual perception' amounts to.
Sun at Midnight by Geoffrey Ahern
P68
"Admittedly, his Anthroposophy is structurally similar to Western
esotericism and doctrinally often closely resembles Theosophy and many
other contemporary systems of thought; yet Rudolf Steiner stated that
everything Anthroposophical derives from his own, original spiritual
research. But by itself this does not make his revelation necessarily
mistaken, let alone dishonest. (Jesus, unlike modern scholars, was
almost certainly unaware that his convictions probably owed as much to
Zoroastrianism as to the ancient Judaism of the `chosen' people.) That
Steiner was true to himself is also suggested by his frank admission
that he had diffiiculty with sense perception.
"The firm sense perception that normally consolidates during childhood
and youth (in modern society) only developed for him when he was
thirty-five. His inner world seems to have been that which most people
leave behind in childhood or even infancy. Yet as an adult he had direct
access to it with his scientifically trained and philosophically
knowledgeable mind. He would have had difficulty with the present
consensus among psychologists that we perceive the world indirectly
through physiological mechanisms, so that what we see `out there' is
really a sort of predictive description. Steiner thought he had
demonstrated the falsity of the assertion that sense-percepts are
subjective. Nevertheless, what was most real for him was the spiritual
activity of thinking that precedes the formation of subject and object.
He believed he had absolute knowledge of spirit; he took it as much for
reality as normal people do the kitchen table. Thus he thought spiritual
`science' was possible, as have many other modern people."
Dictionary of the Occult - Geddes & Grosset:
Under "Steiner, Rudolf (1861 - 1925)":
Austrian philosopher, scientist, artist and educator who was the
originator of the social philosophy called anthroposophy.
God is my Adventure by Rom Landau
P66
"Steiner naturally believed in ancient knowledge which had been hidden
either in esoteric schools or in ancient mysteries. In several of his
books and several of his lectures he referred to such a knowledge, and
for a number of years there existed an esoteric group within the
Anthroposopical Society. Steiner lectured to the members of the group
about subjects which were too advanced for the uninitiated. Outsiders
used to invent stories about mystical rites and ceremonies within the
esoteric group, but this was pure invention. Steiner often insisted that
knowledge of that kind should not be imparted to the public at large,
since it might be treated without the necessary respect.
"On the other hand he believed that the moment had come when such a
knowledge should no longer be confined to a few initiates, and that
humanity was able to approach hidden knowledge through conscious
thought."
P72
"Once you began to study anthroposophy you realised the great difference
between it and other, spiritual systems. Its lack of emotionalism and
its scientific character enabled it to be studied from books and
lectures. While Keyserling's philosophy, though clearly of an ethical
kind, was, at its best, without a clear system, Steiner created a
scientific system that like any other could be studied and applied.
Stefan George, most decidedly a poet, appealed foremost to the emotional
faculties that are stored up in our subconscious; and these cannot
easily be applied through a conscious and systematic study. Steiner
tried to give to anthroposophy the exactness of mathematics."
Charlie M:
As can be seen from these excerpts, the reading public is being shown
various views of anthroposophy that, although it includes esotericism,
is not bounded by it. To say that it is a branch of the western esoteric
tradition would seem to me to set unrealistic and inacccurate limits on
it.
I would say that, just like esotericism, anthroposophy is not easy to
define.
I said previously, through thinking we can have inner experiences that
are as objective as the world of nature. I'll ask again, do you deny
that Steiner stated this both in the P of F and Knowledge of the Higher
Worlds?
Slainte,
Charlie M.
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
)
)
) From Charlie's post:
)
)
) )
) )(PS):
) ) but if that is indeed your stance, then you're not talking about
) )actually existing anthroposophy. You're talking about your own personal
) )preferred version of 'anthroposophy'. In the real world, that word
) )refers to an esoteric belief system and the various movements organized
) )around it. That's what the rest of us are talking about
) ) ) when we talk about anthroposophy.
) )
) )Charlie M:
) )At last you have a valid argument. But if this is the case, it isn't the
) )anthroposophy that Steiner envisaged. In which case it should not call
) )itself anthroposophy. And besides that, have you done any research to
) )back up this claim, or is it something you've assumed from your limited
) )dealing with anthroposophists.
)
)
)
) I'm not sure if Charlie followed the exchange between me and "M" (or
) Val, or
) whoever that was) about the difference between normative and descriptive
)
) claims, but I think now would be a good time to look at that discussion
) again. What Charlie argues for here is an explicitly normative
) conception of
) anthroposophy: he talks about what should and should not be called
) anthroposophy. That is a perfectly legitimate way to talk with other
) anthroposophists (when I talk with other anarchists, for example, I
) frequently invoke normative conceptions of anarchism, that is, we argue
) about what anarchism should be and shouldn't be, what things should and
) shouldn't be called anarchism, and so forth).
)
) This sort of discussion is out of place in a public exchange with
) non-anthroposophists. When folks with different perspectives talk about
) a
) far-flung and varied phenomenon like anthroposophy, we're talking about
) anthroposophy as it actually exists, not anthroposophy as it should be.
) Anthroposophists disagree among themselves about what anthroposophy
) ought to
) be; the rest of us usually adress the movement as a whole rather than
) picking out one version of it as the best one or most authentic one or
) truest one.
)
) Actually existing anthroposophy is indeed a branch of the western
) esoteric
) tradition. There is a large literature on the topic, much of it in
) English.
) For Charlie's benefit, and for anybody who would like to learn more
) about
) this wider field and anthroposophy's roles within it, here are a variety
) of
) worthwhile sources:
)
)
) Wouter Hanegraaff et al., Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism
) (Leiden 2005); I particularly recommend the entries on "Anthroposophy"
) and
) "Steiner, Rudolf".
)
) Antoine Faivre, Access to Western Esotericism (Albany 1994)
)
) Antoine Faivre, Theosophy, Imagination, Tradition: Studies in Western
) Esotericism (Albany 2000)
)
) Wouter Hanegraaff, New Age Religion and Western Culture: Esotericism in
) the
) Mirror of Secular Thought (Leiden 1996)
)
) Faivre and Hanegraaff (eds), Western Esotericism and the Science of
) Religion
) (Leuven 1998)
)
) Antoine Faivre and Karen-Claire Voss, ‘Western Esotericism and the
) Science
) of Religions’, Numen, Vol. 42 (1995), 48-77
)
) Edward Tiryakian, ‘Towards the Sociology of Esoteric Culture’, The
) American
) Journal of Sociology, Vol.78 (1972), 491-512
)
) Edward Tiryakian (ed.), On the Margin of the Visible: Sociology, The
) Esoteric, and the Occult (New York 1974)
)
) Mikael Rothstein (ed.), New Age Religion and Globalization (Aarhus 2001)
)
) Aries: Journal for the Study of Western Esotericism
)
)
)
) I welcome contributions on the topic from everybody interested.
) Greetings to
) all,
)
)
) Peter S.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 10:44:21 +0000
From: charles morrison (charlie morrison5.fsnet.co.uk)
Subject: RE: anthroposophy by association 1
Hi Walden and all,
Walden wrote:
)
)
) This ongoing discussion is fascinating. The entire thing could be used
) somewhere - a course in linguistics or sociology, perhaps?
)
) This pretty well sums it for me and I'm glad it was an Anthroposophist's
)
) example:
Charlie M:
What the exchange below sums up (I like the pun by the way) is that
Peter twisted my analogy. I wasn't saying that arithmetic is algebra,
but that both arithmetic (P of F) and algebra (anthroposophical
esotericism) are branches of mathematics (anthroposophy).
)
) CM wrote::
) ))Math guru: "There [in the arithmetic text book) I wanted to show how
) ))mathematical novice must practice arithmetic if he wants to gradually
) ))learn algebra.
)
) Peter Staudenmaier replied:
)
) ) Uh, Charlie? If it's an arithmetic text book, and contains no algebra,
) ) then it really and truly isn't an algebra textbook. If PoF is a
) ) philosophical text and contains no anthroposophy, then it really and
) ) truly
) ) isn't an anthroposophical text. Despite the fact that arithmetic plays a
) )
) ) big role in algebra. Despite the fact that philosophy plays a big role
) ) in
) ) anthroposophy. Is something unclear about that?
)
) And . . .
)
) CM wrote:
) ))Anthroposophy contains esotericism, yes: Anthroposophy is esotericism,
) ))no.
)
) Peter replied:
) ) I'm glad to agree that anthroposophy contains esotericism; what you seem
) )
) ) to be missing is that PoF does not contain esotericism. Anthroposophy
) ) isn't just an esoteric worldview -- belief system -- path of knowledge,
) ) it's also a movement, a set of social institutions, a historical
) ) phenomenon, a constellation of ideas and an ensemble of practical
) ) endeavors, including Waldorf, biodynamic farming, and others. PoF is not
) ) a
) ) movement or an institution, it's a book, and you can find out whether
) ) it's
) ) anthroposophical (and whether it was anthroposophical when it appeared)
) ) by
) ) looking at the content of the book, by looking at the text itself.
Charlie M:
Peter says above that anthroposophy isn't just esotericism, but the P of
F needs to have esoteric content to be classed as anthroposophical.
Can't you see the contradiction?
)
) Mirriam-Webster Online:
) Main Entry: an·thro·pos·o·phy
) Pronunciation: "an(t)-thr&-'pä-s&-fE
) Function: noun
) : a 20th century religious system growing out of theosophy and centering
) on
) human development
)
) Does this sound anything like PoF? If nobody can provide any quotes from
) PoF
) to show Anthroposophical content, can we not simply agree that Steiner's
)
) early book was NOT one about or involving Anthroposophy? What's the big
) deal
) here, anyway?
)
) -Walden
Charlie M:
There's no big deal here. But you did say that you found this discussion
fascinating, so it must have some merit. It's just that I prefer to
dance with Franky's anthroposophy than to watch Peter dissecting a
corpse.
Couldn't we just agree that some people have found that the P of F IS
anthroposophical while others haven't found this (yet;)).
Slainte,
Charlie M.
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 2412
-- Topica Digest --
RE: I think, therefore I am.
By eltrigal78 yahoo.com
RE: I think, therefore I am.
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: "it should not call itself anthroposophy"
By pstaud hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 14:20:33 +0000
From: Frank Smith (eltrigal78 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: I think, therefore I am.
Dan Dugan wrote:
)
) Dottie Zold, you wrote,
)
) )Anthroposophy kind of works by itself and doesn't have
) )this social impulse to be taken out to man yet. Not as
) )a whole. It does from individuals but as far as from
) )an authoritave position or one that is decided by
) )higher ups for the rest of the world, this doesn't
) )exist.
)
) What do you think the departments of the Goetheanum do? What does the
) Pedagogical Section do? The Medical Section?
As Dottie has been demobbed (by you)from the WC, she is not able to
answer; so as her chief of Staff I will do so: No one in any of the
sections mentioned above has any authority whatsoever
Frank
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 15:58:55 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: I think, therefore I am.
Frank Smith wrote:
)
)
) Dan Dugan wrote:
) )
) ) Dottie Zold, you wrote,
) )
) ) )Anthroposophy kind of works by itself and doesn't have
) ) )this social impulse to be taken out to man yet. Not as
) ) )a whole. It does from individuals but as far as from
) ) )an authoritave position or one that is decided by
) ) )higher ups for the rest of the world, this doesn't
) ) )exist.
) )
) ) What do you think the departments of the Goetheanum do? What does the
) ) Pedagogical Section do? The Medical Section?
)
) As Dottie has been demobbed (by you)from the WC, she is not able to
) answer; so as her chief of Staff I will do so: No one in any of the
) sections mentioned above has any authority whatsoever
)
) Frank
Plausible deniability... cool!
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 20:59:41 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: "it should not call itself anthroposophy"
Hi Charlie,
)You, Peter, say that we should confine ourselves to a descriptive
)conception of anthroposophy, anthroposophy as it actually is. So I had a
)quick look through some of the non-anthroposophical books in my
)possession to see what they say about anthroposophy. Below I've quoted
)from a variety of sources some more worthwhile than others.
Webb and Ahern are particularly good, as English-language sources go,
despite the various criticisms of each I've voiced on this list before. Do
you think that they help support your claim that Steiner was an
anthroposophist in the 1890s?
)Here's a summary of how the writers of these books view anthroposophy:
)A "philosophy of life", "a spiritual philosophy and set of teachings ",
)"a kind of mystical humanism", "a structured admixture of spiritualism,
)oriental and pseudo-scientific myth", something that is "structurally
)similar to Western esotericism", a "social philosophy" and a "spiritual
)system".
Sounds hunky dory to me, but too general to distinguish anthroposophy as
such from other social philosophies and spiritual systems. For our purposes,
we need more specificity than that. Also, you might note that the
encyclopedia entry you cite says that Steiner initiated anthroposophy after
his stint as a theosophist, which makes PoF a pre-anthroposophical work.
Let's look at the Webb and Ahern passages:
)The Occult Establishment by James Webb
)P67
)"What is important to notice is that Steiner could find in such diverse
)quarters as Theosophy, philosophical idealism, and the possibly Tantric
)magic of the O.T.O., material for his hoped-for revolution in
)consciousness."
Yes indeed, Steiner found lots of material in philosophical idealism that he
adopted into anthroposophy. This doesn't magically transform philosophical
idealism into anthroposophy.
)P68
)"If his sources were varied, his applications were equally so. For he
)intended Anthroposophy to be an all-embracing science that would provide
)answers both spiritually and materially satisfying in every branch of
)life."
Yep. Among his sources were Goethe, Fichte, Blavatsky, and lots and lots of
other non-anthroposophists.
)P349
)"Nothing, he felt, should remain unconscious. Steiner's deduction was
)that he should find some way of making conscious the unconscious
)processes - which is what his 'spiritual perception' amounts to.
If you're trying to say that making the unconscious conscious is
anthroposophical, then Freud would be an anthroposophist.
)Sun at Midnight by Geoffrey Ahern
)P68
)"Admittedly, his Anthroposophy is structurally similar to Western
)esotericism and doctrinally often closely resembles Theosophy and many
)other contemporary systems of thought; yet Rudolf Steiner stated that
)everything Anthroposophical derives from his own, original spiritual
)research. But by itself this does not make his revelation necessarily
)mistaken, let alone dishonest.
Let's hope Baandje et al are reading this...
)(Jesus, unlike modern scholars, was
)almost certainly unaware that his convictions probably owed as much to
)Zoroastrianism as to the ancient Judaism of the `chosen' people.) That
)Steiner was true to himself is also suggested by his frank admission
)that he had diffiiculty with sense perception.
)
)"The firm sense perception that normally consolidates during childhood
)and youth (in modern society) only developed for him when he was
)thirty-five. His inner world seems to have been that which most people
)leave behind in childhood or even infancy. Yet as an adult he had direct
)access to it with his scientifically trained and philosophically
)knowledgeable mind. He would have had difficulty with the present
)consensus among psychologists that we perceive the world indirectly
)through physiological mechanisms, so that what we see `out there' is
)really a sort of predictive description. Steiner thought he had
)demonstrated the falsity of the assertion that sense-percepts are
)subjective. Nevertheless, what was most real for him was the spiritual
)activity of thinking that precedes the formation of subject and object.
)He believed he had absolute knowledge of spirit; he took it as much for
)reality as normal people do the kitchen table. Thus he thought spiritual
)`science' was possible, as have many other modern people."
Yep. You thought maybe all those "many other modern people" were
anthroposophists too?
)Charlie M:
)As can be seen from these excerpts, the reading public is being shown
)various views of anthroposophy that, although it includes esotericism,
)is not bounded by it. To say that it is a branch of the western esoteric
)tradition would seem to me to set unrealistic and inacccurate limits on
)it.
Yes, that's the normative conception of anthroposophy to which you seem
particularly attached. It is of no concern in a public discussion with
non-anthroposophists.
)I would say that, just like esotericism, anthroposophy is not easy to
)define.
Yes indeed.
)I said previously, through thinking we can have inner experiences that
)are as objective as the world of nature. I'll ask again, do you deny
)that Steiner stated this both in the P of F and Knowledge of the Higher
)Worlds?
No, I don't deny this (who do you think *does* deny this, by the way?), any
more than I deny that PoF and KHW are both about epistemology. They present
strikingly different epistemologies: KHW is esoteric and PoF isn't, PoF's
epistemology is this-wordly and KHW's is other-worldly, and so forth. If we
take KHW as a reasonable standard for an anthroposophical work -- a fine
choice, in my view -- then PoF doesn't hold up at all. There is nothing
about the higher worlds anywhere in the book. Perhaps I can repeat what I
wrote to you some time ago in this thread:
The point is to figure out which views are selected and how they are put
together. Steiner's anthroposophical works themselves are the best standard
for this. Take a look at Anthroposophical Leading Thoughts, for instance.
You won't simply find general stuff there about human self-knowledge and man
as a being who thinks and remembers, you'll find lots and lots about the
cosmic mission of Michael, the machinations of Ahriman, the mystery of
Golgotha, the astral body, reincarnation, the spiritual hierarchies, and so
forth. Try to keep in mind that this text is not one of the more overtly
occultist ones, but one that fits your own preferred terminology -- its
subtitle is Anthroposophy as a Path of Knowledge. The mature Steiner did not
simply posit any old path of knowledge, he posited a specific one with
distinctive markings along the path. Those markings are the elements that
help differentiate anthroposophy from other philosophies. If you find any of
those markings in PoF, let me know.
Cheers,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Get FREE Web site and company branded e-mail from Microsoft Office Live
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 2413
-- Topica Digest --
RE: anthroposophy by association 1
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: anthroposophy by association 1
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: anthroposophy by association 1
By pstaud hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 15:58:57 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: anthroposophy by association 1
Hi Charlie,
)You.Peter, say, "anthroposophy is merely one branch of occultism", then
)you say, "anthroposophy really is among other things a branch of
)occultism". So which is it, merely one branch of occultism or more than
)that?
It's both. (It's a number of other things, too.) Anthroposophy is an
esoteric worldview / belief system / path of knowledge, as well a movement,
a set of social institutions, a constellation of ideas and an ensemble of
practical endeavors, including Waldorf, biodynamic farming, and others;
Anthroposophy is a prominent stream within contemporary western esotericism
and the most successful branch of the modern German occult revival, a
spinoff of theosophy and a continuation of many of its core themes. It isn't
merely some nondescript "social philosophy", it has specific content.
)You admit that anthroposophy doesn't just consist of esotericism,
)but, you stipulate that in order for someone to prove that P of F is
)anthroposophical it must have esoteric content.You're not being very
)consistant.
It would be interesting to learn what you find inconsistent about the above
summary. Historical phenomena are often complex, Charlie, with lots of
different facets. If anthroposophy only “consisted of esotericism”, it would
be impossible to distinguish it from any other variety of esoteric thought
and practice. One of the facets of anthroposophy – a central one,
historically speaking – is its ideas, its teachings, its specific content.
That is one thing that books do: they convey ideas, they propound teachings,
they present specific content. If you want to classify the content of a
particular book as belonging to a particular worldview, what you need to do
is show how the text includes elements that distinguish that particular
worldview from other worldviews.
You haven't done anything like this with PoF. What you have done so far is
demonstrate that the content of PoF is philosophical, which is something I
certainly don't dispute, but which is about as helpful as pointing out that
the content of a mathematics textbook is mathematical, when what you
actually claimed is that the content was about algebra, not about
arithmetic. Algebra is a specific kind of mathematics. Anthroposophy is a
specific kind of philosophy. Merely noting the philosophical content of PoF
won't show that the book is anthroposophical.
)I made an analogy between anthroposophy and mathematics.
)
)"Esotericism is related to anthroposophy in a similar way that algebra
)is related to mathematics."
)
)I do not think that substituting algebra for mathematics in the analogy
)makes anywhere near as good an analogy, and you argue as if this was the
)analogy that I was making.
I didn’t substitute anything in your analogy. Your analogy itself fails to
distinguish arithmetic from algebra, in a way that is very similar to your
mixing up of Steiner’s pre-1900 works with anthroposophy. Nobody disagrees
that in order to do algebra, you first need to learn something about
arithmetic. But learning arithmetic is itself hardly the same thing as
learning algebra. If you're trying to say that in order to do anthroposophy,
you first need to learn something about philosophy, I'm glad to agree. Alas,
this does not mean that philosophy and anthroposophy are the same thing.
)I see you are still arguing that PoF does not contain esotericism.
Yes, I am indeed arguing that. You could very easily disprove this argument
by simply quoting any esoteric passage from the book.
)What the exchange below sums up (I like the pun by the way) is that
)Peter twisted my analogy. I wasn't saying that arithmetic is algebra,
)but that both arithmetic (P of F) and algebra (anthroposophical
)esotericism) are branches of mathematics (anthroposophy).
I didn’t twist your analogy. According to your reasoning, arithmetic and
algebra are essentially the same thing – after all, they’re both branches of
mathematics – just as Steiner’s early philosophical works and his later
anthroposophical works are essentially the same thing – after all, they’re
both written by Rudolf Steiner. That's anthroposophy by association.
)Peter says above that anthroposophy isn't just esotericism, but the P of
)F needs to have esoteric content to be classed as anthroposophical.
)Can't you see the contradiction?
There is no contradiction between those two claims. A biodynamic farm is
part of anthroposophy, right? And a Waldorf school is part of anthroposophy,
right? But a biodynamic farm isn't a book, and a Waldorf school isn't a
book. Philosophy of Freedom is a book. It's a collection of ideas in textual
form. In order to figure out how to class those ideas, how to class the book
as a text, you'll have to look at the specific content, not simply observe
that the ideas are in some way vaguely philosophical. As it happens,
anthroposophy's core ideas are esoteric. If you want to show that PoF
contains anthroposophical content and not merely philosophical content, then
yes, you do indeed need to show that it contains esoteric content, at the
very least some tendentially esoteric content.
)There's no big deal here. But you did say that you found this discussion
)fascinating, so it must have some merit. It's just that I prefer to
)dance with Franky's anthroposophy than to watch Peter dissecting a
)corpse.
I think most of us probably share that preference; dancing is more fun than
providing evidence and reasoning in a public discussion. For better or
worse, however, this is a public discussion, not a dance floor, and yes, you
really do need to provide evidence and reasoning for your claims if you want
others to be able to assess them.
)Couldn't we just agree that some people have found that the P of F IS
)anthroposophical while others haven't found this (yet;)).
We already agree on that. You and Franky and Jean-Marc and Frank and several
others believe that PoF is anthroposophical. The next step in the dance is
to offer some evidence and some reasoning to support and substantiate that
notion.
It's worth noting that the dance consistently grinds to a halt at exactly
this point. Back in October, for example, I wrote the following to Frank:
"Other than the fact that they were written by the same author, in what
sense do you consider the meditative practices outlined in KoHW to be a
further development of the intuitive thinking discussed in PoF? What
substantive relationship do you discern between the two?"
And a month ago I wrote to you:
"I really am indifferent to what you get out of PoF. If it works for you as
a secretly coded guide to the higher worlds, that's cool with me. But we
weren't discussing what the book means to you personally. We were discussing
what the book actually says and does not say, what positions Steiner held
and did not hold at the time he wrote it, how it fits in to his intellectual
development in the course of the 1890s and beyond.”
(That was in the “anthroposophy by association 2” thread, which never went
anywhere)
And before that I wrote:
"Steiner in the 1890s tried out all sorts of different philosophies and
worldviews, and didn't settle on theosophy\anthroposophy until the turn of
the century. [...] I'd still be mildly interested in hearing just what it is
in PoF or any of Steiner's pre-1900 published works that they [the
proponents of the PoF-is-anthroposophical line] consider implicitly esoteric
or in some way influenced by esotericism or tending toward esotericism. It
is more than a little odd that this straightforward question should prove so
difficult for anthroposophists to answer; lots of prominent figures in the
history of philosophy and the history of science and the history of
literature and art were strongly interested in and influenced by various
forms of esotericism and occultism and dabbled quite a bit in these
phenomena, and it isn't difficult to trace those influences and dabblings.
How come none of the folks who insist so loudly that Steiner was an
esotericist in 1894 can come up with any evidence whatsoever for this
notion?”
I would be delighted to get meaningful replies to those queries. The
question isn't an especially important one to me, and I am wide open to
changing my mind on the matter (for what it's worth, I've changed my mind on
it before), and this list seems like a fine place to carry out the debate,
er, dance, so if there is some aspect of PoF that strikes you as
distinctively anthroposophical and not just generally philosophical, the
floor is yours, and I'll follow your lead.
Cheers,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Type your favorite song. Get a customized station. Try MSN Radio powered
by Pandora. http://radio.msn.com/?icid=T002MSN03A07001
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 11:30:59 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: anthroposophy by association 1
Hi Charlie,
)You.Peter, say, "anthroposophy is merely one branch of occultism", then
)you say, "anthroposophy really is among other things a branch of
)occultism". So which is it, merely one branch of occultism or more than
)that?
It's both. (It's a number of other things, too.) Anthroposophy is an
esoteric worldview / belief system / path of knowledge, as well a movement,
a set of social institutions, a constellation of ideas and an ensemble of
practical endeavors, including Waldorf, biodynamic farming, and others;
Anthroposophy is a prominent stream within contemporary western esotericism
and the most successful branch of the modern German occult revival, a
spinoff of theosophy and a continuation of many of its core themes. It isn't
merely some nondescript "social philosophy", it has specific content.
)You admit that anthroposophy doesn't just consist of esotericism,
)but, you stipulate that in order for someone to prove that P of F is
)anthroposophical it must have esoteric content.You're not being very
)consistant.
It would be interesting to learn what you find inconsistent about the above
summary. Historical phenomena are often complex, Charlie, with lots of
different facets. If anthroposophy only “consisted of esotericism”, it would
be impossible to distinguish it from any other variety of esoteric thought
and practice. One of the facets of anthroposophy – a central one,
historically speaking – is its ideas, its teachings, its specific content.
That is one thing that books do: they convey ideas, they propound teachings,
they present specific content. If you want to classify the content of a
particular book as belonging to a particular worldview, what you need to do
is show how the text includes elements that distinguish that particular
worldview from other worldviews.
You haven't done anything like this with PoF. What you have done so far is
demonstrate that the content of PoF is philosophical, which is something I
certainly don't dispute, but which is about as helpful as pointing out that
the content of a mathematics textbook is mathematical, when what you
actually claimed is that the content was about algebra, not about
arithmetic. Algebra is a specific kind of mathematics. Anthroposophy is a
specific kind of philosophy. Merely noting the philosophical content of PoF
won't show that the book is anthroposophical.
)I made an analogy between anthroposophy and mathematics.
)
)"Esotericism is related to anthroposophy in a similar way that algebra
)is related to mathematics."
)
)I do not think that substituting algebra for mathematics in the analogy
)makes anywhere near as good an analogy, and you argue as if this was the
)analogy that I was making.
I didn’t substitute anything in your analogy. Your analogy itself fails to
distinguish arithmetic from algebra, in a way that is very similar to your
mixing up of Steiner’s pre-1900 works with anthroposophy. Nobody disagrees
that in order to do algebra, you first need to learn something about
arithmetic. But learning arithmetic is itself hardly the same thing as
learning algebra. If you're trying to say that in order to do anthroposophy,
you first need to learn something about philosophy, I'm glad to agree. Alas,
this does not mean that philosophy and anthroposophy are the same thing.
)I see you are still arguing that PoF does not contain esotericism.
Yes, I am indeed arguing that. You could very easily disprove this argument
by simply quoting any esoteric passage from the book.
)What the exchange below sums up (I like the pun by the way) is that
)Peter twisted my analogy. I wasn't saying that arithmetic is algebra,
)but that both arithmetic (P of F) and algebra (anthroposophical
)esotericism) are branches of mathematics (anthroposophy).
I didn’t twist your analogy. According to your reasoning, arithmetic and
algebra are essentially the same thing – after all, they’re both branches of
mathematics – just as Steiner’s early philosophical works and his later
anthroposophical works are essentially the same thing – after all, they’re
both written by Rudolf Steiner. That's anthroposophy by association.
)Peter says above that anthroposophy isn't just esotericism, but the P of
)F needs to have esoteric content to be classed as anthroposophical.
)Can't you see the contradiction?
There is no contradiction between those two claims. A biodynamic farm is
part of anthroposophy, right? And a Waldorf school is part of anthroposophy,
right? But a biodynamic farm isn't a book, and a Waldorf school isn't a
book. Philosophy of Freedom is a book. It's a collection of ideas in textual
form. In order to figure out how to class those ideas, how to class the book
as a text, you'll have to look at the specific content, not simply observe
that the ideas are in some way vaguely philosophical. As it happens,
anthroposophy's core ideas are esoteric. If you want to show that PoF
contains anthroposophical content and not merely philosophical content, then
yes, you do indeed need to show that it contains esoteric content, at the
very least some tendentially esoteric content.
)There's no big deal here. But you did say that you found this discussion
)fascinating, so it must have some merit. It's just that I prefer to
)dance with Franky's anthroposophy than to watch Peter dissecting a
)corpse.
I think most of us probably share that preference; dancing is more fun than
providing evidence and reasoning in a public discussion. For better or
worse, however, this is a public discussion, not a dance floor, and yes, you
really do need to provide evidence and reasoning for your claims if you want
others to be able to assess them.
)Couldn't we just agree that some people have found that the P of F IS
)anthroposophical while others haven't found this (yet;)).
We already agree on that. You and Franky and Jean-Marc and Frank and several
others believe that PoF is anthroposophical. The next step in the dance is
to offer some evidence and some reasoning to support and substantiate that
notion.
It's worth noting that the dance consistently grinds to a halt at exactly
this point. Back in October, for example, I wrote the following to Frank:
"Other than the fact that they were written by the same author, in what
sense do you consider the meditative practices outlined in KoHW to be a
further development of the intuitive thinking discussed in PoF? What
substantive relationship do you discern between the two?"
And a month ago I wrote to you:
"I really am indifferent to what you get out of PoF. If it works for you as
a secretly coded guide to the higher worlds, that's cool with me. But we
weren't discussing what the book means to you personally. We were discussing
what the book actually says and does not say, what positions Steiner held
and did not hold at the time he wrote it, how it fits in to his intellectual
development in the course of the 1890s and beyond.”
(That was in the “anthroposophy by association 2” thread, which never went
anywhere)
And before that I wrote:
"Steiner in the 1890s tried out all sorts of different philosophies and
worldviews, and didn't settle on theosophy\anthroposophy until the turn of
the century. [...] I'd still be mildly interested in hearing just what it is
in PoF or any of Steiner's pre-1900 published works that they [the
proponents of the PoF-is-anthroposophical line] consider implicitly esoteric
or in some way influenced by esotericism or tending toward esotericism. It
is more than a little odd that this straightforward question should prove so
difficult for anthroposophists to answer; lots of prominent figures in the
history of philosophy and the history of science and the history of
literature and art were strongly interested in and influenced by various
forms of esotericism and occultism and dabbled quite a bit in these
phenomena, and it isn't difficult to trace those influences and dabblings.
How come none of the folks who insist so loudly that Steiner was an
esotericist in 1894 can come up with any evidence whatsoever for this
notion?”
I would be delighted to get meaningful replies to those queries. The
question isn't an especially important one to me, and I am wide open to
changing my mind on the matter (for what it's worth, I've changed my mind on
it before), and this list seems like a fine place to carry out the debate,
er, dance, so if there is some aspect of PoF that strikes you as
distinctively anthroposophical and not just generally philosophical, the
floor is yours, and I'll follow your lead.
Cheers,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Dave vs. Carl: The Insignificant Championship Series. Who will win?
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://davevscarl.spaces.live.com/?icid=T001MSN38C07001
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 10:04:45 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: anthroposophy by association 1
Hi Charlie,
)You.Peter, say, "anthroposophy is merely one branch of occultism", then
)you say, "anthroposophy really is among other things a branch of
)occultism". So which is it, merely one branch of occultism or more than
)that?
It's both. (It's a number of other things, too.) Anthroposophy is an
esoteric worldview / belief system / path of knowledge, as well a movement,
a set of social institutions, a constellation of ideas and an ensemble of
practical endeavors, including Waldorf, biodynamic farming, and others;
Anthroposophy is a prominent stream within contemporary western esotericism
and the most successful branch of the modern German occult revival, a
spinoff of theosophy and a continuation of many of its core themes. It isn't
merely some nondescript "social philosophy", it has specific content.
)You admit that anthroposophy doesn't just consist of esotericism,
)but, you stipulate that in order for someone to prove that P of F is
)anthroposophical it must have esoteric content.You're not being very
)consistant.
It would be interesting to learn what you find inconsistent about the above
summary. Historical phenomena are often complex, Charlie, with lots of
different facets. If anthroposophy only “consisted of esotericism”, it would
be impossible to distinguish it from any other variety of esoteric thought
and practice. One of the facets of anthroposophy – a central one,
historically speaking – is its ideas, its teachings, its specific content.
That is one thing that books do: they convey ideas, they propound teachings,
they present specific content. If you want to classify the content of a
particular book as belonging to a particular worldview, what you need to do
is show how the text includes elements that distinguish that particular
worldview from other worldviews.
You haven't done anything like this with PoF. What you have done so far is
demonstrate that the content of PoF is philosophical, which is something I
certainly don't dispute, but which is about as helpful as pointing out that
the content of a mathematics textbook is mathematical, when what you
actually claimed is that the content was about algebra, not about
arithmetic. Algebra is a specific kind of mathematics. Anthroposophy is a
specific kind of philosophy. Merely noting the philosophical content of PoF
won't show that the book is anthroposophical.
)I made an analogy between anthroposophy and mathematics.
)
)"Esotericism is related to anthroposophy in a similar way that algebra
)is related to mathematics."
)
)I do not think that substituting algebra for mathematics in the analogy
)makes anywhere near as good an analogy, and you argue as if this was the
)analogy that I was making.
I didn’t substitute anything in your analogy. Your analogy itself fails to
distinguish arithmetic from algebra, in a way that is very similar to your
mixing up of Steiner’s pre-1900 works with anthroposophy. Nobody disagrees
that in order to do algebra, you first need to learn something about
arithmetic. But learning arithmetic is itself hardly the same thing as
learning algebra. If you're trying to say that in order to do anthroposophy,
you first need to learn something about philosophy, I'm glad to agree. Alas,
this does not mean that philosophy and anthroposophy are the same thing.
)I see you are still arguing that PoF does not contain esotericism.
Yes, I am indeed arguing that. You could very easily disprove this argument
by simply quoting any esoteric passage from the book.
)What the exchange below sums up (I like the pun by the way) is that
)Peter twisted my analogy. I wasn't saying that arithmetic is algebra,
)but that both arithmetic (P of F) and algebra (anthroposophical
)esotericism) are branches of mathematics (anthroposophy).
I didn’t twist your analogy. According to your reasoning, arithmetic and
algebra are essentially the same thing – after all, they’re both branches of
mathematics – just as Steiner’s early philosophical works and his later
anthroposophical works are essentially the same thing – after all, they’re
both written by Rudolf Steiner. That's anthroposophy by association.
)Peter says above that anthroposophy isn't just esotericism, but the P of
)F needs to have esoteric content to be classed as anthroposophical.
)Can't you see the contradiction?
There is no contradiction between those two claims. A biodynamic farm is
part of anthroposophy, right? And a Waldorf school is part of anthroposophy,
right? But a biodynamic farm isn't a book, and a Waldorf school isn't a
book. Philosophy of Freedom is a book. It's a collection of ideas in textual
form. In order to figure out how to class those ideas, how to class the book
as a text, you'll have to look at the specific content, not simply observe
that the ideas are in some way vaguely philosophical. As it happens,
anthroposophy's core ideas are esoteric. If you want to show that PoF
contains anthroposophical content and not merely philosophical content, then
yes, you do indeed need to show that it contains esoteric content, at the
very least some tendentially esoteric content.
)There's no big deal here. But you did say that you found this discussion
)fascinating, so it must have some merit. It's just that I prefer to
)dance with Franky's anthroposophy than to watch Peter dissecting a
)corpse.
I think most of us probably share that preference; dancing is more fun than
providing evidence and reasoning in a public discussion. For better or
worse, however, this is a public discussion, not a dance floor, and yes, you
really do need to provide evidence and reasoning for your claims if you want
others to be able to assess them.
)Couldn't we just agree that some people have found that the P of F IS
)anthroposophical while others haven't found this (yet;)).
We already agree on that. You and Franky and Jean-Marc and Frank and several
others believe that PoF is anthroposophical. The next step in the dance is
to offer some evidence and some reasoning to support and substantiate that
notion.
It's worth noting that the dance consistently grinds to a halt at exactly
this point. Back in October, for example, I wrote the following to Frank:
"Other than the fact that they were written by the same author, in what
sense do you consider the meditative practices outlined in KoHW to be a
further development of the intuitive thinking discussed in PoF? What
substantive relationship do you discern between the two?"
And a month ago I wrote to you:
"I really am indifferent to what you get out of PoF. If it works for you as
a secretly coded guide to the higher worlds, that's cool with me. But we
weren't discussing what the book means to you personally. We were discussing
what the book actually says and does not say, what positions Steiner held
and did not hold at the time he wrote it, how it fits in to his intellectual
development in the course of the 1890s and beyond.”
(That was in the “anthroposophy by association 2” thread, which never went
anywhere)
And before that I wrote:
"Steiner in the 1890s tried out all sorts of different philosophies and
worldviews, and didn't settle on theosophy\anthroposophy until the turn of
the century. [...] I'd still be mildly interested in hearing just what it is
in PoF or any of Steiner's pre-1900 published works that they [the
proponents of the PoF-is-anthroposophical line] consider implicitly esoteric
or in some way influenced by esotericism or tending toward esotericism. It
is more than a little odd that this straightforward question should prove so
difficult for anthroposophists to answer; lots of prominent figures in the
history of philosophy and the history of science and the history of
literature and art were strongly interested in and influenced by various
forms of esotericism and occultism and dabbled quite a bit in these
phenomena, and it isn't difficult to trace those influences and dabblings.
How come none of the folks who insist so loudly that Steiner was an
esotericist in 1894 can come up with any evidence whatsoever for this
notion?”
I would be delighted to get meaningful replies to those queries. The
question isn't an especially important one to me, and I am wide open to
changing my mind on the matter (for what it's worth, I've changed my mind on
it before), and this list seems like a fine place to carry out the debate,
er, dance, so if there is some aspect of PoF that strikes you as
distinctively anthroposophical and not just generally philosophical, the
floor is yours, and I'll follow your lead.
Cheers,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Dave vs. Carl: The Insignificant Championship Series. Who will win?
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://davevscarl.spaces.live.com/?icid=T001MSN38C07001
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 2414
-- Topica Digest --
RE: anthroposophy by association 1
By isenhart7 yahoo.com
RE: Truth or not?
By pstaud hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 20:52:38 +0000
From: Valerie Walsh (isenhart7 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: anthroposophy by association 1
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
) It's both. (It's a number of other things, too.) Anthroposophy is an
) esoteric worldview / belief system / path of knowledge, as well a
) movement,
) a set of social institutions, a constellation of ideas and an ensemble
) of
) practical endeavors, including Waldorf, biodynamic farming, and others;
) Anthroposophy is a prominent stream within contemporary western
) esotericism
) and the most successful branch of the modern German occult revival, a
) spinoff of theosophy and a continuation of many of its core themes. It
) isn't
) merely some nondescript "social philosophy", it has specific content.
In a new twist on the perennial favorite "Mom's on the phone" game the
dog has now taken to attacking a book from our bookshelves everytime I
make a phone call. This morning's selection was, no kidding, "To Kill a
Mockingbird" followed by a little booklet by Alan Howard on "The Study
of Anthroposophy as an Aspect of the Free Spiritual Life."
What caught my eye on the first page of this booklet right as I was
wiping off the dog slobber was Howard's statement that anthroposophy is
first and foremost a body of knowledge but I'll quote the first couple
of paragraphs for context:
"To what extent is it possible to develop a free spiritual life as a new
kind of social experience in the study of anthroposophy? This is the
question which this essay intends to examine, quite apart from anything
else which might arise out of, or belong to, anthroposophy in any other
way.
If an individual is to be quite free in such an activity, no other
condition must be laid on him than the desire and will to take part in
it, if his activity is to be social it will be necessary to join with
others in doing so. Nothing else is required for anthroposophy, being
first and foremost a body of knowledge contained in the books and
lectures of Rudolf Steiner, those books need first to be understood,
and, where a group of people undertake this together, the chances are
that they will not only get further than they would on their own but
that they will also develop a new kind of social relationship."
So that's my two cents for the moment while I wait to see if anyone is
going to take you up on the dance offer. My money's on franky-Val
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 10:31:52 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Truth or not?
Dottie wrote:
)With Peter S. he has been told many times and showed
)many times that he had a wrong connection to a book
)and just like the way he is stubbornly sticking to the
)idea that The Philosophy of Freedom has nothing to do
)with Anthroposphy even though time and time again Jean
)Marc, Charlie and others have brought forth work that
)disagrees clearly with his understanding, he sticks
)his head in the sand.
Don't know what others make of this, but I think Jean-Marc and Charlie keep
bringing forth work that agrees with my understanding and disagrees with
their own. My position is that PoF is a philosophical work, and not an
anthroposophical or even generally esoteric one, and that after 1900 Steiner
changed his mind about this and presented PoF as not just an esoteric work
but an anthroposophical one. Charlie's posts consistently confirm my
position regarding the philosophical and non-esoteric nature of PoF, and
Jean-Marc's posts consistently confirm my position regarding Steiner's
post-1900 re-interpretation of the book. Charlie has said virtually nothing
about Steiner's post-1900 perspective, and Jean-Marc has said virtually
nothing about PoF itself.
)The boys have shown him time and time again about the
)root race understanding in line with epochs and how
)that is related to Rudolf Steiners understandings.
Since Sune hasn't said anything on the topic in five years, I'm guessing
Dottie has Joel et al in mind here. Joel's understanding of the root race
doctrine and the racial-ethnic epochs isn't significantly different from
mine, as the exchange from this summer showed. What we disagree about is not
whether Steiner propagated these teachings, but whether some of these
teachings are racist.
)Detlef Hardcorp checkmated him clearly but just like
)Sune showing him where he had gone wrong on that book
)he was trying to use to show a thing his own way, he
)stubbornly sticks to the idea that it existed.
I do think that PoF exists, and that Steiner's racial and ethnic doctrines
exist as well. It's also true that Detlef Hardorp explicitly defends
Steiner's racial teachings, including the ones about whites as the
spiritually creative race of the future and so forth. I agree that Steiner
said these things. Where Detlef and I disagree is whether these things are
racist.
Greetings to all,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Find sales, coupons, and free shipping, all in one place! MSN Shopping
Sales & Deals
http://shopping.msn.com/content/shp/?ctid=198,ptnrid=176,ptnrdata=200639
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 2415
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
By eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 20:54:39 -0000
From: "eurythmy" (eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
2007-01-09
Dear all,
Nietzsche following words on writing can encourage readers to be in a
morning mood, not in an evening mood in their reading. Beware of the Chinese
figure of speech!
"Alas, what are you after all, my written and painted thoughts! It was not
long ago that you were still so colourful, young, and malicious, full of
thorns and secret spices-you made me sneeze and laugh-and now? You have
already taken off your novelty, and some of you are ready, I fear, to become
truths: they already look so immortal, so pathetically decent, so dull! And
has it ever been different? What things do we copy, writing and painting, we
mandarins with Chinese brushes, we immortalisers of things that can be
written-what are the only things we are able to paint? Alas, always only
what is on the verge of withering and losing its fragrance! Alas, always
only storms that are passing, exhausted, and feelings that are autumnal and
yellow! Alas, always only birds that grew weary of flying and flew astray
and now can be caught by hand-by our hand! We immortalize what cannot live
and fly much longer-only weary and mellow things! And it is only your
afternoon, you, my written and painted thoughts, for which alone I have
colours, many colours perhaps, many motley caresses and fifty yellows and
browns and greens and reds: but nobody will guess from that how you looked
in your morning, you sudden sparks and wonders of my solitude, you my old
beloved-wicked thoughts!"
Kind Regards,
Franky
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 2416
-- Topica Digest --
RE: anthroposophy by association 1
By pstaud hotmail.com
the appeal of anthroposophy
By pstaud hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 21:06:25 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: anthroposophy by association 1
Hi Charlie,
)You.Peter, say, "anthroposophy is merely one branch of occultism", then
)you say, "anthroposophy really is among other things a branch of
)occultism". So which is it, merely one branch of occultism or more than
)that?
It's both. (It's a number of other things, too.) Anthroposophy is an
esoteric worldview / belief system / path of knowledge, as well a movement,
a set of social institutions, a constellation of ideas and an ensemble of
practical endeavors, including Waldorf, biodynamic farming, and others;
Anthroposophy is a prominent stream within contemporary western esotericism
and the most successful branch of the modern German occult revival, a
spinoff of theosophy and a continuation of many of its core themes. It isn't
merely some nondescript "social philosophy", it has specific content.
)You admit that anthroposophy doesn't just consist of esotericism,
)but, you stipulate that in order for someone to prove that P of F is
)anthroposophical it must have esoteric content.You're not being very
)consistant.
It would be interesting to learn what you find inconsistent about the above
summary. Historical phenomena are often complex, Charlie, with lots of
different facets. If anthroposophy only “consisted of esotericism”, it would
be impossible to distinguish it from any other variety of esoteric thought
and practice. One of the facets of anthroposophy – a central one,
historically speaking – is its ideas, its teachings, its specific content.
That is one thing that books do: they convey ideas, they propound teachings,
they present specific content. If you want to classify the content of a
particular book as belonging to a particular worldview, what you need to do
is show how the text includes elements that distinguish that particular
worldview from other worldviews.
You haven't done anything like this with PoF. What you have done so far is
demonstrate that the content of PoF is philosophical, which is something I
certainly don't dispute, but which is about as helpful as pointing out that
the content of a mathematics textbook is mathematical, when what you
actually claimed is that the content was about algebra, not about
arithmetic. Algebra is a specific kind of mathematics. Anthroposophy is a
specific kind of philosophy. Merely noting the philosophical content of PoF
won't show that the book is anthroposophical.
)I made an analogy between anthroposophy and mathematics.
)
)"Esotericism is related to anthroposophy in a similar way that algebra
)is related to mathematics."
)
)I do not think that substituting algebra for mathematics in the analogy
)makes anywhere near as good an analogy, and you argue as if this was the
)analogy that I was making.
I didn’t substitute anything in your analogy. Your analogy itself fails to
distinguish arithmetic from algebra, in a way that is very similar to your
mixing up of Steiner’s pre-1900 works with anthroposophy. Nobody disagrees
that in order to do algebra, you first need to learn something about
arithmetic. But learning arithmetic is itself hardly the same thing as
learning algebra. If you're trying to say that in order to do anthroposophy,
you first need to learn something about philosophy, I'm glad to agree. Alas,
this does not mean that philosophy and anthroposophy are the same thing.
)I see you are still arguing that PoF does not contain esotericism.
Yes, I am indeed arguing that. You could very easily disprove this argument
by simply quoting any esoteric passage from the book.
)What the exchange below sums up (I like the pun by the way) is that
)Peter twisted my analogy. I wasn't saying that arithmetic is algebra,
)but that both arithmetic (P of F) and algebra (anthroposophical
)esotericism) are branches of mathematics (anthroposophy).
I didn’t twist your analogy. According to your reasoning, arithmetic and
algebra are essentially the same thing – after all, they’re both branches of
mathematics – just as Steiner’s early philosophical works and his later
anthroposophical works are essentially the same thing – after all, they’re
both written by Rudolf Steiner. That's anthroposophy by association.
)Peter says above that anthroposophy isn't just esotericism, but the P of
)F needs to have esoteric content to be classed as anthroposophical.
)Can't you see the contradiction?
There is no contradiction between those two claims. A biodynamic farm is
part of anthroposophy, right? And a Waldorf school is part of anthroposophy,
right? But a biodynamic farm isn't a book, and a Waldorf school isn't a
book. Philosophy of Freedom is a book. It's a collection of ideas in textual
form. In order to figure out how to class those ideas, how to class the book
as a text, you'll have to look at the specific content, not simply observe
that the ideas are in some way vaguely philosophical. As it happens,
anthroposophy's core ideas are esoteric. If you want to show that PoF
contains anthroposophical content and not merely philosophical content, then
yes, you do indeed need to show that it contains esoteric content, at the
very least some tendentially esoteric content.
)There's no big deal here. But you did say that you found this discussion
)fascinating, so it must have some merit. It's just that I prefer to
)dance with Franky's anthroposophy than to watch Peter dissecting a
)corpse.
I think most of us probably share that preference; dancing is more fun than
providing evidence and reasoning in a public discussion. For better or
worse, however, this is a public discussion, not a dance floor, and yes, you
really do need to provide evidence and reasoning for your claims if you want
others to be able to assess them.
)Couldn't we just agree that some people have found that the P of F IS
)anthroposophical while others haven't found this (yet;)).
We already agree on that. You and Franky and Jean-Marc and Frank and several
others believe that PoF is anthroposophical. The next step in the dance is
to offer some evidence and some reasoning to support and substantiate that
notion.
It's worth noting that the dance consistently grinds to a halt at exactly
this point. Back in October, for example, I wrote the following to Frank:
"Other than the fact that they were written by the same author, in what
sense do you consider the meditative practices outlined in KoHW to be a
further development of the intuitive thinking discussed in PoF? What
substantive relationship do you discern between the two?"
And a month ago I wrote to you:
"I really am indifferent to what you get out of PoF. If it works for you as
a secretly coded guide to the higher worlds, that's cool with me. But we
weren't discussing what the book means to you personally. We were discussing
what the book actually says and does not say, what positions Steiner held
and did not hold at the time he wrote it, how it fits in to his intellectual
development in the course of the 1890s and beyond.”
(That was in the “anthroposophy by association 2” thread, which never went
anywhere)
And before that I wrote:
"Steiner in the 1890s tried out all sorts of different philosophies and
worldviews, and didn't settle on theosophy\anthroposophy until the turn of
the century. [...] I'd still be mildly interested in hearing just what it is
in PoF or any of Steiner's pre-1900 published works that they [the
proponents of the PoF-is-anthroposophical line] consider implicitly esoteric
or in some way influenced by esotericism or tending toward esotericism. It
is more than a little odd that this straightforward question should prove so
difficult for anthroposophists to answer; lots of prominent figures in the
history of philosophy and the history of science and the history of
literature and art were strongly interested in and influenced by various
forms of esotericism and occultism and dabbled quite a bit in these
phenomena, and it isn't difficult to trace those influences and dabblings.
How come none of the folks who insist so loudly that Steiner was an
esotericist in 1894 can come up with any evidence whatsoever for this
notion?”
I would be delighted to get meaningful replies to those queries. The
question isn't an especially important one to me, and I am wide open to
changing my mind on the matter (for what it's worth, I've changed my mind on
it before), and this list seems like a fine place to carry out the debate,
er, dance, so if there is some aspect of PoF that strikes you as
distinctively anthroposophical and not just generally philosophical, the
floor is yours, and I'll follow your lead.
Cheers,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
)From photos to predictions, The MSN Entertainment Guide to Golden Globes has
it all. http://tv.msn.com/tv/globes2007/?icid=nctagline1
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 02:49:55 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: the appeal of anthroposophy
Hello everyone,
I'm back in Berlin now, with somewhat more consistent internet access. Maybe
my posts will stop appearing in triplicate from now on. I think we may have
beaten the PoF theme into the ground, but while I'm waiting for a dance
partner to show up, I thought I'd venture some general hypotheses about why
anthroposophists and non-anthroposophists read this book so differently.
I think that part of the reason may have to do with the specific sort of
appeal that anthroposophy exercises on some people and not on others, and
the different approaches to reading, thinking, and discussion in general
that often distinguish those who find anthroposophy attractive from those
who don't. All kinds of people are drawn to anthroposophy for all kinds of
reasons. But a notable pattern is that many people who are drawn to
anthroposophy do not seem to have well developed critical reading skills, or
are forthrightly suspicious of critical reading, considering it
un-spiritual, materialist, and boring. These different attitudes toward
texts as such appear to have played a significant role in the last five
months' worth of back and forth about Steiner's book The Philosophy of
Freedom.
But a similar pattern can be traced through lots of other discussions
between anthroposophists and non-anthroposophists. One example, from
several years ago and from another email list, has nothing to do with PoF
but quite a bit to do with critical reading and a basic willingness to
evaluate textual sources. In the spring of 2004 I spent several months on
the Anthroposophy Tomorrow email list, where nearly all of the participants
in the recent PoF-is-anthro exchange have also been members: Joel, Mike,
Frank, Dottie, Keith, Val, Jean-Marc, Franky, etc.
One of the more telling incidents during my sojourn on Anthroposophy
Tomorrow was the moment when a remarkable number of list members convinced
themselves, on the basis of an extraordinarily muddled argument by a Waldorf
PR representative, that one of Rudolf Steiner’s sentences about the
unfavorable impact of Jews on European culture actually meant its opposite.
Among the many noteworthy ironies of the affair is that the public relations
spokesperson in question, Detlef Hardorp, is a native speaker of German. I’m
not sure exactly what to compare it to in English, but his argument was sort
of like insisting that people who say “I could care less” really mean the
opposite of “I couldn’t care less” (for the benefit of the non-native
speakers of English here, those two phrases in fact mean the same thing).
Lots of Anthroposophy Tomorrow listmates nonetheless lined up to declare
that yes, Steiner’s sentence meant the opposite of what it said. Frank even
dragged his hapless daughter into the affair. Appeals to evidence,
reasoning, and basic grammatical categories went nowhere. It was a
fascinating instance of people who boast of their commitment to independent
thought failing to engage in even minimal critical reading practices.
In my experience, cases such as this are a fairly common occurence in public
discussions between anthroposophists and non-anthroposophists. They suggest
that there may be important limits to how much sense can be made out of
anthroposophists' interpretations of their founder's writings. Perhaps one
of the ingredients in the appeal of anthroposophy is that these writings are
not to be taken too seriously, read too carefully, or considered too
critically, lest the appeal fade away.
As always, I welcome comments from all quarters, even from you wallflowers
out there who are too shy to dance. Greetings to all,
Peter Staudenmaier
_________________________________________________________________
The MSN Entertainment Guide to Golden Globes is here. Get all the scoop.
http://tv.msn.com/tv/globes2007/?icid=nctagline2
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 2417
-- Topica Digest --
RE: "it should not call itself anthroposophy" or should it?
By charlie morrison5.fsnet.co.uk
RE: "it should not call itself anthroposophy" or should it?
By charlie morrison5.fsnet.co.uk
RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
By isenhart7 yahoo.com
RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
By Diana.Winters verizon.net
RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
By isenhart7 yahoo.com
Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
By eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk
RE: "it should not call itself anthroposophy" or should it?
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
By isenhart7 yahoo.com
Re: waldorf for homeschool?
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: the appeal of anthroposophy
By jmnguyen wanadoo.fr
Re: the appeal of anthroposophy
By SerenaBlaue aol.com
Re: the appeal of anthroposophy
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
By charlie morrison5.fsnet.co.uk
RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
By charlie morrison5.fsnet.co.uk
Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: "it should not call itself anthroposophy" or should it?
By charlie morrison5.fsnet.co.uk
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 15:39:28 +0000
From: charles morrison (charlie morrison5.fsnet.co.uk)
Subject: RE: "it should not call itself anthroposophy" or should it?
(CM):
You, Peter, say that we should confine ourselves to a descriptive
conception of anthroposophy, anthroposophy as it actually is. So I had a
quick look through some of the non-anthroposophical books in my
possession to see what they say about anthroposophy. Below I've quoted
from a variety of sources some more worthwhile than others.
(PS):
Webb and Ahern are particularly good, as English-language sources go,
despite the various criticisms of each I've voiced on this list before.
Do you think that they help support your claim that Steiner was an
anthroposophist in the 1890s?
Charlie M:
They help support my claim that anthroposophy is more than just a branch
of western esotericism, something you seem to be swaying on.
(CM):
Here's a summary of how the writers of these books view anthroposophy: A
"philosophy of life", "a spiritual philosophy and set of teachings ", "a
kind of mystical humanism", "a structured admixture of
spiritualism, oriental and pseudo-scientific myth", something that is
"structurally similar to Western esotericism", a "social philosophy" and
a "spiritual system".
(PS):
Sounds hunky dory to me, but too general to distinguish anthroposophy as
such from other social philosophies and spiritual systems. For our
purposes, we need more specificity than that. Also, you might note
that the encyclopedia entry you cite says that Steiner initiated
anthroposophy after his stint as a theosophist, which makes PoF a
pre-anthroposophical work.
Charlie M:
A rose by any other name. We all know that his use of the term
"anthroposophy" came later. You may wish to note that the encyclopedia
entry also makes Christianity as Mystical Fact and many other of his
works pre-anthroposophical.
Mr and Mrs Smith were the proud new parents of a baby girl, but they
couldn't decide on a name for her. After several weeks just before his
Christening they decided to name her Jane. Does this mean that
the person who grew up under the name Jane Smith was a different person
during the first few weeks of her life? Would her parents be justified
in saying that Jane weighed 8lbs at birth or should they say the
baby who became Jane weighed 8lbs at birth? Was it Jane that was in the
womb?
The romantic movement and idealist philosophies were like sperm
struggling toward the egg. The materialistic philosophies were swimming
in the wrong direction and still are. Steiner's philosophy penetrated
and fertilised the egg. Theosophy carried anthroposophy to full term and
it was Christened in 1913.
(PS):
Let's look at the Webb and Ahern passages:
The Occult Establishment by James Webb
P67
"What is important to notice is that Steiner could find in such diverse
quarters as Theosophy, philosophical idealism, and the possibly Tantric
magic of the O.T.O., material for his hoped-for revolution in
consciousness."
(PS):
Yes indeed, Steiner found lots of material in philosophical idealism
that he adopted into anthroposophy. This doesn't magically transform
philosophical idealism into anthroposophy.
Charlie M:
Philosophical idealism isn't anthroposophy, esoterism isn't
anthroposophy. You've just admitted that philosophical idealism plays a
part in anthroposophy, so would you agree that the P of F plays a part
in
anthroposopophy?
P68
"If his sources were varied, his applications were equally so. For he
intended Anthroposophy to be an all-embracing science that would provide
answers both spiritually and materially satisfying in every branch
of life."
(PS):
Yep. Among his sources were Goethe, Fichte, Blavatsky, and lots and lots
of other non-anthroposophists.
Charlie M:
What are you trying to say? Does this mean that if we can find
non-anthroposophical references in Steiner's later works then it can't
be called anthroposophy?
P349
"Nothing, he felt, should remain unconscious. Steiner's deduction was
that he should find some way of making conscious the unconscious
processes - which is what his 'spiritual perception' amounts to.
(PS):
If you're trying to say that making the unconscious conscious is
anthroposophical, then Freud would be an anthroposophist.
Charlie M:
I'm not saying anything, James Webb is.
Sun at Midnight by Geoffrey Ahern
P68
"Admittedly, his Anthroposophy is structurally similar to Western
esotericism and doctrinally often closely resembles Theosophy and many
other contemporary systems of thought; yet Rudolf Steiner stated that
everything Anthroposophical derives from his own, original spiritual
research. But by itself this does not make his revelation necessarily
mistaken, let alone dishonest.
(PS):
Let's hope Baandje et al are reading this...
(Jesus, unlike modern scholars, was almost certainly unaware that his
convictions probably owed as much to Zoroastrianism as to the ancient
Judaism of the `chosen' people.) That Steiner was true to himself is
also suggested by his frank admission that he had diffiiculty with sense
perception.
"The firm sense perception that normally consolidates during childhood
and youth (in modern society) only developed for him when he was
thirty-five. His inner world seems to have been that which most
people leave behind in childhood or even infancy. Yet as an adult he had
direct access to it with his scientifically trained and philosophically
knowledgeable mind. He would have had difficulty with the present
consensus among psychologists that we perceive the world indirectly
through physiological mechanisms, so that what we see `out there' is
really a sort of predictive description. Steiner thought he had
demonstrated the falsity of the assertion that sense-percepts are
subjective. Nevertheless, what was most real for him was the spiritual
activity of thinking that precedes the formation of subject and object.
He
believed he had absolute knowledge of spirit; he took it as much for
reality as normal people do the kitchen table. Thus he thought spiritual
'science' was possible, as have many other modern people."
(PS):
Yep. You thought maybe all those "many other modern people" were
anthroposophists too?
Charlie M:
Why should I think that spiritual science is confined to anthroposophy?
(CM):
As can be seen from these excerpts, the reading public is being shown
various views of anthroposophy that, although it includes esotericism,
is not bounded by it. To say that it is a branch of the western
esoteric tradition would seem to me to set unrealistic and inacccurate
limits on it.
(PS):
Yes, that's the normative conception of anthroposophy to which you seem
particularly attached. It is of no concern in a public discussion with
non-anthroposophists.
Charlie M:
If you are looking for an objective description of anthroposophy then I
would say that mine is closer to the truth than yours. As can be seen
from the quotes that I provided even those who write about
esotericism and occultism do not confine anthroposophy to these things.
(CM):
I would say that, just like esotericism, anthroposophy is not easy to
define.
(PS):
Yes indeed.
(CM):
I said previously, through thinking we can have inner experiences that
are as objective as the world of nature. I'll ask again, do you deny
that Steiner stated this both in the P of F and Knowledge of the Higher
Worlds?
(PS):
No, I don't deny this (who do you think *does* deny this, by the
way?),..
Charlie M:
The majority of the scientific establishment considers that our thinking
is produced by the physical brain and in turn produces nothing but
subjective experiences. They may say that this actually leads us closer
to objective reality but the processes themselves are purely subjective.
)From The Human Body - The Brain - Mysteries of Mind and Matter, Roy B.
Pinchot, ed.
"Today, scientists know that thoughts, feelings and sensations - the
'stuff' of consciuosness - are products of electrochemical activity in
the brain."
Anyone who adheres to the basic correctness of the Darwinian view of
evolution and wishes to remain consistent has no option but to hold the
veiw that thinking is an attribute of the brain designed to confer a
survival advantage and our inner experiences are contained within our
physical brains and are thus subjective.
(PS, continues):
...any more than I deny that PoF and KHW are both about epistemology.
They present strikingly different epistemologies: KHW is esoteric and
PoF isn't, PoF's epistemology is this-wordly and KHW's is
other-worldly, and so forth. If we take KHW as a reasonable standard for
an anthroposophical work -- a fine choice, in my view -- then PoF
doesn't hold up at all. There is nothing about the higher worlds
anywhere in the book. Perhaps I can repeat what I wrote to you some time
ago in this thread:
The point is to figure out which views are selected and how they are put
together. Steiner's anthroposophical works themselves are the best
standard for this. Take a look at Anthroposophical Leading
Thoughts, for instance. You won't simply find general stuff there about
human self-knowledge and man as a being who thinks and remembers, you'll
find lots and lots about the cosmic mission of Michael, the
machinations of Ahriman, the mystery of Golgotha, the astral body,
reincarnation, the spiritual hierarchies, and so forth. Try to keep in
mind that this text is not one of the more overtly occultist ones, but
one
that fits your own preferred terminology -- its subtitle is
Anthroposophy as a Path of Knowledge. The mature Steiner did not simply
posit any old path of knowledge, he posited a specific one with
distinctive
markings along the path. Those markings are the elements that help
differentiate anthroposophy from other philosophies. If you find any of
those markings in PoF, let me know.
Charlie M:
I wouldn't consider KHW to be epistemology. I would say that it is more
of a practical instruction manual. The P of F lays down Steiner's
philosophy and KHW points to where Steiner's philosophy leads if anyone
wishes to take it seriously and pursue it further. If you don't wish to
follow the path that starts out in the P of F then you can't be expected
to know where it leads. When Steiner wrote Anthroposophical Leading
Thoughts he was much further up the path imo.
Slainte,
Charlie M.
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
)
)
)
) Hi Charlie,
)
)
) )You, Peter, say that we should confine ourselves to a descriptive
) )conception of anthroposophy, anthroposophy as it actually is. So I had a
) )quick look through some of the non-anthroposophical books in my
) )possession to see what they say about anthroposophy. Below I've quoted
) )from a variety of sources some more worthwhile than others.
)
)
) Webb and Ahern are particularly good, as English-language sources go,
) despite the various criticisms of each I've voiced on this list before.
) Do
) you think that they help support your claim that Steiner was an
) anthroposophist in the 1890s?
)
)
) )Here's a summary of how the writers of these books view anthroposophy:
) )A "philosophy of life", "a spiritual philosophy and set of teachings ",
) )"a kind of mystical humanism", "a structured admixture of spiritualism,
) )oriental and pseudo-scientific myth", something that is "structurally
) )similar to Western esotericism", a "social philosophy" and a "spiritual
) )system".
)
)
) Sounds hunky dory to me, but too general to distinguish anthroposophy as
)
) such from other social philosophies and spiritual systems. For our
) purposes,
) we need more specificity than that. Also, you might note that the
) encyclopedia entry you cite says that Steiner initiated anthroposophy
) after
) his stint as a theosophist, which makes PoF a pre-anthroposophical work.
)
) Let's look at the Webb and Ahern passages:
)
)
) )The Occult Establishment by James Webb
) )P67
) )"What is important to notice is that Steiner could find in such diverse
) )quarters as Theosophy, philosophical idealism, and the possibly Tantric
) )magic of the O.T.O., material for his hoped-for revolution in
) )consciousness."
)
)
) Yes indeed, Steiner found lots of material in philosophical idealism
) that he
) adopted into anthroposophy. This doesn't magically transform
) philosophical
) idealism into anthroposophy.
)
)
) )P68
) )"If his sources were varied, his applications were equally so. For he
) )intended Anthroposophy to be an all-embracing science that would provide
) )answers both spiritually and materially satisfying in every branch of
) )life."
)
)
) Yep. Among his sources were Goethe, Fichte, Blavatsky, and lots and lots
) of
) other non-anthroposophists.
)
)
) )P349
) )"Nothing, he felt, should remain unconscious. Steiner's deduction was
) )that he should find some way of making conscious the unconscious
) )processes - which is what his 'spiritual perception' amounts to.
)
)
) If you're trying to say that making the unconscious conscious is
) anthroposophical, then Freud would be an anthroposophist.
)
)
) )Sun at Midnight by Geoffrey Ahern
) )P68
) )"Admittedly, his Anthroposophy is structurally similar to Western
) )esotericism and doctrinally often closely resembles Theosophy and many
) )other contemporary systems of thought; yet Rudolf Steiner stated that
) )everything Anthroposophical derives from his own, original spiritual
) )research. But by itself this does not make his revelation necessarily
) )mistaken, let alone dishonest.
)
)
) Let's hope Baandje et al are reading this...
)
)
) )(Jesus, unlike modern scholars, was
) )almost certainly unaware that his convictions probably owed as much to
) )Zoroastrianism as to the ancient Judaism of the `chosen' people.) That
) )Steiner was true to himself is also suggested by his frank admission
) )that he had diffiiculty with sense perception.
) )
) )"The firm sense perception that normally consolidates during childhood
) )and youth (in modern society) only developed for him when he was
) )thirty-five. His inner world seems to have been that which most people
) )leave behind in childhood or even infancy. Yet as an adult he had direct
) )access to it with his scientifically trained and philosophically
) )knowledgeable mind. He would have had difficulty with the present
) )consensus among psychologists that we perceive the world indirectly
) )through physiological mechanisms, so that what we see `out there' is
) )really a sort of predictive description. Steiner thought he had
) )demonstrated the falsity of the assertion that sense-percepts are
) )subjective. Nevertheless, what was most real for him was the spiritual
) )activity of thinking that precedes the formation of subject and object.
) )He believed he had absolute knowledge of spirit; he took it as much for
) )reality as normal people do the kitchen table. Thus he thought spiritual
) )`science' was possible, as have many other modern people."
)
)
) Yep. You thought maybe all those "many other modern people" were
) anthroposophists too?
)
)
) )Charlie M:
) )As can be seen from these excerpts, the reading public is being shown
) )various views of anthroposophy that, although it includes esotericism,
) )is not bounded by it. To say that it is a branch of the western esoteric
) )tradition would seem to me to set unrealistic and inacccurate limits on
) )it.
)
)
) Yes, that's the normative conception of anthroposophy to which you seem
) particularly attached. It is of no concern in a public discussion with
) non-anthroposophists.
)
)
) )I would say that, just like esotericism, anthroposophy is not easy to
) )define.
)
)
) Yes indeed.
)
)
) )I said previously, through thinking we can have inner experiences that
) )are as objective as the world of nature. I'll ask again, do you deny
) )that Steiner stated this both in the P of F and Knowledge of the Higher
) )Worlds?
)
)
) No, I don't deny this (who do you think *does* deny this, by the way?),
) any
) more than I deny that PoF and KHW are both about epistemology. They
) present
) strikingly different epistemologies: KHW is esoteric and PoF isn't,
) PoF's
) epistemology is this-wordly and KHW's is other-worldly, and so forth. If
) we
) take KHW as a reasonable standard for an anthroposophical work -- a fine
)
) choice, in my view -- then PoF doesn't hold up at all. There is nothing
) about the higher worlds anywhere in the book. Perhaps I can repeat what
) I
) wrote to you some time ago in this thread:
)
) The point is to figure out which views are selected and how they are put
)
) together. Steiner's anthroposophical works themselves are the best
) standard
) for this. Take a look at Anthroposophical Leading Thoughts, for
) instance.
) You won't simply find general stuff there about human self-knowledge and
) man
) as a being who thinks and remembers, you'll find lots and lots about the
)
) cosmic mission of Michael, the machinations of Ahriman, the mystery of
) Golgotha, the astral body, reincarnation, the spiritual hierarchies, and
) so
) forth. Try to keep in mind that this text is not one of the more overtly
)
) occultist ones, but one that fits your own preferred terminology -- its
) subtitle is Anthroposophy as a Path of Knowledge. The mature Steiner did
) not
) simply posit any old path of knowledge, he posited a specific one with
) distinctive markings along the path. Those markings are the elements
) that
) help differentiate anthroposophy from other philosophies. If you find
) any of
) those markings in PoF, let me know.
)
)
) Cheers,
)
)
) Peter S.
)
) _________________________________________________________________
) Get FREE Web site and company branded e-mail from Microsoft Office Live
) http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 15:47:13 +0000
From: charles morrison (charlie morrison5.fsnet.co.uk)
Subject: RE: "it should not call itself anthroposophy" or should it?
Hi Peter and all,
I wrote:
(CM):
You, Peter, say that we should confine ourselves to a descriptive
conception of anthroposophy, anthroposophy as it actually is. So I had a
quick look through some of the non-anthroposophical books in my
possession to see what they say about anthroposophy. Below I've quoted
from a variety of sources some more worthwhile than others.
(PS):
Webb and Ahern are particularly good, as English-language sources go,
despite the various criticisms of each I've voiced on this list before.
Do you think that they help support your claim that Steiner was an
anthroposophist in the 1890s?
***Charlie M:
They help support my claim that anthroposophy is more than just a branch
of western esotericism, something you seem to be swaying on.
(CM):
Here's a summary of how the writers of these books view anthroposophy: A
"philosophy of life", "a spiritual philosophy and set of teachings ", "a
kind of mystical humanism", "a structured admixture of
spiritualism, oriental and pseudo-scientific myth", something that is
"structurally similar to Western esotericism", a "social philosophy" and
a "spiritual system".
(PS):
Sounds hunky dory to me, but too general to distinguish anthroposophy as
such from other social philosophies and spiritual systems. For our
purposes, we need more specificity than that. Also, you might note
that the encyclopedia entry you cite says that Steiner initiated
anthroposophy after his stint as a theosophist, which makes PoF a
pre-anthroposophical work.
***Charlie M:
A rose by any other name. We all know that his use of the term
"anthroposophy" came later. You may wish to note that the encyclopedia
entry also makes Christianity as Mystical Fact and many other of his
works pre-anthroposophical.
Mr and Mrs Smith were the proud new parents of a baby girl, but they
couldn't decide on a name for her. After several weeks just before his
Christening they decided to name her Jane. Does this mean that
the person who grew up under the name Jane Smith was a different person
during the first few weeks of her life? Would her parents be justified
in saying that Jane weighed 8lbs at birth or should they say the baby
who became Jane weighed 8lbs at birth? Was it Jane that was in the womb?
The romantic movement and idealist philosophies were like sperm
struggling toward the egg. The materialistic philosophies were swimming
in the wrong direction and still are. Steiner's philosophy penetrated
and fertilised the egg. Theosophy carried anthroposophy to full term and
it was Christened in 1913.
(PS):
Let's look at the Webb and Ahern passages:
The Occult Establishment by James Webb
P67
"What is important to notice is that Steiner could find in such diverse
quarters as Theosophy, philosophical idealism, and the possibly Tantric
magic of the O.T.O., material for his hoped-for revolution in
consciousness."
(PS):
Yes indeed, Steiner found lots of material in philosophical idealism
that he adopted into anthroposophy. This doesn't magically transform
philosophical idealism into anthroposophy.
***Charlie M:
Philosophical idealism isn't anthroposophy, esoterism isn't
anthroposophy. You've just admitted that philosophical idealism plays a
part in anthroposophy, so would you agree that the P of F plays a part
in anthroposopophy?
P68
"If his sources were varied, his applications were equally so. For he
intended Anthroposophy to be an all-embracing science that would provide
answers both spiritually and materially satisfying in every branch of
life."
(PS):
Yep. Among his sources were Goethe, Fichte, Blavatsky, and lots and lots
of other non-anthroposophists.
***Charlie M:
What are you trying to say? Does this mean that if we can find
non-anthroposophical references in Steiner's later works then it can't
be called anthroposophy?
P349
"Nothing, he felt, should remain unconscious. Steiner's deduction was
that he should find some way of making conscious the unconscious
processes - which is what his 'spiritual perception' amounts to.
(PS):
If you're trying to say that making the unconscious conscious is
anthroposophical, then Freud would be an anthroposophist.
***Charlie M:
I'm not saying anything, James Webb is.
Sun at Midnight by Geoffrey Ahern
P68
"Admittedly, his Anthroposophy is structurally similar to Western
esotericism and doctrinally often closely resembles Theosophy and many
other contemporary systems of thought; yet Rudolf Steiner stated that
everything Anthroposophical derives from his own, original spiritual
research. But by itself this does not make his revelation necessarily
mistaken, let alone dishonest.
(PS):
Let's hope Baandje et al are reading this...
(Jesus, unlike modern scholars, was almost certainly unaware that his
convictions probably owed as much to Zoroastrianism as to the ancient
Judaism of the `chosen' people.) That Steiner was true to himself is
also suggested by his frank admission that he had diffiiculty with sense
perception.
"The firm sense perception that normally consolidates during childhood
and youth (in modern society) only developed for him when he was
thirty-five. His inner world seems to have been that which most people
leave behind in childhood or even infancy. Yet as an adult he had direct
access to it with his scientifically trained and philosophically
knowledgeable mind. He would have had difficulty with the present
consensus among psychologists that we perceive the world indirectly
through physiological mechanisms, so that what we see `out there' is
really a sort of predictive description. Steiner thought he had
demonstrated the falsity of the assertion that sense-percepts are
subjective. Nevertheless, what was most real for him was the spiritual
activity of thinking that precedes the formation of subject and object.
He believed he had absolute knowledge of spirit; he took it as much for
reality as normal people do the kitchen table. Thus he thought spiritual
'science' was possible, as have many other modern people."
(PS):
Yep. You thought maybe all those "many other modern people" were
anthroposophists too?
***Charlie M:
Why should I think that spiritual science is confined to anthroposophy?
(CM):
As can be seen from these excerpts, the reading public is being shown
various views of anthroposophy that, although it includes esotericism,
is not bounded by it. To say that it is a branch of the western esoteric
tradition would seem to me to set unrealistic and inacccurate limits on
it.
(PS):
Yes, that's the normative conception of anthroposophy to which you seem
particularly attached. It is of no concern in a public discussion with
non-anthroposophists.
***Charlie M:
If you are looking for an objective description of anthroposophy then I
would say that mine is closer to the truth than yours. As can be seen
from the quotes that I provided even those who write about
esotericism and occultism do not confine anthroposophy to these things.
(CM):
I would say that, just like esotericism, anthroposophy is not easy to
define.
(PS):
Yes indeed.
(CM):
I said previously, through thinking we can have inner experiences that
are as objective as the world of nature. I'll ask again, do you deny
that Steiner stated this both in the P of F and Knowledge of the Higher
Worlds?
(PS):
No, I don't deny this (who do you think *does* deny this, by the
way?),..
***Charlie M:
The majority of the scientific establishment considers that our thinking
is produced by the physical brain and in turn produces nothing but
subjective experiences. They may say that this actually leads us closer
to objective reality but the processes themselves are purely subjective.
)From The Human Body - The Brain - Mysteries of Mind and Matter, Roy B.
Pinchot, ed.
"Today, scientists know that thoughts, feelings and sensations - the
'stuff' of consciuosness - are products of electrochemical activity in
the brain."
Anyone who adheres to the basic correctness of the Darwinian view of
evolution and wishes to remain consistent has no option but to hold the
veiw that thinking is an attribute of the brain designed to confer a
survival advantage and our inner experiences are contained within our
physical brains and are thus subjective.
(PS, continues):
...any more than I deny that PoF and KHW are both about epistemology.
They present strikingly different epistemologies: KHW is esoteric and
PoF isn't, PoF's epistemology is this-wordly and KHW's is other-worldly,
and so forth. If we take KHW as a reasonable standard for an
anthroposophical work -- a fine choice, in my view -- then PoF doesn't
hold up at all. There is nothing about the higher worlds anywhere in the
book. Perhaps I can repeat what I wrote to you some time ago in this
thread:
The point is to figure out which views are selected and how they are put
together. Steiner's anthroposophical works themselves are the best
standard for this. Take a look at Anthroposophical Leading
Thoughts, for instance. You won't simply find general stuff there about
human self-knowledge and man as a being who thinks and remembers, you'll
find lots and lots about the cosmic mission of Michael, the machinations
of Ahriman, the mystery of Golgotha, the astral body, reincarnation, the
spiritual hierarchies, and so forth. Try to keep in mind that this text
is not one of the more overtly occultist ones, but one that fits your
own preferred terminology -- its subtitle is Anthroposophy as a Path of
Knowledge. The mature Steiner did not simply posit any old path of
knowledge, he posited a specific one with distinctive markings along the
path. Those markings are the elements that help differentiate
anthroposophy from other philosophies. If you find any of those markings
in PoF, let me know.
***Charlie M:
I wouldn't consider KHW to be epistemology. I would say that it is more
of a practical instruction manual. The P of F lays down Steiner's
philosophy and KHW points to where Steiner's philosophy leads if anyone
wishes to take it seriously and pursue it further. If you don't wish to
follow the path that starts out in the P of F then you can't be expected
to know where it leads. When Steiner wrote Anthroposophical Leading
Thoughts he was much further up the path imo.
Slainte,
Charlie M.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 16:45:43 +0000
From: Valerie Walsh (isenhart7 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
) As always, I welcome comments from all quarters, even from you
) wallflowers
) out there who are too shy to dance.
Dear Peter,
Is it that the wallflowers are too shy to dance or are they perhaps
afraid to get too close to you lest you lose some of your appeal?-Val
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 19:48:59 +0000
From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)I think that part of the reason may have to do with the specific )sort
)of appeal that anthroposophy exercises on some people and not )on
)others, and the different approaches to reading, thinking, and
))discussion in general that often distinguish those who find
))anthroposophy attractive from those who don't. All kinds of people )are
)drawn to anthroposophy for all kinds of reasons. But a notable )pattern
)is that many people who are drawn to anthroposophy do not )seem to have
)well developed critical reading skills, or are )forthrightly suspicious
)of critical reading, considering it un-)spiritual, materialist, and
)boring. These different attitudes toward )texts as such appear to have
)played a significant role in the last )five months' worth of back and
)forth about Steiner's book The )Philosophy of Freedom.
Has it really been five months?! Well, you've written a very politely
worded summation of the problem: some of these people cannot read,
others cannot follow a very basic logical argument on the simplest
level, and it's more glaring at some times than others.
)But a similar pattern can be traced through lots of other )discussions
)between anthroposophists and non-anthroposophists.
Yes, again very politely worded.
)Appeals to evidence, reasoning, and basic grammatical categories )went
)nowhere. It was a fascinating instance of people who boast of )their
)commitment to independent thought failing to engage in even )minimal
)critical reading practices.
I started another reply to Charlie a while back, I had several other
analogies I thought might work, drawn from everything from algebra to
holiday baking, but I ditched it, realizing it was not going to matter
how many times the same efforts were made to explain logical categories
to him, like whether because algebra is mathematics, and arithmetic is
mathematics, an arithmetic textbook is therefore an algebra textbook.
The reply would have been more of the same. Steiner said PoF is
anthroposophy and lots of anthroposophists agree with this. I cringe
reading the replies, and yet it's fascinating kind of in the way passing
a traffic accident is fascinating.
)In my experience, cases such as this are a fairly common occurence )in
)public discussions between anthroposophists and non-)anthroposophists.
)They suggest that there may be important limits to )how much sense can
)be made out of anthroposophists' interpretations )of their founder's
)writings.
)Perhaps one of the ingredients in the appeal of anthroposophy is )that
)these writings are not to be taken too seriously, read too )carefully,
)or considered too critically, lest the appeal fade away.
That must be it. We can only speculate whether it attracts people who
aren't interested or able to think very clearly in the first place, or
as I suspect, whether lengthy exposure (with an obligatory "reverent"
attitude) to material that makes very little sense gradually chips away
at otherwise intelligent people's ability to read and reason, especially
when the basic beliefs are reinforced by a peer group who all believe
the same things and who encourage one another to view any challenges as
hostile.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 21:21:16 +0000
From: Valerie Walsh (isenhart7 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
Diana Winters wrote:
) I started another reply to Charlie a while back, I had several other
) analogies I thought might work, drawn from everything from algebra to
) holiday baking, but I ditched it, realizing it was not going to matter
) how many times the same efforts were made to explain logical categories
) to him, like whether because algebra is mathematics, and arithmetic is
) mathematics, an arithmetic textbook is therefore an algebra textbook.
) The reply would have been more of the same. Steiner said PoF is
) anthroposophy and lots of anthroposophists agree with this. I cringe
) reading the replies, and yet it's fascinating kind of in the way passing
)
) a traffic accident is fascinating.
My answer is that the fact that algebra and arithmetic are both
mathematics does not make an arithmetic book an algebra textbook.
Certainly, an arithmetic textbook could be converted to an algebra
textbook amd/or used to teach algebra though. Will you be sending the
ambulance now or should I bake a batch of cookies first?-Val
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 22:02:01 -0000
From: "eurythmy" (eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
2007-01-11
Dear Peter, and all,
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 3:06 AM
Subject: RE: anthroposophy by association 1
If you want to show that PoF contains anthroposophical content and not
merely philosophical content, then yes, you do indeed need to show that it
contains esoteric content, at the very least some tendentially esoteric
content.
Are you now settling for 'terndentially esoteric content'?
Christian, Jews and Muslims have angels: so it is probably something else.
Children tales have fairies, gnomes, so that is not good either.
Dan might say it has to tell the heart is not a pump, to indoctrinates
children, to have the class lessons in appendix etc. but what do you mean
Peter? A dogma, a doctrine: The different members of Man: physical, etheric
and astral bodies, ego, manas, budhi, atma or do you want esoteric
exercises? What is the theme, what is the method?
On a dance floor you have people, ideas, content. You have chairs where
people stay, may be closed eyed and never ever standing up, let alone
dancing. There is also music, and it all depends if the beat is 3/4 or 4/4.
Some rooms may be too small for a Polonaise etc.
So once more what is the accepted limit of the theme, what is the method
etc. One can only go and chat at the bar, get drunk and exhausted, but
differently from whoever has danced away the night They were in the same
room though and listened to the same music.
Can you spend a post stating what you want to discuss? You may have a
clearer idea now but you must recognise that it has seemed to change along
as you were ping-ponging different people away, and complaining that the
'other side' does not play by the rules.
Now that you have been round the block a few times in this discussion, can
you sit down and produce an A4 so that at last we could know if we are in
break dance, rock and roll, ball room, minuet, circle dance, jazz ballet, or
eurythmy?
Kind Regards,
Franky
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 17:21:16 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: "it should not call itself anthroposophy" or should it?
Hi Charlie, welcome back to the dance:
)(PS):
)Webb and Ahern are particularly good, as English-language sources go,
)despite the various criticisms of each I've voiced on this list before.
)Do you think that they help support your claim that Steiner was an
)
)anthroposophist in the 1890s?
)
)Charlie M:
)They help support my claim that anthroposophy is more than just a branch
)of western esotericism, something you seem to be swaying on.
I think you never quite figured out which branch I've been swaying on all
along. Because anthroposophy is more than just a body of ideas, it is indeed
more than just a branch of western esotericism. Anthroposophical ideas,
however, are a branch of western esotericism. We were talking about
anthroposophical ideas, the kind that show up in books. As you may recall,
PoF is a book. It is not a social movement, a school, a farm, a medicinal
practice, and so forth.
)A rose by any other name. We all know that his use of the term
)"anthroposophy" came later. You may wish to note that the encyclopedia
)entry also makes Christianity as Mystical Fact and many other of his
)
)works pre-anthroposophical.
Yep. As far as I can tell, the significance of this has escaped you
entirely.
)Mr and Mrs Smith were the proud new parents of a baby girl, but they
)couldn't decide on a name for her. After several weeks just before his
)Christening they decided to name her Jane. Does this mean that
)
)the person who grew up under the name Jane Smith was a different person
)during the first few weeks of her life?
She was a different person then regardless of her name. People change over
time, Charlie. Even Rudolf Steiner, believe it or not.
)The romantic movement and idealist philosophies were like sperm
)struggling toward the egg.
That is historical nonsense. Both the romantic movement and philosophical
idealism were highly differentiated phenomena, both internally and
externally, and wide open to different interpretations, different
adaptations, different futures. They weren't an organism moving in one
direction carrying a pre-progammed chromosomal code.
)The materialistic philosophies were swimming
)in the wrong direction and still are. Steiner's philosophy penetrated
)
)and fertilised the egg. Theosophy carried anthroposophy to full term and
)it was Christened in 1913.
It was christened "anthroposophy" before 1913, for what it's worth. What you
say here is laughable, Charlie. Ideas aren't embryos, especially not in the
teleological sense you invoke. They aren't predestined for anything at all.
There is nothing in German Idealism that predisposed it to blossom into
anthroposophy. The idea is completely ahistorical. That is why you cannot
find any evidence for it.
)You've just admitted that philosophical idealism plays a
)part in anthroposophy, so would you agree that the P of F plays a part
)in
)
)anthroposopophy?
I'm not sure why you keep asking this, but yes, PoF does indeed play a role
in anthroposophy, as does the German language, as does the printing press,
as does the distinctive font that adorns the cover of anthroposophical
books. If you are wondering which of those four things are specifically
anthroposophical, the answer is that the first three are not, while the
fourth is.
)P68
)"If his sources were varied, his applications were equally so. For he
)intended Anthroposophy to be an all-embracing science that would provide
)answers both spiritually and materially satisfying in every branch
)
)of life."
)
)(PS):
)Yep. Among his sources were Goethe, Fichte, Blavatsky, and lots and lots
)of other non-anthroposophists.
)
)Charlie M:
)What are you trying to say?
That Steiner's sources were not themselves anthroposophical. They weren't
little zygotes of anthroposophy waiting to be born. This is usually true of
sources in general, by the way, not just in Steiner's case. That's why Hegel
isn't a marxist, or an idealist sperm struggling toward the marxist egg, or
a rosebud waiting to flower into marxism.
)Does this mean that if we can find
)non-anthroposophical references in Steiner's later works then it can't
)be called anthroposophy?
No, it means that the non-anthroposophical sources are non-anthroposophical,
unlike the later anthroposophical works.
)I'm not saying anything, James Webb is.
Webb's position was not that Freud was an anthroposophist.
)Why should I think that spiritual science is confined to anthroposophy?
Beats me. You seem to have severe trouble figuring out what the confines of
anthroposophy are in the first place; you've got Freud and Goethe and Hegel
and Fichte and Descartes and James and Heidegger and who knows who else all
swimming around in there, trying to lodge themselves inside of Steiner's
womb, oblivious to chronology, context, textual evidence, intellectual
compatibility, and everything else that doesn't fit the organic metaphors
you keep relying on.
)If you are looking for an objective description of anthroposophy then I
)would say that mine is closer to the truth than yours.
I have no idea why you think that, but you are, alas, not in a position to
make a meaningful judgement on the matter, because you are beholden to your
own preferred normative stance on what anthroposophy ought to be. This
prevents you from looking at what it actually is. It is in any case
generally much more difficult for those viewing a given tradition from
within to achieve an "objective description" of it than it is for those who
view it from without.
)As can be seen
)from the quotes that I provided even those who write about
)
)esotericism and occultism do not confine anthroposophy to these things.
Yes indeed. You have apparently misunderstood my description all along; it
might make sense at this point for you to go back and read it again.
)Anyone who adheres to the basic correctness of the Darwinian view of
)evolution and wishes to remain consistent has no option but to hold the
)veiw that thinking is an attribute of the brain designed to confer a
)survival advantage and our inner experiences are contained within our
)physical brains and are thus subjective.
That's preposterous. What you describe is a somewhat caricatured version of
the eliminative materialism most prominently associated with the
Churchlands; Daniel Dennett also seems to hold something like this position
(though one of the more hotly disputed points is how much Dennett and the
Churchlands agree and disagree), and there are echoes of it in Steven
Pinker's work as well, but all sorts of philosophers, scientists,
historians, artists, creative writers, and lots of other people flatly
disagree with it. I think that your unfamiliarity with these issues and
their present and past discussion is one big reason why you have such
trouble locating Steiner's various works historically. There are two easy
ways to correct this. One is to take a look at some general overviews of the
topic; you could start with the collection Modern Philosophy of Mind, edited
by William Lyons. The second way is to look at some of the Churchlands'
work, or Dennett's work (you might check out his books Consciousness
Explained, for example, or Darwin's Dangerous Idea), or Pinker's work (e.g.
How the Mind Works), and note all of the other philosophers and scientists
etc that they argue *against*, for a sense of how contentious these issues
are.
)The P of F lays down Steiner's
)philosophy and KHW points to where Steiner's philosophy leads if anyone
)wishes to take it seriously and pursue it further.
And if they start pursuing things like the higher worlds and clairvoyance
and initiation and all those other phenomena that aren't so much as alluded
to in PoF. Taking PoF seriously means, among other things, paying attention
to what is and isn't in the text. If you find any anthroposophical elements
anywhere in the text, as always, I'm all ears. Greetings,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Your Hotmail address already works to sign into Windows Live Messenger! Get
it now
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://get.live.com/messenger/overview
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 18:01:11 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
Hi Val,
)Is it that the wallflowers are too shy to dance or are they perhaps
)afraid to get too close to you lest you lose some of your appeal?-Val
I don't think I have much appeal toward anthroposophists to begin with, but
it's hard to see why this might induce shyness on their part. For whatever
reason, many of them are reluctant to examine their own chosen worldview too
closely. That makes public discussion difficult. Greetings,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Fixing up the home? Live Search can help
http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/default.aspx?kit=improve&locale=en-US&source=hmemailtaglinenov06&FORM=WLMTAG
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 02:41:04 +0000
From: Valerie Walsh (isenhart7 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
eurythmy wrote:
) On a dance floor you have people, ideas, content. You have chairs where
) people stay, may be closed eyed and never ever standing up, let alone
) dancing. There is also music, and it all depends if the beat is 3/4 or
) 4/4.
) Some rooms may be too small for a Polonaise etc.
)
) So once more what is the accepted limit of the theme, what is the method
)
) etc. One can only go and chat at the bar, get drunk and exhausted, but
) differently from whoever has danced away the night They were in the same
)
) room though and listened to the same music.
Dear Franky,
It is you who have the maths now! Yeah, I'm ever hopeful for something
in 3/4 time-a good Waltz would be nice but I'd even go in for a Polka
but in any case we should get a move on with this dance proposition
while some of us still have a pulse, is what I think.
And besides, I don't think there is a bar here or even a barr here-so no
loosening up is necessary apparently for whatever dance is done.
Personally though, I'd like to try a few belts of the new carbonated
vodka that's come out and I don't even drink.
) Can you spend a post stating what you want to discuss? You may have a
) clearer idea now but you must recognise that it has seemed to change
) along
) as you were ping-ponging different people away, and complaining that the
)
) 'other side' does not play by the rules.
)
)
)
) Now that you have been round the block a few times in this discussion,
) can
) you sit down and produce an A4 so that at last we could know if we are
) in
) break dance, rock and roll, ball room, minuet, circle dance, jazz
) ballet, or
) eurythmy?
You left out modern (for which I have no regard) and hip-hop (for which
I have no ability)and tap (which I could do all day). Franky, I'll leave
the eurythmy to you but I gotta say there's nothing like a good shuffle
ball change as far as I know. Course, I'm always willing to learn new
moves...Val
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 10:05:58 -0800
From: Walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: waldorf for homeschool?
Hi Georgi and welcome.
) i attended a waldorf school in new hampshire and
) subsequently went on to do some teaching for a waldorf school. i'm
) decidedly not an anthroposophist, although i've always been quite
) 'anthropop-friendly' (any sort of world view that can give rise to
) eurythmy and oh-so-many diverse uses for beeswax has gotta be alright...
I'm as anthropop-friendly as I am human-friendly. My friends and I have good
discussions and heated debates from time to time (g). People have used
beeswax for many years and I agree it's pretty cool (when warm) - good to
see it being used in Waldorf, too. We would probably disagree on eurythmy. I
know very few kids who enjoyed it and I know many, many kids who despise
eurythmy and are still forced to "do it" in Waldorf schools. There are many
other artistic, enjoyable forms of dance/movement and I think it's a shame
that the Waldorf movement still feels the need to force kids into eurythmy
(connecting them to the spirit world) - especially as parents and students
often have no idea what it's all about.
) in any event, i'm interested in homeschool curriculum development and am
) curious if anyone has had any experience with that sort of thing, as
) well as what sort of pro and con views there are out there on the
) matter.
You probably know about the two Waldorf homeschool programs. I think there
is some value in them. Our family dabbled in them for a while but came to
realize there is so much more available without sticking to one or two
programs. From time to time we hooked up with other homeschoolers and
gradually learned that by allowing our kids the freedom to follow their own
interests and passions, the real "learning" happened quickly and without
coercion. From academics to social skills and beyond. There are often very
rich resources ripe for the picking - from retired professors to artists and
more, some of whom are delighted to offer courses for a small fee (or no fee
at all).
As for curriculum development, maybe not a bad thing per se, when the
students are involved in the process. Otherwise, IMO, it might just be more
of the same structured, coercive, boring, redundant stuff found in Waldorf
and many other institutions.
Again, welcome aboard.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 00:37:52 +0100
From: "Jean-Marc Nguyen" (jmnguyen wanadoo.fr)
Subject: Re: the appeal of anthroposophy
Hello Peter,
You wrote:
"...but while I'm waiting for a dance partner to show up, "
(snip)
Yeah, I know what you mean... :-(
Just the other day *Stands With a Fist* told me I looked
pretty ridiculous dancing with harmless black painted sheep... :-)
Cheers,
*Dances With Wolves*
--------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 9:49 AM
Subject: the appeal of anthroposophy
Hello everyone,
I'm back in Berlin now, with somewhat more consistent internet access. Maybe
my posts will stop appearing in triplicate from now on. I think we may have
beaten the PoF theme into the ground, but while I'm waiting for a dance
partner to show up, I thought I'd venture some general hypotheses about why
anthroposophists and non-anthroposophists read this book so differently.
I think that part of the reason may have to do with the specific sort of
appeal that anthroposophy exercises on some people and not on others, and
the different approaches to reading, thinking, and discussion in general
that often distinguish those who find anthroposophy attractive from those
who don't. All kinds of people are drawn to anthroposophy for all kinds of
reasons. But a notable pattern is that many people who are drawn to
anthroposophy do not seem to have well developed critical reading skills, or
are forthrightly suspicious of critical reading, considering it
un-spiritual, materialist, and boring. These different attitudes toward
texts as such appear to have played a significant role in the last five
months' worth of back and forth about Steiner's book The Philosophy of
Freedom.
But a similar pattern can be traced through lots of other discussions
between anthroposophists and non-anthroposophists. One example, from
several years ago and from another email list, has nothing to do with PoF
but quite a bit to do with critical reading and a basic willingness to
evaluate textual sources. In the spring of 2004 I spent several months on
the Anthroposophy Tomorrow email list, where nearly all of the participants
in the recent PoF-is-anthro exchange have also been members: Joel, Mike,
Frank, Dottie, Keith, Val, Jean-Marc, Franky, etc.
One of the more telling incidents during my sojourn on Anthroposophy
Tomorrow was the moment when a remarkable number of list members convinced
themselves, on the basis of an extraordinarily muddled argument by a Waldorf
PR representative, that one of Rudolf Steiner's sentences about the
unfavorable impact of Jews on European culture actually meant its opposite.
Among the many noteworthy ironies of the affair is that the public relations
spokesperson in question, Detlef Hardorp, is a native speaker of German. I'm
not sure exactly what to compare it to in English, but his argument was sort
of like insisting that people who say "I could care less" really mean the
opposite of "I couldn't care less" (for the benefit of the non-native
speakers of English here, those two phrases in fact mean the same thing).
Lots of Anthroposophy Tomorrow listmates nonetheless lined up to declare
that yes, Steiner's sentence meant the opposite of what it said. Frank even
dragged his hapless daughter into the affair. Appeals to evidence,
reasoning, and basic grammatical categories went nowhere. It was a
fascinating instance of people who boast of their commitment to independent
thought failing to engage in even minimal critical reading practices.
In my experience, cases such as this are a fairly common occurence in public
discussions between anthroposophists and non-anthroposophists. They suggest
that there may be important limits to how much sense can be made out of
anthroposophists' interpretations of their founder's writings. Perhaps one
of the ingredients in the appeal of anthroposophy is that these writings are
not to be taken too seriously, read too carefully, or considered too
critically, lest the appeal fade away.
As always, I welcome comments from all quarters, even from you wallflowers
out there who are too shy to dance. Greetings to all,
Peter Staudenmaier
_________________________________________________________________
The MSN Entertainment Guide to Golden Globes is here. Get all the scoop.
http://tv.msn.com/tv/globes2007/?icid=nctagline2
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 00:09:29 EST
From: SerenaBlaue aol.com
Subject: Re: the appeal of anthroposophy
In a message dated 1/11/2007 3:54:35 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
pstaud hotmail.com writes:
In my experience, cases such as this are a fairly common occurence in public
discussions between anthroposophists and non-anthroposophists. They suggest
that there may be important limits to how much sense can be made out of
anthroposophists' interpretations of their founder's writings. Perhaps one
of the ingredients in the appeal of anthroposophy is that these writings are
not to be taken too seriously, read too carefully, or considered too
critically, lest the appeal fade away.
As always, I welcome comments from all quarters, even from you wallflowers
out there who are too shy to dance. Greetings to all,
It's not much fun to dance with a partner who always wants to lead and never
admits that he may not know all the steps and doesn't much care how many
times he's trodden your toes raw or may even be dancing to another tune
altogether.
And who doesn't respect his partner as quite worthy of his *special*
attentions,
and chastises the partner for not appreciating his ad homs intended to
skewer
& wither.
Nope. Not much fun at all.
Serena Blaue
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 03:15:48 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: the appeal of anthroposophy
Hi Serena,
)It's not much fun to dance with a partner who always wants to lead and
)never
)admits that he may not know all the steps and doesn't much care how many
)times he's trodden your toes raw or may even be dancing to another tune
)altogether.
It is definitely true that I don't much care what tune you are dancing to.
When you dance in public, however, you really do need to provide evidence
and reasoning for the claims you make. (This is not something critics of
anthroposophy invented, by the way, it is a basic characteristic of public
discourse.) If the tune you're dancing to says that there is some reference
to supernatural perception in PoF, or the the higher worlds, or to anything
esoteric whatsoever, all you need to do is show us where in the text these
passages can be found. Then everybody can listen to the tune for themselves
and see whether it's danceable or not.
)And who doesn't respect his partner as quite worthy of his *special*
)attentions,
That's also true, but quite irrelevant. Arguments are to be taken on their
merits, not on the supposed worthiness of the people who happen to
articulate them. If you have any arguments to offer, I'd be happy to devote
my attention to them.
)and chastises the partner for not appreciating his ad homs intended to
)skewer
)& wither.
There was no ad hominem argument in my post. I think you may be confused
about what ad hominem argument is.
)Nope. Not much fun at all.
I'm not sure why you don't find that sort of thing fun. I do. Along with a
number of your fellow anthroposophists, you have a very low opinion of
people like me. This doesn't make it somehow less fun for me to discuss with
folks like you in public, in fact in many ways it makes it more fun. Why is
this not the case for you, I wonder?
Greetings,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
)From photos to predictions, The MSN Entertainment Guide to Golden Globes has
it all. http://tv.msn.com/tv/globes2007/?icid=nctagline1
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 10:06:17 +0000
From: charles morrison (charlie morrison5.fsnet.co.uk)
Subject: RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
Valerie Walsh wrote:
)
)
) Diana Winters wrote:
)
) ) I started another reply to Charlie a while back, I had several other
) ) analogies I thought might work, drawn from everything from algebra to
) ) holiday baking, but I ditched it, realizing it was not going to matter
) ) how many times the same efforts were made to explain logical categories
) ) to him, like whether because algebra is mathematics, and arithmetic is
) ) mathematics, an arithmetic textbook is therefore an algebra textbook.
) ) The reply would have been more of the same. Steiner said PoF is
) ) anthroposophy and lots of anthroposophists agree with this. I cringe
) ) reading the replies, and yet it's fascinating kind of in the way passing
) )
) )
) ) a traffic accident is fascinating.
)
) My answer is that the fact that algebra and arithmetic are both
) mathematics does not make an arithmetic book an algebra textbook.
) Certainly, an arithmetic textbook could be converted to an algebra
) textbook amd/or used to teach algebra though. Will you be sending the
) ambulance now or should I bake a batch of cookies first?-Val
Hey Val get your own ambulance. Tell her Di, this one's mine.
Slainte,
Charlie M.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 10:06:18 +0000
From: charles morrison (charlie morrison5.fsnet.co.uk)
Subject: RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
Valerie Walsh wrote:
)
)
) Diana Winters wrote:
)
) ) I started another reply to Charlie a while back, I had several other
) ) analogies I thought might work, drawn from everything from algebra to
) ) holiday baking, but I ditched it, realizing it was not going to matter
) ) how many times the same efforts were made to explain logical categories
) ) to him, like whether because algebra is mathematics, and arithmetic is
) ) mathematics, an arithmetic textbook is therefore an algebra textbook.
) ) The reply would have been more of the same. Steiner said PoF is
) ) anthroposophy and lots of anthroposophists agree with this. I cringe
) ) reading the replies, and yet it's fascinating kind of in the way passing
) )
) )
) ) a traffic accident is fascinating.
)
) My answer is that the fact that algebra and arithmetic are both
) mathematics does not make an arithmetic book an algebra textbook.
) Certainly, an arithmetic textbook could be converted to an algebra
) textbook amd/or used to teach algebra though. Will you be sending the
) ambulance now or should I bake a batch of cookies first?-Val
Hey Val get your own ambulance. Tell her Di, this one's mine.
Slainte,
Charlie M.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 17:35:55 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
Hi Franky, glad to see your dancing shoes are back on:
)Are you now settling for 'terndentially esoteric content'?
I've been settling for that for months now. Any Theosophical content, any
Rosicrucian content, anything pointing in those directions, any implicitly
anthroposophical content, any tendentially esoteric content whatsoever would
do the trick.
)but what do you mean Peter? A dogma, a doctrine: The different members of
)Man: physical, etheric and astral bodies, ego, manas, budhi, atma
Those would be fine, but they're not necessary. A reference to the higher
worlds would be sufficient, or to clairvoyance, or initiation, or the
spiritual hierarchies; I'd gladly accept a reference to reincarnation or
karma or any of the other hallmarks of Steiner's mature teachings. The
terminology is not especially important, it's the content that matters, the
ideas. The reason you can't find any of those things in PoF is that they
aren't there.
)Can you spend a post stating what you want to discuss?
The book The Philosophy of Freedom, by Rudolf Steiner, published in 1894
(actually late 1893). Why isn't that what you want to discuss, if I may ask?
Greetings,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Find sales, coupons, and free shipping, all in one place! MSN Shopping
Sales & Deals
http://shopping.msn.com/content/shp/?ctid=198,ptnrid=176,ptnrdata=200639
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 11:21:25 +0000
From: charles morrison (charlie morrison5.fsnet.co.uk)
Subject: RE: "it should not call itself anthroposophy" or should it?
Hi Peter and all,
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
)
)
) Hi Charlie, welcome back to the dance:
)
Charlie M:
Anybody for an eightsome reel?
) )(PS):
) )Webb and Ahern are particularly good, as English-language sources go,
) )despite the various criticisms of each I've voiced on this list before.
) )Do you think that they help support your claim that Steiner was an
) )
) )anthroposophist in the 1890s?
) )
) )Charlie M:
) )They help support my claim that anthroposophy is more than just a branch
) )of western esotericism, something you seem to be swaying on.
)
)
(PS):
I think you never quite figured out which branch I've been swaying on
all
) along. Because anthroposophy is more than just a body of ideas, it is
) indeed
) more than just a branch of western esotericism. Anthroposophical ideas,
) however, are a branch of western esotericism. We were talking about
) anthroposophical ideas, the kind that show up in books. As you may
) recall,
) PoF is a book. It is not a social movement, a school, a farm, a
) medicinal
) practice, and so forth.
)
)
(CM):
A rose by any other name. We all know that his use of the term
) )"anthroposophy" came later. You may wish to note that the encyclopedia
) )entry also makes Christianity as Mystical Fact and many other of his
) )
) )works pre-anthroposophical.
)
)
(PS):
Yep. As far as I can tell, the significance of this has escaped you
) entirely.
)
Charlie M:
So just to clear things up, when Steiner talked about reincarnation and
such like before 1912/3 or the date you say he initiated anthroposophy,
these were not anthroposophical ideas, but when he spoke about them
after this period they became anthroposophical. He adopted these ideas
into anthroposophy the same way as he adopted the P of F into it. Is
that a fair assessment?
(CM):
) )Mr and Mrs Smith were the proud new parents of a baby girl, but they
) )couldn't decide on a name for her. After several weeks just before his
) )Christening they decided to name her Jane. Does this mean that
) )
) )the person who grew up under the name Jane Smith was a different person
) )during the first few weeks of her life?
)
)
(PS):
) She was a different person then regardless of her name. People change
) over
) time, Charlie. Even Rudolf Steiner, believe it or not.
)
Charlie M:
So, as in Heraclitus' stream, there's no unifying principle that would
make someone the same person throughout their life?
) )The romantic movement and idealist philosophies were like sperm
) )struggling toward the egg.
)
)
) That is historical nonsense. Both the romantic movement and
) philosophical
) idealism were highly differentiated phenomena, both internally and
) externally, and wide open to different interpretations, different
) adaptations, different futures. They weren't an organism moving in one
) direction carrying a pre-progammed chromosomal code.
)
Charlie M (thinking aloud):
Make a note: has trouble seeing unity in diversity.:)
(CM):
The materialistic philosophies were swimming
) )in the wrong direction and still are. Steiner's philosophy penetrated
) )
) )and fertilised the egg. Theosophy carried anthroposophy to full term and
) )it was Christened in 1913.
)
) It was christened "anthroposophy" before 1913, for what it's worth.
Charlie M:
So when would you say it was Christened? In 1900? In 1902 when he wrote
Christianity as Mystical Fact? When he first used the word in public in
1903? When he wrote Theosophy in 1904? When and why?
(PS):
What you
) say here is laughable, Charlie. Ideas aren't embryos, especially not in
) the
) teleological sense you invoke. They aren't predestined for anything at
) all.
) There is nothing in German Idealism that predisposed it to blossom into
) anthroposophy. The idea is completely ahistorical. That is why you
) cannot
) find any evidence for it.
)
Charlie M:
You're entitled to your belief that the world is one big accident.
I'm out of time.
Slainte,
Charlie M.
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 2418
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: "it should not call itself anthroposophy" or should it?
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
By Diana.Winters verizon.net
RE: "it should not call itself anthroposophy" or should it?
By Diana.Winters verizon.net
RE: "it should not call itself anthroposophy" or should it?
By Diana.Winters verizon.net
Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
By eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk
RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
By isenhart7 yahoo.com
RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
By isenhart7 yahoo.com
RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
By isenhart7 yahoo.com
RE: "it should not call itself anthroposophy" or should it?
By isenhart7 yahoo.com
Re: anthroposophy by association 1
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
By pstaud hotmail.com
swimming in the wrong direction
By pstaud hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 03:03:15 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
Hi Franky, glad to see your dancing shoes are back on:
)Are you now settling for 'terndentially esoteric content'?
I've been settling for that for months now. Any Theosophical content, any
Rosicrucian content, anything pointing in those directions, any implicitly
anthroposophical content, any tendentially esoteric content whatsoever would
do the trick.
)but what do you mean Peter? A dogma, a doctrine: The different members of
)Man: physical, etheric and astral bodies, ego, manas, budhi, atma
Those would be fine, but they're not necessary. A reference to the higher
worlds would be sufficient, or to clairvoyance, or initiation, or the
spiritual hierarchies; I'd gladly accept a reference to reincarnation or
karma or any of the other hallmarks of Steiner's mature teachings. The
terminology is not especially important, it's the content that matters, the
ideas. The reason you can't find any of those things in PoF is that they
aren't there.
)Can you spend a post stating what you want to discuss?
The book The Philosophy of Freedom, by Rudolf Steiner, published in 1894
(actually late 1893). Why isn't that what you want to discuss, if I may ask?
Greetings,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Communicate instantly! Use your Hotmail address to sign into Windows Live
Messenger now. http://get.live.com/messenger/overview
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 07:41:56 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: "it should not call itself anthroposophy" or should it?
Hi Charlie,
)So just to clear things up, when Steiner talked about reincarnation and
)such like before 1912/3 or the date you say he initiated anthroposophy,
)these were not anthroposophical ideas, but when he spoke about them
)after this period they became anthroposophical.
That's a perfectly reasonable position, but it isn't my position.
Anthroposophy is a spinoff of Theosophy, and for purposes of our present
conversation I think it makes more sense to designate Steiner's whole
theosophical/anthroposophical period with one common label, which I am happy
to call "anthroposophy". This is, for what it's worth, what I have been
saying all along. The standards for anthroposophicalness that I have been
pointing to are thus by no means especially demanding; they include the
entirety of Steiner's mature teachings, whether presented under the terms
"theosophy" or "anthroposophy".
)He adopted these ideas
)into anthroposophy the same way as he adopted the P of F into it. Is
)that a fair assessment?
It's a fair assessment of the encyclopedia entry you cited. It really isn't
my argument, however. I am glad to agree that Steiner was an anthroposophist
from 1901 onward. That is what I've said throughout this exchange.
)So, as in Heraclitus' stream, there's no unifying principle that would
)make someone the same person throughout their life?
As far as the ideas they espoused? No, of course not. Did you think that
Lukacs, Sartre, Reagan, Mussolini, Besant, and so on and so forth were
somehow not real persons?
)Charlie M (thinking aloud):
)Make a note: has trouble seeing unity in diversity.:)
Quite the contrary, that's one of the cardinal strengths of the dialectical
tradition, the particular philosophical strand within which I stand. If you
want to consider "Rudolf Steiner" a unity throughout the entire course of
his life, despite all his diversities, go for it. But confusing Steiner with
anthroposophy is silly. Ideas and people really are two different things.
)So when would you say it was Christened? In 1900? In 1902 when he wrote
)Christianity as Mystical Fact? When he first used the word in public in
)1903? When he wrote Theosophy in 1904? When and why?
When he first used the word in public. Steiner didn't distinguish between
theosophy and anthroposophy during his official theosophical period; the
terms became useful alternatives during the organizational split from the
rest of the Theosophical Society (Steiner's Italian followers, for example,
were already using the term 'anthroposophy' in 1912 to distance themselves
from Besant et al.).
)(PS):
) What you
) ) say here is laughable, Charlie. Ideas aren't embryos, especially not in
) ) the
) ) teleological sense you invoke. They aren't predestined for anything at
) ) all.
) ) There is nothing in German Idealism that predisposed it to blossom into
) ) anthroposophy. The idea is completely ahistorical. That is why you
) ) cannot
) ) find any evidence for it.
) )
)
)Charlie M:
)You're entitled to your belief that the world is one big accident.
That isn't my belief. The two choices are hardly predestination or accident,
chance or necessity. History isn't arbitrary, it isn't a collection of
random occurences. There are numerous examples of causation and development
and consistency and continuity in history. And lots of examples of
discontinuity as well. If you want to tell which is which, you'll need to
pay attention to boring details such as the content of published works.
)I'm out of time.
I'm not sure how it could actually take this long, but as far as I'm
concerned, take all the time you need looking for anthroposophy in PoF.
Greetings,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Fixing up the home? Live Search can help
http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/default.aspx?kit=improve&locale=en-US&source=hmemailtaglinenov06&FORM=WLMTAG
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 14:03:04 +0000
From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
Valerie Walsh wrote:
)My answer is that the fact that algebra and arithmetic are both
)mathematics does not make an arithmetic book an algebra textbook.
)Certainly, an arithmetic textbook could be converted to an algebra
)textbook amd/or used to teach algebra though. Will you be sending )the
)ambulance now or should I bake a batch of cookies first?-Val
Traffic accidents were a peculiar choice of images, I guess - about an
hour after I wrote that yesterday, I did pass the scene of an accident,
and stopped because it appeared to have just happened. We called 911 for
them and got an ambulance, though it appeared no one was badly hurt. Or
perhaps it *was* an apt metaphor for discussions here, as the parties
involved had begun to shout at each other about whose fault it was, and
they were in the middle of a traffic circle confusing the traffic, and
stood a good chance of causing *another* accident. One guy was on
crutches and appeared to be considering hitting somebody with them,
which was when we decided we'd done our part and we left. Hm.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 14:34:56 +0000
From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: "it should not call itself anthroposophy" or should it?
Oh, goodness, drying my eyes over the chromosomal, sperm struggles
toward egg arguments. But I think this is interesting:
Charlie wrote:
)Mr and Mrs Smith were the proud new parents of a baby girl, but they
)couldn't decide on a name for her. After several weeks just before )his
)Christening they decided to name her Jane. Does this mean that
)the person who grew up under the name Jane Smith was a different )person
)during the first few weeks of her life?
Peter replied:
)She was a different person then regardless of her name. People )change
)over time, Charlie.
Our name is the first big decision our parents make for us, and while we
can change it later if we really want to, most of us are effectively
stuck with it, like it or not, or act as if we are. Our name does not
necessarily reflect who we are or reflect any changes we might go
through (with some exceptions, such as taking a spouse's name.)
But what's also interesting is the idea that Steiner's ideas are
collectively Steiner's baby, so he gets to decide what's anthroposophy
and what's not, even years after the fact. This seems to sum up how
anthroposophists relate to anthroposophy. Steiner named PoF
"anthroposophy," how can anyone argue with the proud papa?
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 14:39:41 +0000
From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: "it should not call itself anthroposophy" or should it?
Charlie M. wrote to Peter:
)You're entitled to your belief that the world is one big accident.
Just curious. (This is off topic.) Let's just say, hypothetically, that
the world was one big accident. Let's say you found out suddenly and
incontrovertibly that this was true - it was proven beyond a doubt, and
even you had to concede that clearly, the world is one big accident.
What then? What problem does this create for you, exactly? Would you
want to, like, *leave* then?
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 17:32:38 -0000
From: "eurythmy" (eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
2007-01-12
Dear all,
What do you think would be th eposition of Rudolf Steiner in The Philosophy
of Freedom or in 'later' anthroposophy if reading this quote from Sartre.
"If an angel comes to me, what proof is there that it's an angel? And if I
hear voices, what proof is there that they come from heaven and not from
hell, or from the subconscious, or a pathological condition? What proves
that they are addressed to me? What proof is there that I have been
appointed to impose my choice and my conception of man on humanity? If a
voice addresses me, it is always for me to decide that this is the angel's
voice; if I consider that such an act is a good one, it is I who will choose
to say that it is good rather than bad. . . . We have no excuse behind us,
nor justification before us. We are alone, with no excuses. . . . man is
condemned to be free."
Kind Regards,
Franky
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 18:26:05 +0000
From: Valerie Walsh (isenhart7 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
) Hi Serena,
) )It's not much fun to dance with a partner who always wants to lead and
) )never
) )admits that he may not know all the steps and doesn't much care how many
) )times he's trodden your toes raw or may even be dancing to another tune
) )altogether.
)
)
) It is definitely true that I don't much care what tune you are dancing
) to.
) When you dance in public, however, you really do need to provide
) evidence
) and reasoning for the claims you make. (This is not something critics of
)
) anthroposophy invented, by the way, it is a basic characteristic of
) public
) discourse.) If the tune you're dancing to says that there is some
) reference
) to supernatural perception in PoF, or the the higher worlds, or to
) anything
) esoteric whatsoever, all you need to do is show us where in the text
) these
) passages can be found. Then everybody can listen to the tune for
) themselves
) and see whether it's danceable or not.
)
)
) )And who doesn't respect his partner as quite worthy of his *special*
) )attentions,
)
)
) That's also true, but quite irrelevant. Arguments are to be taken on
) their
) merits, not on the supposed worthiness of the people who happen to
) articulate them. If you have any arguments to offer, I'd be happy to
) devote
) my attention to them.
)
)
) )and chastises the partner for not appreciating his ad homs intended to
) )skewer
) )& wither.
)
)
) There was no ad hominem argument in my post. I think you may be confused
)
) about what ad hominem argument is.
)
)
) )Nope. Not much fun at all.
)
)
) I'm not sure why you don't find that sort of thing fun. I do. Along with
) a
) number of your fellow anthroposophists, you have a very low opinion of
) people like me.
Reallly? You think so? Based on what????? In this post, as I read it,
Serena's expressing her dissatisfaction with your abilities as a dance
partner. So what? I, with twenty plus years of formal dance instruction
have two left feet as my last partner would surely attest, if he was
talking.
So let's see:
"It's not much fun to dance with a partner who always wants to lead and
never admits that he may not know all the steps and doesn't much care
how many times he's trodden your toes raw or may even be dancing to
another tune altogether."
Ummm, yeah that would pretty much all work for me-that might even be me.
And I find the skewer and wither a particularly fun dance. My only
concern here is what Serena means by "special attentions" as I do have
this one sensitive area-you know like Achilles had his heel.
But none of this has to do with anyone having a low opinion of you,
Peter. You also wrote to me yesterday, "I don't think I have much appeal
toward anthroposophists to begin with." Why do you think that? You also
recently referenced an exchange on the AT list from 2004 along with my
name and I wasn't on that list at that time so I looked it up. So there,
right after you introduced a thread entitled, "my balls" you received a
very nice response from a list member saying how much, in fact, they
admired you. Something came up just then so I couldn't continue on but
there could be other examples of "folks like me" praising "people like
you."
Would you like me to do a search? We could have a Praise for Peter Day
this Monday. It's a national holiday here where, you know, we all look
forward to the day when we don't judge people by their outward
appearances but by the nature of their inner character-something like
that. I think it would be most fitting for you, or for this list-heck
we could set aside the day to just all praise each other. Wouldn't that
be nice? In any case, Peter, I consider you a rather remarkable
character.-Val
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 19:00:52 +0000
From: Valerie Walsh (isenhart7 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
Diana Winters wrote:
) Traffic accidents were a peculiar choice of images, I guess - about an
) hour after I wrote that yesterday, I did pass the scene of an accident,
) and stopped because it appeared to have just happened. We called 911 for
)
) them and got an ambulance, though it appeared no one was badly hurt. Or
) perhaps it *was* an apt metaphor for discussions here, as the parties
) involved had begun to shout at each other about whose fault it was, and
) they were in the middle of a traffic circle confusing the traffic, and
) stood a good chance of causing *another* accident. One guy was on
) crutches and appeared to be considering hitting somebody with them,
) which was when we decided we'd done our part and we left. Hm.
This is why I always say-when in doubt stick with the holiday baking. My
daughter came home from school at 1:00 yesterday (Thursday-short day
due to faculty meetings) and proceeded to whip up a batch of sugar
snowflakes complete with royal icing and those little silver balls
(there's a name for them but I forget what it is) for one of the foreign
exchange students in her class from Taiwain. She had been complaining
that she didn't get a chance to have any "American cookies" this
Christmas. Today, she's got a whole batch-from scratch-what a
country!!! Happy long weekend to you, Diana.-Val
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 19:17:00 +0000
From: Valerie Walsh (isenhart7 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
Valerie Walsh wrote:
those little silver balls
) (there's a name for them but I forget what it is)
It was kinda bugging me because I just bought a whole bottle of them and
they come now in gold, and pastels, and pearl, but I didn't go into the
cake supply store and say hey, I need a bottle of those little silver
balls, you know-I knew what they were called just a couple months ago.
So I looked it up and what I must have said was something along the
lines of, " Please, would you be so kind as to direct me to your
dragees." Apparently, there is some controversy rather they are edible
or not. It seems that a dragee by this or any other name would not be
allowed as edible by the FDA but would be totally acceptable in
Europe.-Val
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:33:03 +0000
From: Valerie Walsh (isenhart7 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: "it should not call itself anthroposophy" or should it?
charles morrison wrote:
) Anybody for an eightsome reel?
I think this is an excellent choice but FYI-I'm no caller.-Val
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 10:08:24 -0800
From: Walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: anthroposophy by association 1
Happy New Year All!
Hi Charlie,
Peter S.wrote:
) ) I'm glad to agree that anthroposophy contains esotericism; what you seem
) ) to be missing is that PoF does not contain esotericism. Anthroposophy
) ) isn't just an esoteric worldview -- belief system -- path of knowledge,
) ) it's also a movement, a set of social institutions, a historical
) ) phenomenon, a constellation of ideas and an ensemble of practical
) ) endeavors, including Waldorf, biodynamic farming, and others. PoF is not
) ) a
) ) movement or an institution, it's a book, and you can find out whether
) ) it's
) ) anthroposophical (and whether it was anthroposophical when it appeared)
) ) by
) ) looking at the content of the book, by looking at the text itself.
Charlie M replied:
)Peter says above that anthroposophy isn't just esotericism, but the P of
)F needs to have esoteric content to be classed as anthroposophical.
)Can't you see the contradiction?
No, I see no contradiction whatsoever.
Charlie M wrote:
)There's no big deal here. But you did say that you found this discussion
)fascinating, so it must have some merit.
Yes, it does have merit and yes I do find it fascinating. I am curious about
your (and others) position in this discussion. Why is it important for you
to believe that PoF is an anthroposophic book? Why not simply admit that
Steiner changed *his* mind/beliefs after PoF? Many human beings change many
things as they/we grow - from clothes to values to religions and beyond. If,
on the other hand, PoF really is an anthroposophic book, why not simply post
some relevant passages from the book?
Some time ago I posted a blurb from an anthroposophist about this topic and
I have yet to hear back from anyone on this list. My understanding is that
PoF was published in 1894 and that Steiner was not pleased at the public
response to his book. I always thought it was a given that he began to alter
his "philosophy" after that time. The exact reasons for this change make for
interesting discussion but based on written works by Steiner and others
there really is no doubt about the change. Change is not always a bad
thing - happens to the best of us - and I really do not understand why you
(Charlie - and others) refuse to acknowledge the change in Steiner's
beliefs/life.
Here - from the Anthroposophica Society of America:
"In 1899, Steiner's life begins to change quite rapidly."
And:
"Quite soon, Steiner is speaking regularly to groups of Theosophists, which
upsets and bewilders many of his former friends. There is uproar at a
lecture on the medieval scholastics which he delivers to the Giordano Bruno
Society. The respectable if often radical scholar, historian, scientist,
writer, and philosopher is emerging as an "'occultist.'"
http://www.anthroposophy.org/DavyJohn/
What do you make of this, Charlie?
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 04:13:40 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
Hi Val,
) ) I'm not sure why you don't find that sort of thing fun. I do. Along with
) ) a
) ) number of your fellow anthroposophists, you have a very low opinion of
) ) people like me.
)
)Reallly? You think so? Based on what?????
Based on what I say about anthroposophy. As far as I know, I have never met
any of my anthroposophist detractors personally.
)In this post, as I read it,
)Serena's expressing her dissatisfaction with your abilities as a dance
)partner.
No, she has was expressing her disinterest in discussing anthroposophy with
me.
)But none of this has to do with anyone having a low opinion of you,
)Peter.
You are mistaken about that, but if the topic is of interest to you, you
could take a look at the archives of this list and the anthroposophy
tomorrow list, among others.
)You also wrote to me yesterday, "I don't think I have much appeal
)toward anthroposophists to begin with." Why do you think that?
I'm not sure if you mean "why did you reach this conclusion" or if you mean
"why do you think you're not very appealing to anthroposophists"; if you
mean the former, I again recommend a look at the list archives; if you mean
the latter, I think the biggest reason is probably that a lot of
anthroposophists think I'm arrogant, but I don't really know, and it isn't a
matter of particular interest for me.
)You also
)recently referenced an exchange on the AT list from 2004 along with my
)name and I wasn't on that list at that time so I looked it up. So there,
)right after you introduced a thread entitled, "my balls" you received a
)very nice response from a list member saying how much, in fact, they
)admired you.
The post you're apparently referring to is from Bryan Miller, though it is
possible that you mean the later one from Mike Helsher (who introduced the
thread, by the way), and neither of them says anything about admiring me.
What are you talking about?
)Something came up just then so I couldn't continue on but
)there could be other examples of "folks like me" praising "people like
)you."
Yes, there are lots of such examples. I don't see what that has to do with
Serena's unwillingness to discuss anthroposophy with me.
)Would you like me to do a search? We could have a Praise for Peter Day
)this Monday.
I am not sure if this genuinely wasn't clear before, but I definitely do not
want praise from anthroposophists. That would be a bad thing, in my view,
not a good thing. If anything, I suppose I get a little swell of pride when
people like Serena (or Mike, or whoever) declare their distaste for me and
what I do. But to be honest, I'm not sure it registers most of the time. The
only reason it can sometimes be important is when it prevents
anthroposophists from engaging in public discussion with critics of
anthroposophy.
Greetings,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Your Hotmail address already works to sign into Windows Live Messenger! Get
it now
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://get.live.com/messenger/overview
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 04:23:43 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: swimming in the wrong direction
Hello all,
Val's cryptic comment about anthroposophy tomorrow prompted me to take a
look at their list archives in order to reconstruct the Mike Helsher
exchange she cited, and I noticed lots of other interesting stuff there from
the last month or so (including a particularly hallucinatory series of posts
about how I have supposedly not changed my mind about Steiner, I think, or
maybe I have and haven't admitted it, or something); the most recent
relevant message is Dottie's worry that I have belittled Charlie. On the off
chance that Charlie also thinks I have belittled him, I'll try once again to
explain why I think his recent claims are nonsensical.
The notion that German Idealism was predestined to flower into anthroposophy
is historically foolish, a result of reading history backwards. The problem
here isn't the 'anthroposophy' part, it's the whole conception of enormously
variegated things like philosophical idealism being the embryonic form of
later worldviews. Anthroposophists, for what it's worth, are hardly the only
ones to make such claims; both Marxists and Nazis have declared that German
Idealism came to true fruition in Marxism or in Nazism. This sort of thing
simply makes no sense whatsoever from a historical perspective.
In any case, the sperm and egg detour has little to do with the actual
disagreement between me and Charlie, since the position Charlie was
ostensibly defending was that PoF was already anthroposophical when it was
published. This position seems to be based on a simple failure to
distinguish 'anthroposophy', as a specific set of ideas, from 'things that
Rudolf Steiner wrote'.
As a body of ideas, anthroposophy has concrete content. That content is what
can help us determine which texts do and do not count as anthroposophical.
Talking about the higher worlds and supernatural perception and clairvoyance
and initiation and the spiritual hierarchies and etheric bodies and
celestial beings is very different from talking about pure thinking and
moral imagination and the human spirit and uniting perception and thought.
Most of the people who write about pure thinking and moral imagination and
so forth are not anthroposophists, or any kind of esotericists. They way we
can tell this is by looking for esoteric elements in their work. Hegel and
Kant and Fichte were not esotericists, for example, much less
anthroposophists. Their works are not esoteric works, much less
anthroposophical works. Steiner’s early philosophical publications are
notably similar in many ways to the works of these figures. Steiner’s early
philosophical works are notably dissimilar in many ways to his own later
esoteric works, the ones that are recognizably anthroposophical.
If we want to make sense of those similarities and dissimilarities, it’s a
good idea to take a look at the various intellectual changes Steiner
underwent in the course of his life. One of the more striking of those
changes is his shift from an anti-theosophical stance to a theosophical
stance around the turn of the century. This shift goes a long way toward
explaining and accounting for the differences between Steiner’s earlier and
later works. Some of the PoF-is-anthro faction simply ignore this shift
entirely, others deny that it took place. This is why their arguments are
historically absurd; they have effectively collapsed Steiner’s works into
one indistinguishable mass that remained static over time.
I think much of the ongoing disagreement on this matter probably has to do
with the same dynamic I tried to gently point toward a couple posts ago: if
you’re unfamiliar with the general philosophical territory under discussion,
you’re going to have a hard time locating specific figures and specific
positions within that territory, whether historically or intellectually. I’m
guessing that this is why Charlie, for example, got my position on two
interesting philosophical issues (unity-in-diversity and historical
continuity) exactly backwards, and it seems likely that the same basic
unfamiliarity also lead him to misunderstand Steiner’s early philosophical
works and thus misidentify their location both within the discourse of the
time and within Steiner’s overall career as a thinker and writer.
It is, as always, entirely possible that there is some element of the
PoF-is-anthro argument that I have overlooked, and if any of its proponents
think that is the case, I encourage them to point it out. Until then, I am
happy to wait while anthroposophists scour the text of PoF for some sign of
anthroposophical content, which I am confident they will bring to our
attention as soon as they have found it.
Greetings to all,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Your Hotmail address already works to sign into Windows Live Messenger! Get
it now
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://get.live.com/messenger/overview
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 2419
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Which Bible do you use?
By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
Teacher Education in the 21st Century.
By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
By isenhart7 yahoo.com
Staudenmaier hates slackers
By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
RE: Staudenmaier hates slackers
By isenhart7 yahoo.com
RE: swimming in the wrong direction
By isenhart7 yahoo.com
RE: Staudenmaier hates slackers
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
By isenhart7 yahoo.com
RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
By pstaud hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 12:44:31 +0000
From: Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
Subject: RE: Which Bible do you use?
dottie zold wrote:
)
) AdamCadmon is still an open question for me. I have a
) few thoughts but I am not able to get a good
) understanding from all of the teachings. From some he
) is the One Being of man. I tend to think on that view
) as something as being that we are all apart of the One
) and we are all returning. But I really can't say as I
) left this mystery alone for the most part.
)
) Have you read any of the bibles?
I've read pages from the King James Version and the Good News Bible. A
have book called "The Sayings of Muhammad" which gives some insight into
Islam, I think. I also have one or two books which refer to concepts
from the Zohar.
)
) Best,
) Dottie
)
) p.s. I left out a few others that I read and they are
) the Nag Kebrast, The Tao (The Mother Deep),The Book of
) Formation, and.....oh well I can't remember the other
) ones that I found in my library.
Cool. How big is your library? ;) (Mine is quite small, only a few
volumes. :) )
Regards,
Keith
)
)
)
) --- Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au) wrote:
)
) )
) ) Hi Dottie,
) )
) )
) ) dottie zold wrote:
) ) )
) ) ) Hey Keith, I use alot of different ones as I am
) ) always
) ) ) looking to see who said what and what the
) ) different
) ) ) translations are and so forth. What's in my car
) ) now is
) ) ) the Peschita, the Vulgate, the King James and the
) ) Nag
) ) ) Hammadhi. Oh, and also the Talmud, and the Zohar.
) ) No
) ) ) Good News Bibles for me: no mystery in there any
) ) ) longer. It's God made in man's image.
) )
) )
) ) Thanks. Some interesting comparisons to be made
) ) there.
) )
) ) What your take on Adam Kadmon?
) )
) )
) ) )
) ) ) Best,
) ) ) Dottie
) )
) )
) ) Regards,
) )
) ) Keith
) )
) )
) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) --- Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
) ) wrote:
) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) Dottie,
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) You mentioned recently tthat you refer
) ) frequently to
) ) ) ) the Bible in your
) ) ) ) studies. I was wondering which bible you use -
) ) ) ) Vulgate, King James
) ) ) ) Version, Good News Bible, etc.?
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) 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.
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) )
) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) __________________________________________________
) ) ) Do You Yahoo!?
) ) ) Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
) ) protection around
) ) ) http://mail.yahoo.com
) )
) )
) )
) ) 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.
) )
) )
) )
)
)
) __________________________________________________
) Do You Yahoo!?
) Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
) http://mail.yahoo.com
Tyranny begets tyranny.
- K Mclean
------
Our knowledge has made us cynical,
our cleverness hard and unkind.
We think too much and feel too little:
More than machinery we need humanity;
More than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness.
Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost.
- Charlie Chaplin ("The Great Dictator" [1940])
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 13:23:08 +0000
From: Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
Subject: Teacher Education in the 21st Century.
How about this as a source for the analysis of Waldorf education? Some
ideas anyway, maybe:
The following link goes to online teacher skills courses offered by
"Teachers Without Borders":
http://www.teacherswithoutborders.org/html/certificate_of_mastery.html
http://cnx.org/content/m13283/latest/
- "Course 1: Education for the New Millennium":
http://cnx.org/content/col10336/1.14
- From "Course 1":
"Theories/Approaches to Learning":
http://cnx.org/content/m13286/latest/
Regards,
Keith
Tyranny begets tyranny.
- K Mclean
------
Our knowledge has made us cynical,
our cleverness hard and unkind.
We think too much and feel too little:
More than machinery we need humanity;
More than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness.
Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost.
- Charlie Chaplin ("The Great Dictator" [1940])
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 15:39:18 +0000
From: Valerie Walsh (isenhart7 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
) ) ) I'm not sure why you don't find that sort of thing fun. I do. Along with
) ) ) a
) ) ) number of your fellow anthroposophists, you have a very low opinion of
) ) ) people like me.
) )
) )Reallly? You think so? Based on what?????
)
)
) Based on what I say about anthroposophy. As far as I know, I have never
) met
) any of my anthroposophist detractors personally.
Dear Peter,
Well, then I guess the accurate thing to say would be that some
amthroposophists have a low opinion of what you have to say regarding
anthroposophy not that they have a low opinion of people like you.
) )In this post, as I read it,
) )Serena's expressing her dissatisfaction with your abilities as a dance
) )partner.
) No, she has was expressing her disinterest in discussing anthroposophy
) with
) me.
If it were just about that I doubt Serena or anyone would allow you to
step on their toes until they were raw.
) )But none of this has to do with anyone having a low opinion of you,
) )Peter.
) You are mistaken about that, but if the topic is of interest to you, you
)
) could take a look at the archives of this list and the anthroposophy
) tomorrow list, among others.
No, Peter, the "none of this" refereed to Serena's post which we can all
read in the here and now-like it's right there in front of our
collective noses. Serena pointed out several specific behaviors-do you
consider them for personality traits?
)
)
) )You also wrote to me yesterday, "I don't think I have much appeal
) )toward anthroposophists to begin with." Why do you think that?
)
)
) I'm not sure if you mean "why did you reach this conclusion" or if you
) mean
) "why do you think you're not very appealing to anthroposophists"; if you
)
) mean the former, I again recommend a look at the list archives; if you
) mean
) the latter, I think the biggest reason is probably that a lot of
) anthroposophists think I'm arrogant, but I don't really know, and it
) isn't a
) matter of particular interest for me.
So you don't know why you're not appealing to anthroposophists but you
do know that you're not appealing to anthroposophists? While we're on
the subject could you give me your definition of what an anthroposophist
is?
)
)
) )You also
) )recently referenced an exchange on the AT list from 2004 along with my
) )name and I wasn't on that list at that time so I looked it up. So there,
) )right after you introduced a thread entitled, "my balls" you received a
) )very nice response from a list member saying how much, in fact, they
) )admired you.
)
)
) The post you're apparently referring to is from Bryan Miller, though it
) is
) possible that you mean the later one from Mike Helsher (who introduced
) the
) thread, by the way), and neither of them says anything about admiring
) me.
) What are you talking about?
I didn't see Bryan Miler so I must not have gone back far enough. The
"my balls" that I saw was from you without a "Re" before it so I thought
it was your balls being referenced as opposed to someone elses. Then
there was a, I thought, post of effusive admiration but since this is
not of any interest to you why should I bother to look it up again?
)
)
) )Something came up just then so I couldn't continue on but
) )there could be other examples of "folks like me" praising "people like
) )you."
)
)
) Yes, there are lots of such examples. I don't see what that has to do
) with
) Serena's unwillingness to discuss anthroposophy with me.
I have no idea if Serena is unwilling to discuss anthroposophy with you.
It seems to me that the disagreement on this list at present is over
what constitutes anthroposophy in the first place.
)
)
) )Would you like me to do a search? We could have a Praise for Peter Day
) )this Monday.
)
)
) I am not sure if this genuinely wasn't clear before, but I definitely do
) not
) want praise from anthroposophists. That would be a bad thing, in my
) view,
) not a good thing. If anything, I suppose I get a little swell of pride
) when
) people like Serena (or Mike, or whoever) declare their distaste for me
) and
) what I do. But to be honest, I'm not sure it registers most of the time.
) The
) only reason it can sometimes be important is when it prevents
) anthroposophists from engaging in public discussion with critics of
) anthroposophy.
Not having a common definition of the subject matter presents a much
greater barrier than people's "distaste for you and what you do" IMO.
And, yeah, I question if that's true-that anthroposophists have a
distaste for you and what you do and if it is true then my suggestion is
that the anthroposopists in question take a look at that. Today would be
good.-Val
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 16:13:29 +0000
From: Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
Subject: Staudenmaier hates slackers
Valerie Walsh wrote:
)
)
) Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
(snip)
) )
) ) I am not sure if this genuinely wasn't clear before, but I definitely do
) )
) ) not
) ) want praise from anthroposophists. That would be a bad thing, in my
) ) view,
) ) not a good thing. If anything, I suppose I get a little swell of pride
) ) when
) ) people like Serena (or Mike, or whoever) declare their distaste for me
) ) and
) ) what I do. But to be honest, I'm not sure it registers most of the time.
) )
) ) The
) ) only reason it can sometimes be important is when it prevents
) ) anthroposophists from engaging in public discussion with critics of
) ) anthroposophy.
)
) Not having a common definition of the subject matter presents a much
) greater barrier than people's "distaste for you and what you do" IMO.
) And, yeah, I question if that's true-that anthroposophists have a
) distaste for you and what you do and if it is true then my suggestion is
)
) that the anthroposopists in question take a look at that. Today would be
)
) good.-Val
Hmmmmmm....Well....what about this? -)
"Waage devotes much of his reply to Anthroposophy and Ecofascism to
issues that the article did not address, such as the benevolent
activities of Waldorf schools in various countries around the globe.
While it is difficult to see what these matters have to do with the
relationship between anthroposophy and ecofascism, Waage seems to think
they count as refutations of the article. He says that its "perfidious
accusations" against anthroposophy are harmful to "teachers, pupils and
parents" of Waldorf schools. We don’t understand how questioning the
ideology of an ideologically oriented school can be harmful to anyone;
surely it would be more harmful to leave the ideology unquestioned. We
hope that the lesson Waage learned at his Waldorf school is not that
anthroposophists are always right and their critics always wrong. Our
own experience, at any rate, is rather different.30)
Waage also makes much of the recent report by Dutch anthroposophists
which purports to exonerate Steiner of the charge of racism. Incredibly,
he takes this report as an example of anthroposophists grappling
candidly with their compromised past. Waage himself admits that Steiner
said a number of "absurdly grotesque and outrageous" things about
blacks, Asians, native people, etc., but discounts these utterances
because they were supposedly "marginal" to Steiner’s core beliefs. Waage
does not seem to have reflected on the fundamental divergence between
his own position, which is ethically incoherent, and the position staked
out in the Dutch report, which is empirically incoherent. It would be
one thing if the Dutch commission had concluded that, on balance,
anthroposophy is not necessarily a racist doctrine. But this is not the
conclusion the Dutch commission came to. Instead their report, as Waage
himself notes, determined that "no race theory or racist views can be
attributed to Steiner." We repeat: in the commission’s opinion, which
Waage appears to endorse, Rudolf Steiner held no racist views
whatsoever, and his writings do not contain any race theory.31)
Let us note, first, that this is a bold departure from previous
anthroposophist apologetics, which imagined that Steiner’s racism was
forgivable because it was a "product of its time" – an interesting
argument in itself, since it can be used to justify so many twentieth
century atrocities.32) Until now, the anthroposophist attitude toward
Steiner’s racism was: ignore it and it will go away. But with the Dutch
report this stance of silent complicity has given way to one of pure and
absolute denial. Rudolf Steiner, we are now told, never uttered a racist
word in his life. We are dismayed that humanists would join in such a
specious pretense. To claim that Steiner held no racist views is simply
a sign of dishonesty, ignorance, or bad faith. A person who is free of
racist views cannot possibly say things like "the Negro race does not
belong in Europe," "transplanting black people to Europe is horrible,"
"the white race is the spiritually creative race," and "concepts hurt
the Asian’s brain," and cannot conceivably call aboriginal peoples
"degenerate," "decadent," and "stunted". These statements admit of no
non-racist interpretation. Steiner made each of these statements, and
expressed similar sentiments over and over again, from a position of
professed moral authority. To absolve such a practice is incompatible
with humanist values.
But even this dismal instance of willful ignorance is surpassed by the
belief that Steiner’s written works contain no racial theory. To
appreciate just how intellectually threadbare this posture is, let us
briefly recapitulate: Steiner was the chief public spokesperson for one
of the largest branches of theosophy for a full decade. The chief
original contribution theosophy made to the occult canon was the
doctrine of root races. Steiner adopted the root race doctrine wholesale
into anthroposophy. That comprehensive doctrine divides the human family
into five root races (Wurzelrassen, sometimes also named Hauptrassen or
Grundrassen, principal or primary races), with two more root races to
appear in the distant future. Each root race is further stratified into
sub-races (Unterrassen). These categories are biological (Steiner calls
them "hereditary") as well as spiritual. The racial classifications are
not normatively neutral; they are arranged in ascending order of
spiritual development, with the fifth root race, the "Aryan race," and
within that root race the "Germanic-Nordic sub-race," at the top of the
hierarchy. This hierarchy, in turn, is an integral component of the
cosmic order. All of these ideas are explicitly laid out in great detail
and with emphatic repetition in numerous books, pamphlets, articles and
lectures written and published by Rudolf Steiner. Yet somehow, Waage
assures us, they do not constitute a race theory.
To anyone who has tried to engage anthroposophists and their defenders
in dialogue and critique, such dubious apologetics are all too
recognizable. There is a growing group of voices that have raised
challenging questions about anthroposophy’s political heritage, and
these voices have for the most part not been met with an honest
response. When faced with logic and fact, anthroposophy and its
defenders have nowhere to turn but denial of what everyone else knows to
be true. When confronted with public scrutiny and scholarly inquiry,
anthroposophy and its defenders have no reply but derision and evasion.
These are the familiar habits of sectarians and cultists, and they
threaten to turn every attempt at critical debate into a travesty of
reason. To participate in such a travesty is a form of self-deception
and self-debasement unworthy of any humanist. Our hope is that a sober
assessment of the historical entwinement of anthroposophy and ecofascism
will challenge anthroposophists and their defenders to ask themselves if
the belief system they admire can be extricated from this poisonous
legacy. If it cannot, we hope they will have the courage to leave
anthroposophy behind.
Peter Staudenmaier
Peter Zegers
from Norwegian magazine Humanist, 4, 2000"
(Source: "Anthroposophy and its Defenders:
Reply to Peter Normann Waage, Humanism and Polemical Populism, II".
http://www.stelling.nl/simpos/anthroposophy_nazism_criticism.htm )
It seems like distaste all around.
Regards,
Keith
Tyranny begets tyranny.
- K Mclean
------
Our knowledge has made us cynical,
our cleverness hard and unkind.
We think too much and feel too little:
More than machinery we need humanity;
More than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness.
Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost.
- Charlie Chaplin ("The Great Dictator" [1940])
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 16:52:28 +0000
From: Valerie Walsh (isenhart7 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Staudenmaier hates slackers
Keith McLean wrote:
)
)
) Valerie Walsh wrote:
) ) Not having a common definition of the subject matter presents a much
) ) greater barrier than people's "distaste for you and what you do" IMO.
) ) And, yeah, I question if that's true-that anthroposophists have a
) ) distaste for you and what you do and if it is true then my suggestion is
) )
) )
) ) that the anthroposopists in question take a look at that. Today would be
) )
) )
) ) good.-Val
)
)
) Hmmmmmm....Well....what about this? -)
You know, Keith I think hate is an awfully strong emotion to be
attributing to others. But since you brought it up does your response
mean that you are self-identifying yourself as an anthroposophist in
question? If so, would you be so kind to supply what your, as in your
own, definition of an anthroposophist is? Thanks, Val
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 17:21:47 +0000
From: Valerie Walsh (isenhart7 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: swimming in the wrong direction
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
) In any case, the sperm and egg detour has little to do with the actual
) disagreement between me and Charlie, since the position Charlie was
) ostensibly defending was that PoF was already anthroposophical when it
) was
) published. This position seems to be based on a simple failure to
) distinguish 'anthroposophy', as a specific set of ideas, from 'things
) that
) Rudolf Steiner wrote'.
Well, Charlie,
I hope I'm not stepping on your toes but I do feel the need for a little
fiddle music to go along with the "sperm and egg detour." I first heard
this at a little dive in Urbana-Champaign but I remember it was rather
rousing and seems to fit here.-Val
Running in the wrong direction
Isn't it a long way home,
People with the wrong intentions
Isn't it a long way home.
City, you are dying real slow
Country, you are calling me to go.
Smokestacks, I don't need you no more
I'm gonna fly...
To where the sky meets the land
And the living is not planned
And the children can laugh just
Cause they're living.
I'll send for you
If you ever want me to
But you'll have to find
A whole new way of giving.
Running from the noise and poison
Isn't it a long way home.
Wounded by a law man's toy gun
Isn't it a long way home.
City, no more shadows to be seen.
Country, all the sunshine you can dream.
Smokestacks spew your sour-smelling
steam
I'm gonna fly.
To where the sky meets the land
And the living is not planned
And the children can laugh
Just cause they're living.
I'll send for you
If you ever want me to
But you'll have to find
A whole new way of giving.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 11:52:01 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Staudenmaier hates slackers
Hi Keith,
)It seems like distaste all around.
Yes, that is very much the point. My distaste for folks like Waage does not
keep me from engaging with him and his arguments in public and at length.
Greetings,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Find sales, coupons, and free shipping, all in one place! MSN Shopping
Sales & Deals
http://shopping.msn.com/content/shp/?ctid=198,ptnrid=176,ptnrdata=200639
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 11:51:17 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
Hi Val,
)Well, then I guess the accurate thing to say would be that some
)amthroposophists have a low opinion of what you have to say regarding
)anthroposophy not that they have a low opinion of people like you.
Both of those things are accurate. Did you think they were somehow mutually
exclusive?
)If it were just about that I doubt Serena or anyone would allow you to
)step on their toes until they were raw.
On the off chance that this really truly wasn't clear to you before, maybe I
should point out that I have never stepped on any part of Serena, either
literally or figuratively. But in general, people who get raw toes from a
public discussion via email simply need to get better shoes, so to speak.
)No, Peter, the "none of this" refereed to Serena's post which we can all
)read in the here and now-like it's right there in front of our
)collective noses.
Yep. Perhaps I could gently suggest that you read it again.
)Serena pointed out several specific behaviors-do you
)consider them for personality traits?
Something like that, I suppose. I don't just tell anthroposophists they're
wrong about their own belief system when I'm in a bad mood or something, I
do it all the time, and I do it to non-anthroposophists too (marxists are
among my favorite targets, for what it's worth). Critical assessment of
other people's claims isn't some sort of passing phase or occasional
behavior. It's a big part of what public discussion is for. My toes don't
start hurting when people tell me I'm wrong. How come Serena's do?
)So you don't know why you're not appealing to anthroposophists but you
)do know that you're not appealing to anthroposophists?
Yes, exactly.
)While we're on
)the subject could you give me your definition of what an anthroposophist
)is?
If it'll help, just go back to the summary of what anthroposophy is that
I've posted several times now, and add 'somebody who adopts these ideas or
practices'. But I really am happy to use whatever definition anybody else
cares to propose. Then we can see how well various definitions fit the
reality.
)I didn't see Bryan Miler so I must not have gone back far enough. The
)"my balls" that I saw was from you without a "Re" before it so I thought
)it was your balls being referenced as opposed to someone elses.
Yes, it was my balls being referenced, and Mike Helsher who referenced them.
It's admittedly a little hard to see how this could possibly have escaped
you the first time around, but that exchange was pretty much an exact
parallel to this one. Mike thought I was being shy about replying to a
message of his, and the metaphor he chose to express this was "I have a
brief question for you [Dan]; one that Peter doesn't have the balls to tell
the truth about, or maybe he is just completely clueless."
)Then
)there was a, I thought, post of effusive admiration but since this is
)not of any interest to you why should I bother to look it up again?
You shouldn't, unless it's of interest to you. I already read the whole
thing three years ago. Amazingly enough, neither my toes nor my balls got
hurt.
)I have no idea if Serena is unwilling to discuss anthroposophy with you.
Umm... why do you not have any idea of this? Do you think Serena has
discussed anthroposophy with me before? When? Where? Was she using a
pseudonym? Please fill me in.
)It seems to me that the disagreement on this list at present is over
)what constitutes anthroposophy in the first place.
Yes, that's part of what it means to discuss anthroposophy.
)Not having a common definition of the subject matter presents a much
)greater barrier than people's "distaste for you and what you do" IMO.
Not having a common definition doesn't necessarily present a barrier to
public discussion of any topic, it can on the contrary often be an excellent
spur to further discussion of the topic. In any case, I think you have
misunderstood the recent rounds of the exchange between me and Charlie; the
sub-theme that arose there was not about finding some common definition, it
was about the significant difference between discussing what anthroposophy
should be and discussing what anthroposophy is.
)And, yeah, I question if that's true-that anthroposophists have a
)distaste for you and what you do and if it is true then my suggestion is
)that the anthroposopists in question take a look at that. Today would be
)good.-Val
My suggestion is that they continue to have a distaste for me and what I do.
There is nothing wrong with that sort of distaste. It is simply a poor
reason to refuse to engage in public discussion. As for today being good, I
am not in any hurry, and I encourage Serena to come on back and take part in
the discussion on whatever day suits her. Greetings,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Get live scores and news about your team: Add the Live.com Football Page
www.live.com/?addtemplate=football&icid=T001MSN30A0701
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 20:48:52 +0000
From: Valerie Walsh (isenhart7 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
) Hi Val,
) )Well, then I guess the accurate thing to say would be that some
) )amthroposophists have a low opinion of what you have to say regarding
) )anthroposophy not that they have a low opinion of people like you.
)
)
) Both of those things are accurate. Did you think they were somehow
) mutually
) exclusive?
Dear Peter,
I don't even know what you mean by people like you. Do you mean
historians? I went out a few times with this guy who was a history major
and I told him once that I thought history was an easy major. He seemed
to have a low opinion of my comment but then we saw the movie "Superman"
(the first one) together and I had to explain the movie to him afterward
so you know I wonder how challenging his classes could have been.
)
)
) )If it were just about that I doubt Serena or anyone would allow you to
) )step on their toes until they were raw.
)
)
) On the off chance that this really truly wasn't clear to you before,
) maybe I
) should point out that I have never stepped on any part of Serena, either
)
) literally or figuratively. But in general, people who get raw toes from
) a
) public discussion via email simply need to get better shoes, so to
) speak.
)
Or stronger toes-there are exercises for that actually. But, I was
thinking that Serena was speaking from experience and it sounds like you
are saying that she was not.
) )No, Peter, the "none of this" refereed to Serena's post which we can all
) )read in the here and now-like it's right there in front of our
) )collective noses.
)
)
) Yep. Perhaps I could gently suggest that you read it again.
)
)
) )Serena pointed out several specific behaviors-do you
) )consider them for personality traits?
)
)
) Something like that, I suppose. I don't just tell anthroposophists
) they're
) wrong about their own belief system when I'm in a bad mood or something,
) I
) do it all the time, and I do it to non-anthroposophists too (marxists
) are
) among my favorite targets, for what it's worth). Critical assessment of
) other people's claims isn't some sort of passing phase or occasional
) behavior. It's a big part of what public discussion is for. My toes
) don't
) start hurting when people tell me I'm wrong. How come Serena's do?
Don't know-my best guess the cause is cellulitis-comes from standing on
one's toes too long-if that's it she'll have to have her toenails
drilled. If you know that other people's belief systems are wrong then
what is there to discuss? You want to critically assess other people's
claims to what end?
) )So you don't know why you're not appealing to anthroposophists but you
) )do know that you're not appealing to anthroposophists?
) Yes, exactly.
) )While we're on
) )the subject could you give me your definition of what an anthroposophist
) )is?
)
)
) If it'll help, just go back to the summary of what anthroposophy is that
)
) I've posted several times now, and add 'somebody who adopts these ideas
) or
) practices'. But I really am happy to use whatever definition anybody
) else
) cares to propose. Then we can see how well various definitions fit the
) reality.
"The reality?" Don't you mean reality as you experience it?
) )I didn't see Bryan Miler so I must not have gone back far enough. The
) )"my balls" that I saw was from you without a "Re" before it so I thought
) )it was your balls being referenced as opposed to someone elses.
)
)
) Yes, it was my balls being referenced, and Mike Helsher who referenced
) them.
) It's admittedly a little hard to see how this could possibly have
) escaped
) you the first time around, but that exchange was pretty much an exact
) parallel to this one. Mike thought I was being shy about replying to a
) message of his, and the metaphor he chose to express this was "I have a
) brief question for you [Dan]; one that Peter doesn't have the balls to
) tell
) the truth about, or maybe he is just completely clueless."
The truth is, Peter, there is no end to what escapes me.
) )Then
) )there was a, I thought, post of effusive admiration but since this is
) )not of any interest to you why should I bother to look it up again?
) You shouldn't, unless it's of interest to you. I already read the whole
) thing three years ago. Amazingly enough, neither my toes nor my balls
) got
) hurt.
Well, thank God for small favors is all I can say-I won't have to offer
any conjecture on the state of your bod or offer any remedies.
) )I have no idea if Serena is unwilling to discuss anthroposophy with you.
)
)
) Umm... why do you not have any idea of this? Do you think Serena has
) discussed anthroposophy with me before? When? Where? Was she using a
) pseudonym? Please fill me in.
Yeah, since she said you were such a lousy dance partner I thought she
knew firsthand what she was talking about. If not, then I guess all she
can really say is it's no fun to watch you dance-she can't really say
that it's no fun to dance with you if she's never done it. Sounds like a
bit of a spoil-sport to me now. Like a heckler or something from the
sidelines.
)
)
) )It seems to me that the disagreement on this list at present is over
) )what constitutes anthroposophy in the first place.
)
)
) Yes, that's part of what it means to discuss anthroposophy.
)
)
) )Not having a common definition of the subject matter presents a much
) )greater barrier than people's "distaste for you and what you do" IMO.
)
)
) Not having a common definition doesn't necessarily present a barrier to
) public discussion of any topic, it can on the contrary often be an
) excellent
) spur to further discussion of the topic. In any case, I think you have
) misunderstood the recent rounds of the exchange between me and Charlie;
) the
) sub-theme that arose there was not about finding some common definition,
) it
) was about the significant difference between discussing what
) anthroposophy
) should be and discussing what anthroposophy is.
That would be a good theme if you ask me but no that's what I read in
the exchange between you and Charlie. If it's a sub-theme perhaps it was
too subliminal for me.
)
)
) )And, yeah, I question if that's true-that anthroposophists have a
) )distaste for you and what you do and if it is true then my suggestion is
) )that the anthroposopists in question take a look at that. Today would be
) )good.-
)
)
) My suggestion is that they continue to have a distaste for me and what I
) do.
) There is nothing wrong with that sort of distaste.
What is it that you do? You are critical of anthroposophy? Is that what
you're referring to? Or are you cruel to young children or animals or
something along those lines?
It is simply a poor
) reason to refuse to engage in public discussion. As for today being
) good, I
) am not in any hurry, and I encourage Serena to come on back and take
) part in
) the discussion on whatever day suits her.
And yet there is no time like the present.-Val
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 04:26:45 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
Hi Val,
)The truth is, Peter, there is no end to what escapes me.
I am beginning to get that impression. If what you say below is sincere, you
were unaware all along that Serena has never engaged in direct discussion
with me of anthroposophy or anything else. This raises the puzzling question
of what prompted you to respond to my message to Serena in the first place.
My reply to her was not somehow unfriendly or mean-spirited. If, as it turns
out, you didn't know what either she or I was talking about to begin with,
how did you manage to reach any conclusions at all about what "none of this
has to do with" and so forth? I don't mean to pick on you, but if you've got
the time to type in Dan Fogelberg lyrics and what-not, why not take a couple
minutes for a cursory look at the context of the issue you chose to comment
on?
While you're doing that, maybe we can start over, and it might make more
sense this time around. You now write:
)I don't even know what you mean by people like you. Do you mean
)historians?
No, I meant critics of anthroposophy (which is why I wrote "critics of
anthroposophy" in my post to Serena). Serena does not seem troubled by
historians or reluctant to engage them in public discussion, as far as can
be determined from the various things she has written about me and other
critics of anthroposophy. She really doesn't like us, by the way, in case
you're still in some sort of doubt about that. You have read at least some
of her posts on anthroposophy tomorrow, right?
)But, I was
)thinking that Serena was speaking from experience
Not to put too fine a point on it, but why exactly did you think this? Did
you think that Serena's conspiracist fantasies about 911, for example, were
also "speaking from experience"?
)and it sounds like you
)are saying that she was not.
Of course she wasn't. Serena was a subscriber to this list and an active
participant on it well before I re-joined the list a little over a year ago
(if you're interested, you can take a look at what she had to say here about
the behavior of German anthroposophists during World War II, for example).
Since I have been on the list, not a peep from her here, in spite of her
rather extensive and abiding interest in what she calls "Staudenmaier's
misinformation campaign". I would be delighted to discuss that and lots of
other matters with Serena, but she is evidently worried about her toes. Is
any of this getting a little clearer to you?
)If you know that other people's belief systems are wrong then
)what is there to discuss?
I think that Nazi belief systems are wrong, for example, or Stalinist belief
systems. That does not somehow mean there is nothing left to discuss about
Nazism or Stalinism. For those of us who think that, say, racist belief
systems are wrong, there's a whole lot to discuss: Where do they come from?
How do they work? What are their core features? How have they developed over
time? What roles do they play today? As it happens, this list is a place to
discuss Waldorf, anthroposophy, and Steiner, both for folks who find "wrong"
things and for folks who find "right" things in them. There is much to
discuss about all of those things.
)You want to critically assess other people's
)claims to what end?
To see which arguments hold up to scrutiny and which ones don't. That's one
of the wonderful opportunities that public discussion offers. What did you
think the end was, if I may ask? To avoid stepping on toes?
)"The reality?" Don't you mean reality as you experience it?
No, a definition wouldn't do much good for that, and would be superfluous in
any case. Waldorf schools really do exist. Anthroposophy really does exist.
Rudolf Steiner's texts really do exist. When we talk about those things in
public discussion, we're not just talking about our personal experiences.
This has been one of the major stumbling blocks in the PoF exchange, by the
way; folks like Charlie and Jean-Marc et al "experience" the book as
anthroposophical, and apparently think that this makes it so.
)Yeah, since she said you were such a lousy dance partner I thought she
)knew firsthand what she was talking about.
That was foolish of you, don't you think? Do you generally assume that
people who post messages like hers know firsthand what they are talking
about?
) ) My suggestion is that they continue to have a distaste for me and what I
) ) do.
) ) There is nothing wrong with that sort of distaste.
)
)What is it that you do? You are critical of anthroposophy? Is that what
)you're referring to?
Yes. More to the point, that is what Serena was referring to.
) )It is simply a poor
) ) reason to refuse to engage in public discussion. As for today being
) ) good, I
) ) am not in any hurry, and I encourage Serena to come on back and take
) ) part in
) ) the discussion on whatever day suits her.
)
)And yet there is no time like the present.-Val
As far as I'm concerned, the present would be just fine for a discussion
with Serena. If she's still searching for sturdier shoes, though, that's
cool with me, I can wait more. While she's doing her toe exercises, maybe
she can contemplate the example I addressed in my original post in this
thread: Steiner's use of the phrase "nichts weniger als günstig", the one
that Detlef Hardorp thinks means the opposite of what it means. Serena says
she speaks German. She could helpfully weigh in on the matter. It would be
most interesting for me to hear what she has to say. Greetings,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Get FREE Web site and company branded e-mail from Microsoft Office Live
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 2420
-- Topica Digest --
RE: "it should not call itself anthroposophy" or should it?
By eltrigal78 yahoo.com
RE: "it should not call itself anthroposophy" or should it?
By eltrigal78 yahoo.com
RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
By eltrigal78 yahoo.com
RE: swimming in the wrong direction
By eltrigal78 yahoo.com
RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
By eltrigal78 yahoo.com
RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
By eltrigal78 yahoo.com
RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
By eltrigal78 yahoo.com
RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
By isenhart7 yahoo.com
RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
By isenhart7 yahoo.com
Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
By eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk
RE: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
By isenhart7 yahoo.com
Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: swimming in the wrong direction
By pstaud hotmail.com
to read or not to read
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
By dan dandugan.com
RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
By dan dandugan.com
Re: the appeal of anthroposophy
By mejhowell bigpond.com
The Appeal of Antisophy...
By jmnguyen wanadoo.fr
RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
By isenhart7 yahoo.com
RE: to read or not to read
By cffrey mindspring.com
Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
By SerenaBlaue aol.com
to hear or not to hear
By isenhart7 yahoo.com
Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
By eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 12:42:55 +0000
From: Frank Smith (eltrigal78 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: "it should not call itself anthroposophy" or should it?
Diana Winters wrote:
) But what's also interesting is the idea that Steiner's ideas are
) collectively Steiner's baby, so he gets to decide what's anthroposophy
) and what's not, even years after the fact. This seems to sum up how
) anthroposophists relate to anthroposophy. Steiner named PoF
) "anthroposophy," how can anyone argue with the proud papa?
"A rose by any other name..."
http://SouthernCrossReview.org
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 12:44:27 +0000
From: Frank Smith (eltrigal78 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: "it should not call itself anthroposophy" or should it?
Diana Winters wrote:
)
)
) Charlie M. wrote to Peter:
)
) )You're entitled to your belief that the world is one big accident.
)
) Just curious. (This is off topic.) Let's just say, hypothetically, that
) the world was one big accident. Let's say you found out suddenly and
) incontrovertibly that this was true - it was proven beyond a doubt, and
) even you had to concede that clearly, the world is one big accident.
)
) What then? What problem does this create for you, exactly? Would you
) want to, like, *leave* then?
)
) Diana
Well, it wouldn't really matter - would it?
Frank
http://SouthernCrossReview.org
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 12:56:47 +0000
From: Frank Smith (eltrigal78 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
) I am not sure if this genuinely wasn't clear before, but I definitely do
) not
) want praise from anthroposophists. That would be a bad thing, in my
) view,
) not a good thing.
Shit man, no problem. You know all about R.S's suggestion to avoid
sympathy and and antipathy: I have taken the course and feel neither one
towards you, would even enjoy a glass of chianti in a Roma sidewalk cafe
with you some day. (No bratwurst and schnaps in Berlin though, thank
you.) Will you be in Berlin this summer? We might meet for a Loewenbrau
and biodynamic pretzels.
Frank
http://SouthernCrossReview.org
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 14:24:09 +0000
From: Frank Smith (eltrigal78 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: swimming in the wrong direction
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
) Most of the people who write about pure thinking and moral imagination
) and
) so forth are not anthroposophists, or any kind of esotericists. They way
) we
) can tell this is by looking for esoteric elements in their work. Hegel
) and
) Kant and Fichte were not esotericists, for example, much less
) anthroposophists. Their works are not esoteric works, much less
) anthroposophical works. Steiner’s early philosophical publications are
) notably similar in many ways to the works of these figures. Steiner’s
) early
) philosophical works are notably dissimilar in many ways to his own later
)
) esoteric works, the ones that are recognizably anthroposophical.
)
) If we want to make sense of those similarities and dissimilarities, it’s
) a
) good idea to take a look at the various intellectual changes Steiner
) underwent in the course of his life. One of the more striking of those
) changes is his shift from an anti-theosophical stance to a theosophical
) stance around the turn of the century. This shift goes a long way toward
)
) explaining and accounting for the differences between Steiner’s earlier
) and
) later works. Some of the PoF-is-anthro faction simply ignore this shift
) entirely, others deny that it took place. This is why their arguments
) are
) historically absurd; they have effectively collapsed Steiner’s works
) into
) one indistinguishable mass that remained static over time.
Without wanting to talk for anyone else, I will say that imo this isn't
a "shift" but a development; certainly Steiner's thinking developed over
time and I don't think anyone denies it. Why should they?
)
) I think much of the ongoing disagreement on this matter probably has to
) do
) with the same dynamic I tried to gently point toward a couple posts ago:
) if
) you’re unfamiliar with the general philosophical territory under
) discussion,
) you’re going to have a hard time locating specific figures and specific
) positions within that territory, whether historically or intellectually.
) I’m
) guessing that this is why Charlie, for example, got my position on two
) interesting philosophical issues (unity-in-diversity and historical
) continuity) exactly backwards, and it seems likely that the same basic
) unfamiliarity also lead him to misunderstand Steiner’s early
) philosophical
) works and thus misidentify their location both within the discourse of
) the
) time and within Steiner’s overall career as a thinker and writer.
Whether Charlie or anyone else here is unfamiliar with the "general
philosophical territory under discussion" I don't know - but that the
content of PoF is closely related to that philosophy is undeniable;
which doesn't mean, however, that it is not also closely related to
anthroposophy. Furthermore, if it is closely related to both, does not
mean that those other German idealist philosophers were also
anthroposophists - as you have absurdly (or ironically, or both)
contended.
)
) It is, as always, entirely possible that there is some element of the
) PoF-is-anthro argument that I have overlooked, and if any of its
) proponents
) think that is the case, I encourage them to point it out. Until then, I
) am
) happy to wait while anthroposophists scour the text of PoF for some sign
) of
) anthroposophical content, which I am confident they will bring to our
) attention as soon as they have found it.
Your attention has already been brought to these points several times.
Steiner himself has also been cited extensively on this issue, but you
have chosen to opine that he was deceiving himself (if I understood you
correctly). You seem to think that if PoF is also anthroposophy, it must
contain certain esoteric vocabulary; and as it does not it can't be
classified as anthroposophical - despite that fact that the author
specifically includes it in the anthropophical canon (and who has more
right to do so?) Ok, everyone is entitled to their opinion - (and yours
is no more than a personal opinion, for no proven facts back it up). I
on the other hand am willing to accept any author's right to define his
own work better than a critic who cannot possibly know the former's
mind, and I would only urge that critic (uselessly I fear, for few
critics have been known to admit they are wrong) to show sufficient
respect to the author (steiner in this case), to give him the benefit of
the doubt (yours).
Frank
http://SouthernCrossReview.org
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 14:29:58 +0000
From: Frank Smith (eltrigal78 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
Valerie Walsh wrote:
) I didn't see Bryan Miler so I must not have gone back far enough. The
) "my balls" that I saw was from you without a "Re" before it so I thought
)
) it was your balls being referenced as opposed to someone elses. Then
) there was a, I thought, post of effusive admiration but since this is
) not of any interest to you why should I bother to look it up again?
Quite right, Val. If Peter's balls were in question, then *he* should
look it up.
Frank
http://SouthernCrossReview.org
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 14:43:01 +0000
From: Frank Smith (eltrigal78 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
)
) )Then
) )there was a, I thought, post of effusive admiration but since this is
) )not of any interest to you why should I bother to look it up again?
)
)
P.S: You shouldn't, unless it's of interest to you. I already read the
whole
) thing three years ago. Amazingly enough, neither my toes nor my balls
) got
) hurt.
Then there was Pvt. Magarino: I come to this country for the American
Dream and what happen? They put me in this fockin’ army, they make me
save off my mustache, so my wife not know me anymore, then they call my
name and I say “Here!”, and they say, “Sound off like you got a pair of
balls.” I ask you if I got a pair of balls or no. (He pulls down his
underpants and cradles his genitals lovingly before our eyes.) They
should have such a pair of balls as me!
(From the current issue of Southern Cross review.)
http://SouthernCrossReview.org
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 14:57:31 +0000
From: Frank Smith (eltrigal78 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
Val:"The reality?" Don't you mean reality as you experience it?
)
)
Peter: No, a definition wouldn't do much good for that, and would be
superfluous in
) any case. Waldorf schools really do exist. Anthroposophy really does
) exist.
) Rudolf Steiner's texts really do exist. When we talk about those things
) in
) public discussion, we're not just talking about our personal
) experiences.
) This has been one of the major stumbling blocks in the PoF exchange, by
) the
) way; folks like Charlie and Jean-Marc et al "experience" the book as
) anthroposophical, and apparently think that this makes it so.
Aye, there' the rub! You read things in musty libraries and google dens
and water closets and draw conclusions without experiencing them. In
order to know anything about Waldorf schools, f.e., one *must*
experience them, and one must experience anthroposophy in order to
really know it. You, by your own admission, are sorely lacking in this
respect, Peter.
P: As far as I'm concerned, the present would be just fine for a
discussion
) with Serena. If she's still searching for sturdier shoes, though, that's
)
) cool with me, I can wait more. While she's doing her toe exercises,
) maybe
) she can contemplate the example I addressed in my original post in this
) thread: Steiner's use of the phrase , the one
) that Detlef Hardorp thinks means the opposite of what it means. Serena
) says
) she speaks German. She could helpfully weigh in on the matter. It would
) be
) most interesting for me to hear what she has to say. Greetings,
)
F: Ach, du liebe Zeit! Don't tell me you're gonna go back to "nichts
weniger als günstig" - a discussion in which I also participated and in
which I thought we agreed that the meaning could be called ambiguous-
nichts mehr, nichts weniger.
Frank
http://SouthernCrossReview.org
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 15:06:39 +0000
From: Valerie Walsh (isenhart7 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
Frank Smith wrote:
) Quite right, Val. If Peter's balls were in question, then *he* should
) look it up.
Or them, as the case may be, Frank.-Val
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 16:25:27 +0000
From: Valerie Walsh (isenhart7 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
) I am beginning to get that impression. If what you say below is sincere,
) you
) were unaware all along that Serena has never engaged in direct
) discussion
) with me of anthroposophy or anything else. This raises the puzzling
) question
) of what prompted you to respond to my message to Serena in the first
) place.
Dear Peter,
I was kind of relieved to hear that you were such a lousy dancer-I guess
I over-reacted by responding. Sorry it won't happen again.
) My reply to her was not somehow unfriendly or mean-spirited.
Like you think I was jumping in there to protect Serena from your toe
mashing? I don't even know Serena.
If, as it turns
) out, you didn't know what either she or I was talking about to begin
) with,
) how did you manage to reach any conclusions at all about what "none of
) this
) has to do with" and so forth?
So someone says-it's no fun to dance with someone who steps on your toes
all the time, etc. etc. This in no way constitutes a statement of low
opinion of a person. It's a comment on a specific behavior-in this case
dancing. If someone said to me, you need to get greater turn-out on your
ronde de jambe or you better tighten up that pas de bourrée I wouldn't
think gee, they have a low opinion of me. What I'd think is-back to the
barr.
I don't mean to pick on you, but if you've got
) the time to type in Dan Fogelberg lyrics and what-not, why not take a
) couple
) minutes for a cursory look at the context of the issue you chose to
) comment
) on?
Cut and paste actually takes no time at all-it's amazing what's
available on-line. The context being the non-existant exchange between
you and Serena? How would you suggest that I go about looking at that?
)
) While you're doing that, maybe we can start over, and it might make more
)
) sense this time around. You now write:
)
)
) )I don't even know what you mean by people like you. Do you mean
) )historians?
)
)
) No, I meant critics of anthroposophy (which is why I wrote "critics of
) anthroposophy" in my post to Serena). Serena does not seem troubled by
) historians or reluctant to engage them in public discussion, as far as
) can
) be determined from the various things she has written about me and other
)
) critics of anthroposophy.
Writing about other people is not the same thing as "engaging them in
public discussion."
She really doesn't like us, by the way, in case
) you're still in some sort of doubt about that. You have read at least
) some
) of her posts on anthroposophy tomorrow, right?
Us-being critics of anthroposophy I am assuming. If she wrote something
during my two years on that list then yeah, I read it. I don't remember
anything about not liking you though. I will say, though that I never
read the list when you were on it-even when I was subscribed so I
probably missed a lot. So, in case you're wondering-I stopped reading
whenever the critics came over because, having three children, I have
enough bickering in my life already. Doesn't mean I don't like the
critics btw-it just means I don't care for the bickering.
)
)
) )But, I was
) )thinking that Serena was speaking from experience
)
)
) Not to put too fine a point on it, but why exactly did you think this?
) Did
) you think that Serena's conspiracist fantasies about 911, for example,
) were
) also "speaking from experience"?
Why would I think otherwise? I should have thought-oh this just doesn't
square with what I have seen here regarding Peter? He is an excellent
dancer by my own observations and by all accounts so Serena obviously
doesn't know what she is talking about? The fact is, besides maybe some
wishful thinking on my part, that this wasn't obvious to me at all. If
you were really an excellent dancer then I figure we wouldn't be here
talking about dancing. I know nothing about Serena's views on 911.
) )and it sounds like you
) )are saying that she was not.
)
)
) Of course she wasn't. Serena was a subscriber to this list and an active
)
) participant on it well before I re-joined the list a little over a year
) ago
) (if you're interested, you can take a look at what she had to say here
) about
) the behavior of German anthroposophists during World War II, for
) example).
Okay, I have to take a break here for something like a laugh riot-that I
figure you won't understand but perhaps Frank will.
) Since I have been on the list, not a peep from her here, in spite of her
)
) rather extensive and abiding interest in what she calls "Staudenmaier's
) misinformation campaign". I would be delighted to discuss that and lots
) of
) other matters with Serena, but she is evidently worried about her toes.
) Is
) any of this getting a little clearer to you?
Yep. She peeped at you after a year of silence and I interrupted-sorry.
Peter, for my intrusion. Sorry, Serena-I had no idea! I will bow out now
and return to the wall. I'll even face the wall if you guys want.
) )If you know that other people's belief systems are wrong then
) )what is there to discuss?
)
)
) I think that Nazi belief systems are wrong, for example, or Stalinist
) belief
) systems. That does not somehow mean there is nothing left to discuss
) about
) Nazism or Stalinism. For those of us who think that, say, racist belief
) systems are wrong, there's a whole lot to discuss: Where do they come
) from?
) How do they work? What are their core features? How have they developed
) over
) time? What roles do they play today? As it happens, this list is a place
) to
) discuss Waldorf, anthroposophy, and Steiner, both for folks who find
) "wrong"
) things and for folks who find "right" things in them. There is much to
) discuss about all of those things.
'Cept that you've identified Waldorf, anthroposophy, amd Steiner with a
racist belief system. I guess I miss the point of discussing right and
wrong things or aspects when the entire belief system is considered
incorrect in the first palce.
)
)
) )You want to critically assess other people's
) )claims to what end?
)
)
) To see which arguments hold up to scrutiny and which ones don't. That's
) one
) of the wonderful opportunities that public discussion offers. What did
) you
) think the end was, if I may ask? To avoid stepping on toes?
It's your end I was asking about. I didn't know-that's why I asked.
Learning how to dance without stepping on other's toes wouldn't be a bad
outcome, IMO-it wouldn't be my objective but yeah I think I wouldn't
mind learning how to do that.
)
)
) )"The reality?" Don't you mean reality as you experience it?
)
)
) No, a definition wouldn't do much good for that, and would be
) superfluous in
) any case. Waldorf schools really do exist. Anthroposophy really does
) exist.
) Rudolf Steiner's texts really do exist. When we talk about those things
) in
) public discussion, we're not just talking about our personal
) experiences.
I am-even song lyrics-I always have some personal connection to them-Dan
fe, I haven't seen in several years since he moved down to Pagosa
Springs and took up with Georgia O'Keefe's nurse. But when I saw him
last he was touring under the name "Franky and the Aliens."
) This has been one of the major stumbling blocks in the PoF exchange, by
) the
) way; folks like Charlie and Jean-Marc et al "experience" the book as
) anthroposophical, and apparently think that this makes it so.
So maybe exoterically anthroposophy is what you say it is, Peter and
there is also an esoteric side that Charlie and Jean-Marc have
experienced.
)
)
) )Yeah, since she said you were such a lousy dance partner I thought she
) )knew firsthand what she was talking about.
)
)
) That was foolish of you, don't you think? Do you generally assume that
) people who post messages like hers know firsthand what they are talking
) about?
Yes-fools rush in where angels fear to tread-or so I've heard. And yes I
do generally assume that people know what they are talking about.
) ) ) My suggestion is that they continue to have a distaste for me and what I
) ) ) do.
) ) ) There is nothing wrong with that sort of distaste.
) )
) )What is it that you do? You are critical of anthroposophy? Is that what
) )you're referring to?
)
)
) Yes. More to the point, that is what Serena was referring to.
)
)
) ) )It is simply a poor
) ) ) reason to refuse to engage in public discussion. As for today being
) ) ) good, I
) ) ) am not in any hurry, and I encourage Serena to come on back and take
) ) ) part in
) ) ) the discussion on whatever day suits her.
) )
) )And yet there is no time like the present.
)
)
) As far as I'm concerned, the present would be just fine for a discussion
)
) with Serena. If she's still searching for sturdier shoes, though, that's
)
) cool with me, I can wait more. While she's doing her toe exercises,
) maybe
) she can contemplate the example I addressed in my original post in this
) thread: Steiner's use of the phrase "nichts weniger als günstig", the
) one
) that Detlef Hardorp thinks means the opposite of what it means. Serena
) says
) she speaks German. She could helpfully weigh in on the matter. It would
) be
) most interesting for me to hear what she has to say. Greetings,
Well, I thought Charlie had a good suggestion with the reel-then Serena
could just join in whenever and we wouldn't all have to wait for maybe
another year but okay then-guten tag to you from the wall-Val
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 17:50:19 -0000
From: "eurythmy" (eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
2007 01 14
Dear all,
Peter writes:
Most of the people who write about pure thinking and moral imagination and
so forth are not anthroposophists, or any kind of esotericists. They way we
can tell this is by looking for esoteric elements in their work. Hegel and
Kant and Fichte were not esotericists, for example, much less
anthroposophists. Their works are not esoteric works, much less
anthroposophical works. Steiner's early philosophical publications are
notably similar in many ways to the works of these figures. Steiner's early
philosophical works are notably dissimilar in many ways to his own later
esoteric works, the ones that are recognizably anthroposophical.
Can anyone show how Rudolf Steiner use of 'pure thinking' and 'moral
imagination' in The Philosophy of Freedom shows that he is
1- a follower of Kant, and at the same time
2-a follower of Hegel, and at the same time
3- a follower of Fischte,
4-and that later on his use of these terms in so called 'core anthroposophic
work' shows a shift
5-and that he is then an apostate of German Idealism,
6-a sifting guy renouncing then his earlier The Philosophy of Freedom,
7-whatever he says after 1900 Rudolf Steiner works then out of his esoteric
sub-branch, out of his self-induced delusional mind.
May be he is a follower of no philosophy expressed within German Idealism,
although in the first chapters of The Philosophy of Freedom he follows some
of the German Idealist characterisation of thinking, as an activity, but
soon in the same book goes beyond the first characterisations of thinking to
the point o writing contradictory statements. It is a specific way of
writing of Rudolf Steiner that characterisations are not definitions and
that again and again he takes different point of view to describe things,
often a characterisation is only valid for one chapter or one lecture only.
This technique of writing is so specific of Rudolf Steiner that he does
rarely warn about it, and as far as I noticed it is always afterwards in
another work.
May be Peter has only read the first chapters of The Philosophy of Freedom.
Where the link to Anthroposophy is less easily noticed. Even so it is an
'open secret' that the first chapters are written in the same method as
later ones, and that the essential nature of Anthroposophy which is to be a
method of knowledge, or a path of initiation, or a series of exercises which
are perception-organ detoxing or building is already there abundantly in the
first chapters.
Kind Regards,
Franky
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 10:23 AM
Subject: swimming in the wrong direction
Hello all,
Val's cryptic comment about anthroposophy tomorrow prompted me to take a
look at their list archives in order to reconstruct the Mike Helsher
exchange she cited, and I noticed lots of other interesting stuff there from
the last month or so (including a particularly hallucinatory series of posts
about how I have supposedly not changed my mind about Steiner, I think, or
maybe I have and haven't admitted it, or something); the most recent
relevant message is Dottie's worry that I have belittled Charlie. On the off
chance that Charlie also thinks I have belittled him, I'll try once again to
explain why I think his recent claims are nonsensical.
The notion that German Idealism was predestined to flower into anthroposophy
is historically foolish, a result of reading history backwards. The problem
here isn't the 'anthroposophy' part, it's the whole conception of enormously
variegated things like philosophical idealism being the embryonic form of
later worldviews. Anthroposophists, for what it's worth, are hardly the only
ones to make such claims; both Marxists and Nazis have declared that German
Idealism came to true fruition in Marxism or in Nazism. This sort of thing
simply makes no sense whatsoever from a historical perspective.
In any case, the sperm and egg detour has little to do with the actual
disagreement between me and Charlie, since the position Charlie was
ostensibly defending was that PoF was already anthroposophical when it was
published. This position seems to be based on a simple failure to
distinguish 'anthroposophy', as a specific set of ideas, from 'things that
Rudolf Steiner wrote'.
As a body of ideas, anthroposophy has concrete content. That content is what
can help us determine which texts do and do not count as anthroposophical.
Talking about the higher worlds and supernatural perception and clairvoyance
and initiation and the spiritual hierarchies and etheric bodies and
celestial beings is very different from talking about pure thinking and
moral imagination and the human spirit and uniting perception and thought.
Most of the people who write about pure thinking and moral imagination and
so forth are not anthroposophists, or any kind of esotericists. They way we
can tell this is by looking for esoteric elements in their work. Hegel and
Kant and Fichte were not esotericists, for example, much less
anthroposophists. Their works are not esoteric works, much less
anthroposophical works. Steiner's early philosophical publications are
notably similar in many ways to the works of these figures. Steiner's early
philosophical works are notably dissimilar in many ways to his own later
esoteric works, the ones that are recognizably anthroposophical.
If we want to make sense of those similarities and dissimilarities, it's a
good idea to take a look at the various intellectual changes Steiner
underwent in the course of his life. One of the more striking of those
changes is his shift from an anti-theosophical stance to a theosophical
stance around the turn of the century. This shift goes a long way toward
explaining and accounting for the differences between Steiner's earlier and
later works. Some of the PoF-is-anthro faction simply ignore this shift
entirely, others deny that it took place. This is why their arguments are
historically absurd; they have effectively collapsed Steiner's works into
one indistinguishable mass that remained static over time.
I think much of the ongoing disagreement on this matter probably has to do
with the same dynamic I tried to gently point toward a couple posts ago: if
you're unfamiliar with the general philosophical territory under discussion,
you're going to have a hard time locating specific figures and specific
positions within that territory, whether historically or intellectually. I'm
guessing that this is why Charlie, for example, got my position on two
interesting philosophical issues (unity-in-diversity and historical
continuity) exactly backwards, and it seems likely that the same basic
unfamiliarity also lead him to misunderstand Steiner's early philosophical
works and thus misidentify their location both within the discourse of the
time and within Steiner's overall career as a thinker and writer.
It is, as always, entirely possible that there is some element of the
PoF-is-anthro argument that I have overlooked, and if any of its proponents
think that is the case, I encourage them to point it out. Until then, I am
happy to wait while anthroposophists scour the text of PoF for some sign of
anthroposophical content, which I am confident they will bring to our
attention as soon as they have found it.
Greetings to all,
Peter S.
__
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 18:16:48 +0000
From: Valerie Walsh (isenhart7 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
eurythmy wrote:
) 7-whatever he says after 1900 Rudolf Steiner works then out of his
) esoteric
) sub-branch, out of his self-induced delusional mind.
Don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised as I can vouch for the fact that
there is an esoteric sub-branch which would make this maybe a collective
delusion.-Val
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 17:56:39 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
Hi Franky,
Kant, Hegel, and Fichte all disagreed quite a bit philosophically, which is
one reason why the notion that German Idealism was genetically programmed to
grow into anthroposophy is goofy. The later Steiner did not renounce PoF, on
the contrary, he re-interpreted it in esoteric terms. While the idea isn't
especially far-fetched, there is no need to posit that Steiner after 1900
was out of his self-induced delusional mind; the issue here are his texts.
There is no link to Anthroposophy in PoF, as Anthroposophy had not yet been
invented when PoF was written. If you mean that there is some element in PoF
that you think retrospectively links up to anthroposophy, I quite agree,
though we may disagree about what this is. Such links do not by themselves
render PoF an anthroposophical work; if they did, then a number of Hegel's
chief texts would be Marxist works. Greetings,
Peter S.
)Can anyone show how Rudolf Steiner use of 'pure thinking' and 'moral
)imagination' in The Philosophy of Freedom shows that he is
)
)1- a follower of Kant, and at the same time
)
)2-a follower of Hegel, and at the same time
)
)3- a follower of Fischte,
)
)4-and that later on his use of these terms in so called 'core
)anthroposophic work' shows a shift
)
)5-and that he is then an apostate of German Idealism,
)
)6-a sifting guy renouncing then his earlier The Philosophy of Freedom,
)
)7-whatever he says after 1900 Rudolf Steiner works then out of his esoteric
)sub-branch, out of his self-induced delusional mind.
)
)May be he is a follower of no philosophy expressed within German Idealism,
)although in the first chapters of The Philosophy of Freedom he follows some
)of the German Idealist characterisation of thinking, as an activity, but
)soon in the same book goes beyond the first characterisations of thinking
)to the point o writing contradictory statements. It is a specific way of
)writing of Rudolf Steiner that characterisations are not definitions and
)that again and again he takes different point of view to describe things,
)often a characterisation is only valid for one chapter or one lecture only.
)
)This technique of writing is so specific of Rudolf Steiner that he does
)rarely warn about it, and as far as I noticed it is always afterwards in
)another work.
)
)May be Peter has only read the first chapters of The Philosophy of Freedom.
)Where the link to Anthroposophy is less easily noticed. Even so it is an
)'open secret' that the first chapters are written in the same method as
)later ones, and that the essential nature of Anthroposophy which is to be a
)method of knowledge, or a path of initiation, or a series of exercises
)which are perception-organ detoxing or building is already there abundantly
)in the first chapters.
_________________________________________________________________
The MSN Entertainment Guide to Golden Globes is here. Get all the scoop.
http://tv.msn.com/tv/globes2007/?icid=nctagline2
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 17:57:08 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
Hi Frank,
)F: Ach, du liebe Zeit! Don't tell me you're gonna go back to "nichts
)weniger als günstig" - a discussion in which I also participated and in
)which I thought we agreed that the meaning could be called ambiguous-
)nichts mehr, nichts weniger.
You were mistaken about that at the time, Frank. If you think it's a matter
of 'admitting', then this might be a good time to 'admit' that you were
wrong. And maybe let your daughter know, as well. If you'd like, I'd be
happy to provide a few reading tips on the matter. Greetings,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Get live scores and news about your team: Add the Live.com Football Page
www.live.com/?addtemplate=football&icid=T001MSN30A0701
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 18:02:26 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
Hi Val,
)So someone says-it's no fun to dance with someone who steps on your toes
)all the time, etc. etc. This in no way constitutes a statement of low
)opinion of a person.
Indeed. I didn't say that Serena's one lonely post last week stated a low
opinion of me. What I said is that Serena has expressed a low opinion of me
and of other critics of anthroposophy before, and that this is what has
heretofore kept her from discussing things anthroposophical with me.
)The context being the non-existant exchange between
)you and Serena? How would you suggest that I go about looking at that?
By looking at the archives of this list and of the anthroposophy tomorrow
list, as I have suggested several times now. That is where you can find lots
of things that Serena has written about me. That's how we know she has a low
opinion of me. (You thought maybe it was my clairvoyant powers that told me
this?) You could also check out the Defending Steiner site, for example, or
the Americans for Waldorf Education site. She's not exactly hard to track
down.
)Writing about other people is not the same thing as "engaging them in
)public discussion."
Yes, precisely. Now you're catching on. Serena writes about me. She doesn't
engage in public discussion with me.
) ) Not to put too fine a point on it, but why exactly did you think this?
) ) Did
) ) you think that Serena's conspiracist fantasies about 911, for example,
) ) were
) ) also "speaking from experience"?
)
)Why would I think otherwise?
I began this thread with a reflection on critical reading skills. Assuming,
as you did, that posts like Serena's are speaking from experience (you think
maybe she was in on the Great September Eleventh Conspiracy personally?) is
credulous reading, not critical reading.
)I guess I miss the point of discussing right and
)wrong things or aspects when the entire belief system is considered
)incorrect in the first palce.
So there's no point in discussing Nazism, in your view?
)So maybe exoterically anthroposophy is what you say it is, Peter and
)there is also an esoteric side that Charlie and Jean-Marc have
)experienced.
Yes indeed. If their experience magically transformed PoF into an
anthroposophical work, then their claims would be a lot more sensible.
)And yes I
)do generally assume that people know what they are talking about.
So much for critical reading... Greetings,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Dave vs. Carl: The Insignificant Championship Series. Who will win?
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://davevscarl.spaces.live.com/?icid=T001MSN38C07001
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 18:00:37 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: swimming in the wrong direction
Hi Frank,
)Whether Charlie or anyone else here is unfamiliar with the "general
)philosophical territory under discussion" I don't know - but that the
)content of PoF is closely related to that philosophy is undeniable;
This is part of what Jean-Marc denies.
)which doesn't mean, however, that it is not also closely related to
)anthroposophy. Furthermore, if it is closely related to both, does not
)mean that those other German idealist philosophers were also
)anthroposophists
Indeed. Now all you have to do is tell us what distinguishes the
non-anthroposophist German Idealist philosophers from the anthroposophist
German Idealist philosophers.
)Your attention has already been brought to these points several times.
What has been brought to my attention are passages about thinking and spirit
and morality and sense perceptions and concepts and so forth. Those are
common to German Idealist philosophers. They are not distinctively
anthroposophical. If they're not distinctively anthroposophical, they won't
help distinguish between the non-anthroposophist German Idealist
philosophers and the supposed anthroposophist German Idealist philosophers.
)Steiner himself has also been cited extensively on this issue
Not before 1900. Did you miss that part?
)You seem to think that if PoF is also anthroposophy, it must
)contain certain esoteric vocabulary; and as it does not it can't be
)classified as anthroposophical - despite that fact that the author
)specifically includes it in the anthropophical canon
Not before 1900. There isn't a single instance of Steiner saying anything at
all prior to 1900 about PoF being in any way anthroposophical, or even
theosophical, or even esoteric. Hmm... why do you suppose that is?
)(and who has more
)right to do so?)
Everybody who reads PoF.
)I on the other hand am willing to accept any author's right to define his
)own work
No, you are denying the early Steiner that right. The author who wrote PoF
is not the Steiner of 1923 or 1913 or 1903, it is the Steiner of 1893.
)better than a critic who cannot possibly know the former's
)mind, and I would only urge that critic (uselessly I fear, for few
)critics have been known to admit they are wrong)
You have read me saying that several times, for what it's worth, though it
sounds like you have forgotten this. On a side note, it's silly to think of
this as something to "admit". There is nothing wrong with being wrong.
)to show sufficient
)respect to the author (steiner in this case), to give him the benefit of
)the doubt (yours).
That is a naive position and a splendid instance of credulous reading, but
as it happens, you are the one who is failing to show this respect in the
case of PoF. Nowhere in the 1890s does Steiner say that PoF is an
anthroposophical work, or has any link whatsoever to anthroposophy, or has
any anthroposophical elements at all.
Greetings,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Find sales, coupons, and free shipping, all in one place! MSN Shopping
Sales & Deals
http://shopping.msn.com/content/shp/?ctid=198,ptnrid=176,ptnrdata=200639
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 18:19:38 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: to read or not to read
Frank provides a very helpful summary of how anthroposophists approach
evidence:
I wrote:
) ) Rudolf Steiner's texts really do exist. When we talk about those things
) ) in
) ) public discussion, we're not just talking about our personal
) ) experiences.
) ) This has been one of the major stumbling blocks in the PoF exchange, by
) ) the
) ) way; folks like Charlie and Jean-Marc et al "experience" the book as
) ) anthroposophical, and apparently think that this makes it so.
And Frank replied:
)Aye, there' the rub! You read things in musty libraries and google dens
)and water closets and draw conclusions without experiencing them. In
)order to know anything about Waldorf schools, f.e., one *must*
)experience them, and one must experience anthroposophy in order to
)really know it. You, by your own admission, are sorely lacking in this
)respect, Peter.
I think this encapsulates pretty much the whole exchange. Instead of trying
to make sense of historical evidence from one hundred and fifteen years ago,
anthroposophists think they can simply "experience" the past, a past that
they did not in fact experience themselves, as it took place before they
were born. Instead of reading PoF and pointing out some sort of textual
evidence that might substantiate their claims, they simply repeat that they
"experience" the book as anthroposophical, and they seem to take this to be
an argument.
I'm afraid this is not an argument. It cannot be assessed by anyone else. It
cannot be measured against the available evidence. It cannot offer reasoning
in favor of its conclusions. There is nothing wrong with sharing one's
personal experiences in public discussion. They simply don't and can't
substitute for arguments. And arguments, alas, are what is called for in
public discussion when competing claims about the same subject are on the
table.
If any of those who think that PoF is an anthroposophical work have an
argument to offer, I am as always interested in hearing it. Greetings to
all,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Dave vs. Carl: The Insignificant Championship Series. Who will win?
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://davevscarl.spaces.live.com/?icid=T001MSN38C07001
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 11:23:38 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
Valerie Walsh, you wrote (referring to the A-T list),
)I stopped reading
)whenever the critics came over because, having three children, I have
)enough bickering in my life already. Doesn't mean I don't like the
)critics btw-it just means I don't care for the bickering.
In that case I don't understand why you're here. I see you filling up
the list with chat and off-topic quotations--are you just here to
amuse your friends, or do you want to engage in a discussion?
VALERIE:
) ) )If you know that other people's belief systems are wrong then
) ) )what is there to discuss?
PETER:
)I think that Nazi belief systems are wrong, for example, or Stalinist belief
)systems. That does not somehow mean there is nothing left to discuss about
)Nazism or Stalinism. For those of us who think that, say, racist
)belief systems are wrong, there's a whole lot to discuss: Where do
)they come from?
)How do they work? What are their core features? How have they developed over
)time? What roles do they play today? As it happens, this list is a place to
)discuss Waldorf, anthroposophy, and Steiner, both for folks who find "wrong"
)things and for folks who find "right" things in them. There is much
)to discuss about all of those things.
VALERIE:
)'Cept that you've identified Waldorf, anthroposophy, amd Steiner with a
)racist belief system. I guess I miss the point of discussing right and
)wrong things or aspects when the entire belief system is considered
)incorrect in the first palce.
Personally, I think the Anthroposophical belief system--like most
religions--is mostly neutral, morally, but a silly waste of time. But
the whole enterprise is stained by the racial doctrines. Until
Anthroposophy deals with that, it's going to keep popping up.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 10:19:29 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
Frank Smith, you wrote,
)You read things in musty libraries and google dens
)and water closets and draw conclusions without experiencing them. In
)order to know anything about Waldorf schools, f.e., one *must*
)experience them, and one must experience anthroposophy in order to
)really know it.
Steiner's anti-intellectualism rears its ugly head. Scholarship is
meaningless--Anthroposophists -experience- things and just -know-.
"Anthroposophy is realism, it is no grey theory; it is a thing for
life itself" [Steiner, 1909, Education of the Child]
-Dan Dugan
p.s. I just noticed that this lecture was from before the split with
Theosophy. Did Steiner say "Anthroposophy" or "Theosophy" in that
lecture series?
-dD-
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:24:29 +1100
From: "Michael Howell" (mejhowell bigpond.com)
Subject: Re: the appeal of anthroposophy
More Fantascists.
A bunch of bloody idiots.
An uneducated, ill informed, unthinking rabble.
Serena would be ashamed to be in such company.
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
Try this one for starters
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/#Honegger
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 9:26 PM
Subject: RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
Not to put too fine a point on it, but why exactly did you think this? Did
you think that Serena's conspiracist fantasies about 911, for example, were
also "speaking from experience"?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 03:31:24 +0100
From: "Jean-Marc Nguyen" (jmnguyen wanadoo.fr)
Subject: The Appeal of Antisophy...
Hello everyone,
As an offset to Peter's inevitable dilettante and comical *general
hypotheses* about the appeal of Anthroposophy - the occult facts
behind the appeal of Antisophy certainly are of public interest...
)From Rudolf Steiner's lecture *Theosophy and Antisophy*
[GA 63 - Berlin, 6 November 1913]:
"...to attempt to uncover the roots of every possible hostility
towards Spiritual Science. When one knows these roots, a number
of things about the enmity become understandable."
"How can such an Antisophy develop in the human soul?
At first, one could believe that it's paradoxical and odd that an
enmity can rise up against what one should consider as the noblest
endeavor of the human soul. But see: precisely Spiritual Science
shows that Antisophy is not at all something quite arbitrary in the
human soul, but on the contrary that it is in some respect necessarily
based in the human soul, that it belongs in some respect to the
nature and essence of this human soul. The human soul is not from
the outset theosophically minded [nicht theosophisch gesinnt];
actually, it is from the outset antisophically minded."
"In everyday life, the human being is feeling antisophical, he is not
feeling theosophical [nicht theosophisch gestimmt], and it would be
naive to believe that in everyday life he could be feeling otherwise."
[J-M: Rudolf Steiner is now alluding to the blind dogmatic ending of
Du Bois-Reymond's famous speech from 1872 (Ignorabimus) denying
the mere possibility of understanding the soul life from a scientific
perspective: 'Except that where supernaturalism begins,
science ends']:
"Nowhere in the wide world of science will one find the slightest
evidence to support such a claim: 'where supernaturalism begins,
science ends'. One finds no evidence whatsoever. One discovers
that such a claim is made without any evidence whatsoever,
out of an act of will, out of a feeling, out of a soul mood, out of
an antisophical mood. And the next question must be: why make
such a claim?"
"Affects, passions, sympathies and antipathies, that we consciously
and clearly sense in the soul in everyday life - can also be in the
subconscious sphere, but they aren't noticed there - and operate in
the soul as a force of nature, work unconsciously in the soul just as
digestion proceeds unconsciously in a living organism for instance.
There is an entire sphere of subconscious soul life. And much of
what the human being asserts in his life, much of what he believes
and thinks in his life, is by no means grounded on assumptions he is
fully aware of; but he believes and thinks and advocates [this or
that] out of the subconscious soul life, because affects and inclinations
which he is not conscious of urge him to [believe, think, advocate
this or that]."
"What urges on the soul to put forth as dogma: where supernaturalism
begins, science ends? What worked at the time in the subconscious
soul life of Du Bois-Reymond, and what is working now in the
subconscious soul life of thousands and thousands of prominent
people when the statement is expressed or felt as if it was based
subconsciously? Spiritual Science gives the following answer."
Jean-Marc:
And Rudolf Steiner gives the answer - which he mentioned many
times in various circumstances: it is an affect, an emotion, it is
*fear* --- but an entirely *subconscious fear*...
Many times indeed did Rudolf Steiner mention the fact that the
pseudo-scientific, pseudo-philosophical, pseudo-intellectual rejections
of concrete spiritual reality were nothing else but self-delusion:
delusive masks behind which subconscious fear is hiding...
I feel that this basic occult fact sheds much light on the main
characteristics of our discussions - or *uncreative dialogues* :-)
Hey, maybe we ought to introduce a new concept:
*unconscious chickens*? :-)
Cheers,
Jean-Marc
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 03:45:45 +0000
From: Valerie Walsh (isenhart7 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
)
)
) Hi Val,
)
)
) )So someone says-it's no fun to dance with someone who steps on your toes
) )all the time, etc. etc. This in no way constitutes a statement of low
) )opinion of a person.
)
)
) Indeed. I didn't say that Serena's one lonely post last week stated a
) low
) opinion of me. What I said is that Serena has expressed a low opinion of
) me
) and of other critics of anthroposophy before, and that this is what has
) heretofore kept her from discussing things anthroposophical with me.
Guten Abend from the wall. I'm in no way stepping out onto the dance
floor but I 'spose I can tap my foot from my chair facing the wall. So
if you would be so kind as to reproduce the passage(s) where you said
(past tense) this then I assure you that I will critically read it.
Thanks,
Val
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 03:48:16 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: to read or not to read
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
) If any of those who think that PoF is an anthroposophical work have an
) argument to offer, I am as always interested in hearing it. Greetings to
)
) all,
)
)
) Peter S.
I have only seen bits and pieces of this discussion, and I am a bit
confused by it.
This may be a gross over-simplification (especially in the light of the
excessive bandwidth dedicated to the subject), but it seems to me that A
Philosophy of Freedom (or A Philosophy of Spiritual Activity, which, I
believe, was Steiner's preference for the title in English)is simply a
way of looking at life that Steiner hoped his Anthroposophists (and,
eventually, others) would take up.
It seems to me that PoF loomed large in Steiner's life when
Anthroposophy was coming into its own, and it is a cornerstone of
Anthroposophical thought.
Would this not make it an Anthroposophical text?
And...what's the diff if it is or isn't?
Do you not think it's a really cool book?
I do!
c
)
) _________________________________________________________________
) Dave vs. Carl: The Insignificant Championship Series. Who will win?
) http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://davevscarl.spaces.live.com/?icid=T001MSN38C07001
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 00:43:55 EST
From: SerenaBlaue aol.com
Subject: Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
In a message dated 1/14/2007 1:00:17 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk writes:
May be Peter has only read the first chapters of The Philosophy of Freedom.
Where the link to Anthroposophy is less easily noticed. Even so it is an
'open secret' that the first chapters are written in the same method as
later ones, and that the essential nature of Anthroposophy which is to be a
method of knowledge, or a path of initiation, or a series of exercises which
are perception-organ detoxing or building is already there abundantly in the
first chapters.
Thanks, Franky, for these invaluable words.
It is the "open secret" nature of PoF that makes it a deeply esoteric work
and one's own personal work/practice that reveals the open secret.
Interesting how some hammer their heads on the walls and never see the door.
Serena
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 09:14:47 +0000
From: Valerie Walsh (isenhart7 yahoo.com)
Subject: to hear or not to hear
Dear Franky,
While my left foot is available (ask Frank if you don't know what for)
I'm now keeping time with my right because, because, because, because,
because...I can. Because I have toes literally and figuratively made of
steel. Anyway, the beat I'm keeping is 4/4 just so you know.-Val
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 01:25:13 -0000
From: "eurythmy" (eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
2007-01-15
Dear all,
I wrote: May be he is a follower of no philosophy expressed within German
Idealism, although in the first chapters of The Philosophy of Freedom he
follows some of the German Idealist characterisation of thinking, as an
activity, but soon in the same book goes beyond the first characterisations
of thinking to the point o writing contradictory statements. It is a
specific way of writing of Rudolf Steiner that characterisations are not
definitions and that again and again he takes different point of view to
describe things, often a characterisation is only valid for one chapter or
one lecture only.
This technique of writing is so specific of Rudolf Steiner that he does
rarely warn about it, and as far as I noticed it is always afterwards in
another work.
May be Peter has only read the first chapters of The Philosophy of Freedom.
Where the link to Anthroposophy is less easily noticed. Even so it is an
'open secret' that the first chapters are written in the same method as
later ones, and that the essential nature of Anthroposophy which is to be a
method of knowledge, or a path of initiation, or a series of exercises which
are perception-organ detoxing or building is already there abundantly in the
first chapters.
Peter did not reply to this
About the first paragraph above, Peter may point out again that some of
Hegel was taken on by Marx and that does not make Hegel a Marxist, and he
will add that the same can be said of Rudolf Steiner from The Philosophy of
Freedom to 'later' Anthroposophic work.
Following the Peter method it is obvious that Rudolf Steiner in Chapter 3 is
a different Rudolf Steiner of later chapters, especially when one notices
the shifts in the second part of The Philosophy of Freedom.
May be Peter main and only point is that Chapter 1 to 3, 5 to 7,the second
part and the ultimate question chapter all disagreed quite a bit
philosophically, which is one reason why the notion that The Philosophy of
Freedom was genetically programmed to grow into anthroposophy is goofy.
Kind Regards,
Franky
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 11:56 PM
Subject: Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
)
)
) Hi Franky,
)
)
) Kant, Hegel, and Fichte all disagreed quite a bit philosophically, which
) is one reason why the notion that German Idealism was genetically
) programmed to grow into anthroposophy is goofy. The later Steiner did not
) renounce PoF, on the contrary, he re-interpreted it in esoteric terms.
) While the idea isn't especially far-fetched, there is no need to posit
) that Steiner after 1900 was out of his self-induced delusional mind; the
) issue here are his texts. There is no link to Anthroposophy in PoF, as
) Anthroposophy had not yet been invented when PoF was written. If you mean
) that there is some element in PoF that you think retrospectively links up
) to anthroposophy, I quite agree, though we may disagree about what this
) is. Such links do not by themselves render PoF an anthroposophical work;
) if they did, then a number of Hegel's chief texts would be Marxist works.
) Greetings,
)
)
) Peter S.
)
)
)
))Can anyone show how Rudolf Steiner use of 'pure thinking' and 'moral
))imagination' in The Philosophy of Freedom shows that he is
))
))1- a follower of Kant, and at the same time
))
))2-a follower of Hegel, and at the same time
))
))3- a follower of Fischte,
))
))4-and that later on his use of these terms in so called 'core
))anthroposophic work' shows a shift
))
))5-and that he is then an apostate of German Idealism,
))
))6-a sifting guy renouncing then his earlier The Philosophy of Freedom,
))
))7-whatever he says after 1900 Rudolf Steiner works then out of his
))esoteric sub-branch, out of his self-induced delusional mind.
))
))May be he is a follower of no philosophy expressed within German Idealism,
))although in the first chapters of The Philosophy of Freedom he follows
))some of the German Idealist characterisation of thinking, as an activity,
))but soon in the same book goes beyond the first characterisations of
))thinking to the point o writing contradictory statements. It is a specific
))way of writing of Rudolf Steiner that characterisations are not
))definitions and that again and again he takes different point of view to
))describe things, often a characterisation is only valid for one chapter or
))one lecture only.
))
))This technique of writing is so specific of Rudolf Steiner that he does
))rarely warn about it, and as far as I noticed it is always afterwards in
))another work.
))
))May be Peter has only read the first chapters of The Philosophy of
))Freedom. Where the link to Anthroposophy is less easily noticed. Even so
))it is an 'open secret' that the first chapters are written in the same
))method as later ones, and that the essential nature of Anthroposophy which
))is to be a method of knowledge, or a path of initiation, or a series of
))exercises which are perception-organ detoxing or building is already there
))abundantly in the first chapters.
)
)
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 2421
-- Topica Digest --
RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
By eltrigal78 yahoo.com
RE: swimming in the wrong direction
By eltrigal78 yahoo.com
Warm Greetings
By komso26416 gmail.com
Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
By eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk
RE: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
By isenhart7 yahoo.com
RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
By isenhart7 yahoo.com
Re: the appeal of anthroposophy
By SerenaBlaue aol.com
Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
By eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk
Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
By eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk
RE: Staudenmaier hates slackers
By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
By isenhart7 yahoo.com
RE: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
By isenhart7 yahoo.com
RE: anthroposophy by association 1
By charlie morrison5.fsnet.co.uk
[NNA] Signature campaign aims to give anthroposophy a political
voice at the EU
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Warm Greetings
By eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk
Human rights education put on timetable of Austrian Waldorf school
By eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk
Signature campaign aims to give anthroposophy a political voice at the EU
By eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk
RE: swimming in the wrong direction
By charlie morrison5.fsnet.co.uk
Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: anthroposophy by association 1
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: swimming in the wrong direction
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: the appeal of anthroposophy
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Staudenmaier hates slackers
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: to read or not to read
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: anthroposophy by association 1
By SerenaBlaue aol.com
Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
By eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk
Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
By SerenaBlaue aol.com
doing the time warp
By pstaud hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 12:39:20 +0000
From: Frank Smith (eltrigal78 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
)
) Hi Frank,
)
)
) )F: Ach, du liebe Zeit! Don't tell me you're gonna go back to "nichts
) )weniger als günstig" - a discussion in which I also participated and in
) )which I thought we agreed that the meaning could be called ambiguous-
) )nichts mehr, nichts weniger.
)
)
) You were mistaken about that at the time, Frank. If you think it's a
) matter
) of 'admitting', then this might be a good time to 'admit' that you were
) wrong. And maybe let your daughter know, as well. If you'd like, I'd be
) happy to provide a few reading tips on the matter. Greetings,
No thanks, that subject has been exhausted. Sorry I was wrong about an
agreement. In any case, the fact that you bring up this 4-word fish
again seems to indicate that you are thrashing around for bits and
pieces of past dialogs which have nothing to do with the subject under
discussion.
Frank
http://SouthernCrossReview.org
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:08:08 +0000
From: Frank Smith (eltrigal78 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: swimming in the wrong direction
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
F: )which doesn't mean, however, that it is not also closely related to
) )anthroposophy. Furthermore, if it is closely related to both, does not
) )mean that those other German idealist philosophers were also
) )anthroposophists
F: Add on, what I wrote:" - as you have absurdly (or ironically, or
both)
contended."
)
)
P: Indeed. Now all you have to do is tell us what distinguishes the
) non-anthroposophist German Idealist philosophers from the
) anthroposophist
) German Idealist philosophers.
F: I don't have to do anything, Peter, especially not fall into your
pseudo-socratic traps.
)
F: )Steiner himself has also been cited extensively on this issue
)
)
P: Not before 1900. Did you miss that part?
F: I missed nothing. But pray tell how you can insist on citations
before 1900 when even we are now talking about PoF well after 1900, i.e,
2007. If you wrote anything about PoF before 1900, I encourage you to
let us know.
)
)
F: )You seem to think that if PoF is also anthroposophy, it must
) )contain certain esoteric vocabulary; and as it does not it can't be
) )classified as anthroposophical - despite that fact that the author
) )specifically includes it in the anthropophical canon
)
)
P: Not before 1900. There isn't a single instance of Steiner saying
anything at
) all prior to 1900 about PoF being in any way anthroposophical, or even
) theosophical, or even esoteric. Hmm... why do you suppose that is?
)
F: I suppose that is because the subject or question hadn't come up.
F: )(and who has more right to do so?) add on: than the author...
)
)
P: Everybody who reads PoF.
F: Oh, I see. Everybody who reads PoF has more right than the author to
interpret what it means. Revolutionary!
F: )I on the other hand am willing to accept any author's right to
define his
) )own work
)
)
P: No, you are denying the early Steiner that right. The author who
wrote PoF
) is not the Steiner of 1923 or 1913 or 1903, it is the Steiner of 1893.
F: Really? How come he had the same name and fingerprints?
)
)
F: )better than a critic who cannot possibly know the former's
) )mind, and I would only urge that critic (uselessly I fear, for few
) )critics have been known to admit they are wrong)
)
)
P: You have read me saying that several times, for what it's worth,
though it
) sounds like you have forgotten this. On a side note, it's silly to think
) of
) this as something to "admit". There is nothing wrong with being wrong.
)
F: There is, however, something right about being right. Many critics,
especially the WC variety, haven't forgotten this; they never knew it.
)
F: )to show sufficient
) )respect to the author (steiner in this case), to give him the benefit of
) )the doubt (yours).
)
)
P: That is a naive position and a splendid instance of credulous
reading, but
) as it happens, you are the one who is failing to show this respect in
) the
) case of PoF. Nowhere in the 1890s does Steiner say that PoF is an
) anthroposophical work, or has any link whatsoever to anthroposophy, or
) has
) any anthroposophical elements at all.
F: And yours is an absurd position and splendid instance of confused
time-warped thinking. How could he possibly have said in the 1890s that
anything at all was anthroposophical when the word wasn't even used
before 1913?
Greetings,
Frank
http://SouthernCrossReview.org
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 14:54:23 +0000
From: Komso Monast (komso26416 gmail.com)
Subject: Warm Greetings
Hello everyone,
I am a new member on the Waldorf Critics list. Nice to be here. :)
I have made some reading of the works of Rudolf Steiner and the Steiner
community, and notice there are several "camps" regarding his work. It
is most interesting.
As a mystic and spiritual ray (like we as humans all are), I would like
to render my services to the group. If I can be of help I will be most
glad. :)
May love be with you.
- Master Komso
"Great wisdom may resemble foolishness."
- Chinese proverb, Lao-tzu (philosopher).
"The greatest delight which the fields and woods minister, is the
suggestion of an occult relation between man and the vegetable. I am not
alone and unacknowledged. They nod to me, and I to them."
- Ralph Emerson
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 11:25:40 -0000
From: "eurythmy" (eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
2007-01-15
Dear all,
Jean Marc:
Hey, maybe we ought to introduce a new concept: *unconscious chickens*? :-)
Dan: Anthroposophy raising its ugly head
Are some too chicken to dance?
Jean-Marc are you in danger of being out of topic introducing chicken?
Beware of Dan!
Or are you inferring that The Philosophy of Freedom is a proto-biodynamic
book and that in it there is the method to transform the chicken so that it
can see the light of day without fear?
Is Dan embarking on the fairy tale tract, with a new simile for the tale of
the ugly duckling. I know ducks are not chicken, but compare to both to the
swan of Anthroposophy, the fear of Dan can be understood.
It is time for Dan to understand that to practice sciences of all kinds is a
necessary mean to cleanse one observations of passions, that is why Rudolf
Steiner takes great care to bring (apparent) contradictions in nearly all of
his writings and lectures, when he repeatedly characterises the same fact
from opposite and (apparently) contradictory angles. Is a tree trunk a
straight line, a circle or a cone? Rudolf Steiner does not usually tells in
advance at what angle he is looking at the fact (tree, ether body etc) and
leaves the reader to move him/herself about until he finds the correct angle
where it makes sense.
Peter was adamant that Rudolf Steiner was not a dancer, that we were
discussing not dancing, and now he thinks he is on a dance floor and quickly
adds that every one treats him as an ugly duckling, and he only wants to
dance to nice duckling music Quack, quack, qwackquack. Does he dislike swan
music and swan songs because he heard that one dies from joining in a swan
song.
I think Dottie saw the swan in Peter.
Come on Dan and Peter it is time to grow up, you cannot stay a duckling on
the dance floor, be swans or chicken.
One way of going out of this is to look at how Rudolf Steiner takes up the
botanic theme in The Philosophy of Freedom. The trees, roses, tulips etc,
where are they in The Philosophy of Freedom? Does it has to do with Goethe
metamorphic law? Etc. For people who like jumping from quote to quote
instead of going through the book as it is written it could be a worthwhile
exercise. It is a very serious question nevertheless. In Chicken paradise
there are a tree of knowledge and a tree of life, is one, both or none of
them in the book?
Kind Regards,
Franky
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Dugan" (dan dandugan.com)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 6:19 PM
Subject: RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
)
) Frank Smith, you wrote,
)
))You read things in musty libraries and google dens
))and water closets and draw conclusions without experiencing them. In
))order to know anything about Waldorf schools, f.e., one *must*
))experience them, and one must experience anthroposophy in order to
))really know it.
)
) Steiner's anti-intellectualism rears its ugly head. Scholarship is
) meaningless--Anthroposophists -experience- things and just -know-.
)
) "Anthroposophy is realism, it is no grey theory; it is a thing for life
) itself" [Steiner, 1909, Education of the Child]
)
) -Dan Dugan
)
) p.s. I just noticed that this lecture was from before the split with
) Theosophy. Did Steiner say "Anthroposophy" or "Theosophy" in that lecture
) series?
)
) -dD-
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jean-Marc Nguyen" (jmnguyen wanadoo.fr)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 2:31 AM
Subject: The Appeal of Antisophy...
)
)
) Hello everyone,
)
) As an offset to Peter's inevitable dilettante and comical *general
) hypotheses* about the appeal of Anthroposophy - the occult facts behind
) the appeal of Antisophy certainly are of public interest...
)
) From Rudolf Steiner's lecture *Theosophy and Antisophy*
) [GA 63 - Berlin, 6 November 1913]:
)
) "...to attempt to uncover the roots of every possible hostility
) towards Spiritual Science. When one knows these roots, a number
) of things about the enmity become understandable."
)
) "How can such an Antisophy develop in the human soul?
) At first, one could believe that it's paradoxical and odd that an enmity
) can rise up against what one should consider as the noblest
) endeavor of the human soul. But see: precisely Spiritual Science shows
) that Antisophy is not at all something quite arbitrary in the
) human soul, but on the contrary that it is in some respect necessarily
) based in the human soul, that it belongs in some respect to the
) nature and essence of this human soul. The human soul is not from
) the outset theosophically minded [nicht theosophisch gesinnt]; actually,
) it is from the outset antisophically minded."
)
) "In everyday life, the human being is feeling antisophical, he is not
) feeling theosophical [nicht theosophisch gestimmt], and it would be
) naive to believe that in everyday life he could be feeling otherwise."
)
) [J-M: Rudolf Steiner is now alluding to the blind dogmatic ending of Du
) Bois-Reymond's famous speech from 1872 (Ignorabimus) denying
) the mere possibility of understanding the soul life from a scientific
) perspective: 'Except that where supernaturalism begins, science ends']:
) "Nowhere in the wide world of science will one find the slightest
) evidence to support such a claim: 'where supernaturalism begins,
) science ends'. One finds no evidence whatsoever. One discovers
) that such a claim is made without any evidence whatsoever, out of an act
) of will, out of a feeling, out of a soul mood, out of
) an antisophical mood. And the next question must be: why make
) such a claim?"
)
) "Affects, passions, sympathies and antipathies, that we consciously
) and clearly sense in the soul in everyday life - can also be in the
) subconscious sphere, but they aren't noticed there - and operate in
) the soul as a force of nature, work unconsciously in the soul just as
) digestion proceeds unconsciously in a living organism for instance.
) There is an entire sphere of subconscious soul life. And much of what the
) human being asserts in his life, much of what he believes
) and thinks in his life, is by no means grounded on assumptions he is
) fully aware of; but he believes and thinks and advocates [this or that]
) out of the subconscious soul life, because affects and inclinations
) which he is not conscious of urge him to [believe, think, advocate
) this or that]."
)
) "What urges on the soul to put forth as dogma: where supernaturalism
) begins, science ends? What worked at the time in the subconscious
) soul life of Du Bois-Reymond, and what is working now in the subconscious
) soul life of thousands and thousands of prominent
) people when the statement is expressed or felt as if it was based
) subconsciously? Spiritual Science gives the following answer."
)
) Jean-Marc:
)
) And Rudolf Steiner gives the answer - which he mentioned many
) times in various circumstances: it is an affect, an emotion, it is
) *fear* --- but an entirely *subconscious fear*...
) Many times indeed did Rudolf Steiner mention the fact that the
) pseudo-scientific, pseudo-philosophical, pseudo-intellectual rejections
) of concrete spiritual reality were nothing else but self-delusion:
) delusive masks behind which subconscious fear is hiding...
)
) I feel that this basic occult fact sheds much light on the main
) characteristics of our discussions - or *uncreative dialogues* :-)
)
) Hey, maybe we ought to introduce a new concept:
) *unconscious chickens*? :-)
)
)
) Cheers,
) Jean-Marc
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 15:59:04 +0000
From: Valerie Walsh (isenhart7 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
eurythmy wrote:
) Peter was adamant that Rudolf Steiner was not a dancer, that we were
) discussing not dancing, and now he thinks he is on a dance floor and
) quickly
) adds that every one treats him as an ugly duckling, and he only wants to
)
) dance to nice duckling music Quack, quack, qwackquack. Does he dislike
) swan
) music and swan songs because he heard that one dies from joining in a
) swan
) song.
)
) I think Dottie saw the swan in Peter.
Me, I just hear the Tchaikovsky in the background. And the really great
thing about Swan Lake, Franky, is that the Pas de Deux was scored in 3/4
and in 4/4 so good news, I think for Peter.
) Come on Dan and Peter it is time to grow up, you cannot stay a duckling
) on
) the dance floor, be swans or chicken.
For a good alternative to the swan song there is the American favorite
"Dance Little Bird" here below from the Wikipedia dancers:
The "Chicken Dance" song is accompanied by a dance, which is very easy
to learn regardless of age or agility. The dance requires a group of
people, and it goes as follows:
Begin in a large circle with everybody facing in toward the center of
the ring.
At the start of the music, shape a chicken beak with your hands. Open
and close it four times, during the first four beats of the music.
Make chicken wings with your arms. Flap your wings four times, during
the next four beats of the music.
Make a chicken's tail feathers with your arms and hands. Wiggle
downwards during the next four beats of the music.
Clap four times during the next four beats of the music.
Repeat this process four times.
After the fourth time spin to the right for eight counts with your
partner.
Switch directions and spin to the left with your partner for eight
counts.
The dance repeats, progressively getting faster and faster, until the
music stops.
) One way of going out of this is to look at how Rudolf Steiner takes up
) the
) botanic theme in The Philosophy of Freedom. The trees, roses, tulips
) etc,
) where are they in The Philosophy of Freedom? Does it has to do with
) Goethe
) metamorphic law? Etc. For people who like jumping from quote to quote
) instead of going through the book as it is written it could be a
) worthwhile
) exercise. It is a very serious question nevertheless. In Chicken
) paradise
) there are a tree of knowledge and a tree of life, is one, both or none
) of
) them in the book?
I think this is an excellent question and also when Peter said to
Charlie, "I think you never quite figured out which branch I've been
swaying on all along" what tree does his branch stem from?
Toe tapping regards,
Val
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 16:20:25 +0000
From: Valerie Walsh (isenhart7 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
Dan Dugan wrote:
)
) Valerie Walsh, you wrote (referring to the A-T list),
)
) )I stopped reading
) )whenever the critics came over because, having three children, I have
) )enough bickering in my life already. Doesn't mean I don't like the
) )critics btw-it just means I don't care for the bickering.
)
) In that case I don't understand why you're here. I see you filling up
) the list with chat and off-topic quotations--are you just here to
) amuse your friends, or do you want to engage in a discussion?
Neither are my reason for being here, Dan though I am certainly not
adverse to either.-Val
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 11:44:21 EST
From: SerenaBlaue aol.com
Subject: Re: the appeal of anthroposophy
In a message dated 1/14/2007 11:25:48 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
isenhart7 yahoo.com writes:
So someone says-it's no fun to dance with someone who steps on your toes
all the time, etc. etc. This in no way constitutes a statement of low
opinion of a person. It's a comment on a specific behavior-in this case
dancing. If someone said to me, you need to get greater turn-out on your
ronde de jambe or you better tighten up that pas de bourrée I wouldn't
think gee, they have a low opinion of me. What I'd think is-back to the
barr.
Dear Val,
Exactly.
WC'ers know full well that I received the pointed toe of a dan-boot to my
backside quite a while ago, thus no posts from me. Funny that they haven't
written to correct PS's mistake.
Serena Blaue
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:42:00 -0000
From: "eurythmy" (eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
2007-01-15
A quote of Rudolf Steiner, although I do not like quote is it just quicker
to copy paste.
About the strange spiritual beings which according to Peter should populate
an Anthroposophic Philosophy of Freedom. Also food for thought for what Dan
considers to be a fact: when we look at a stone out there it is a fact for
science, we perceive it with our scientific mind etc. all the rest is the
ugly head of anthroposophy.
“The physical world makes its impressions on our senses, and we try to
understand this world with ideas and concepts tied to our nervous system, to
our brain. When we look at this process, we find the central element is that
we perceive the world. By looking at things, we perceive the human realm,
human beings as physical beings, the animal, plant, and mineral kingdoms,
clouds, mountains, rivers, oceans, stars, sun, and moon. We perceive these
things to the extent that they are physical entities. We look at them, see
their colours, hear their sounds, feel their warmth ― in short, we perceive
them. This is a perfectly correct description of our relationship to the
physical world. But as soon as we look at the world of the spirit, we should
feel the need for another expression than “I perceive,†because it is not
quite correct to say “I perceive the beings of the spiritual world.†We need
to understand that all so-called perception of the spiritual world is quite
different from that on the physical plane. As we grow into the realm of the
spirit and approach it, we have the impression that we are perceived. Here
on earth we are, in a certain sense, the highest physical beings. A stone, a
plant, or an animal might say they are perceived by human beings. And in
terms of our physical body, we can say we are perceived by beings of our own
kind. We are also perceived from the moment we grow into the spiritual
world. The spiritual beings look down at us, and in a certain sense we
become objects to them. It is indeed a first sign of having entered the
spiritual world when we are perceived.â€
Kind Regards,
Franky
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:21:10 -0000
From: "eurythmy" (eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
2007-01-15
Dear all,
A dose of Fichte, written long before The Philosophy of Freedom.
1-One can wonder why Rudolf Steiner did not build up his Philosophy directly
on quotes like that it would have made easier for Peter to see the link with
Anthroposophy.
"I do not need to wait until I am removed from the things around me in the
physical world to gain entry into the spirit realm. I already exist and live
in the latter much more truly than in the former. It is my only firm basis,
and the eternal life I took possession of long ago is the sole reason why I
still wish to continue the earthly one. Heaven does not lie beyond the
grave; it is here already, pervading all of nature and its light rises in
every pure heart." Die Bestimmung des Menschen ("The Vocation of Man"), vol.
3, section III, Berlin 1800.
"I was, I might almost say, persuaded to publish these lectures by friends
among the audience who had a favourable opinion of them. And because of the
way I work, the most certain way never to complete them would have been to
revise them once more for publication. Let it be my friends' responsibility,
then, if they are not received as anticipated. I for my part have become so
confused by the public at large when I see the endless bewilderment that
greets every powerful idea, and also the thanks accorded to everyone who
endeavours to do right, that I am unable to make a decision in matters of
this kind and no longer know either how to speak to this public or whether
it is even worth the effort to address it by means of the printing presses."
Foreword to lectures in Berlin in the winter of 1807/08.
2-So why did Rudolf Steiner choose to write The Philosophy of Freedom the
way he did with no reference to the obvious spiritual world?
3-Did Rudolf Steiner distaste that kind of utterance by Fichte and other
German Idealists and only after 1900 started to appreciate it?
4-Or did Rudolf Steiner choose to show how to attain knowledge of the
spiritual world through working exercises written with German Idealist
philosophic words?
5-Did Rudolf Steiner dislike as much the vagueness of the spiritual world
imbued with heavenly generalities as much as he disliked the theosophical
overabundance of so often sentimentalised and distorted details.
6-as Dottie could say: why o' why?
Kind Regards,
Franky
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:13:46 +0000
From: Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
Subject: RE: Staudenmaier hates slackers
Valerie Walsh wrote:
)
)
) Keith McLean wrote:
) )
) )
) ) Valerie Walsh wrote:
)
) ) ) Not having a common definition of the subject matter presents a much
) ) ) greater barrier than people's "distaste for you and what you do" IMO.
) ) ) And, yeah, I question if that's true-that anthroposophists have a
) ) ) distaste for you and what you do and if it is true then my suggestion is
) ) )
) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) that the anthroposopists in question take a look at that. Today would be
) ) )
) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) good.-Val
) )
) )
) ) Hmmmmmm....Well....what about this? -)
)
) You know, Keith I think hate is an awfully strong emotion to be
) attributing to others.
Yes and no, I'd say. Hate is "The emotion of hate; a feeling of dislike
so strong that it demands action." or is to "Dislike intensely; feel
antipathy or aversion towards" (Source: "WordWeb 3.03." wordweb.info).
So you can *hate* traffic, or *hate* brussels sprouts, etc. I think it's
an appropriate word for the situation - it's disliking or having an
aversion to something. Now it could be said that it's the *motive* that
goes along with the emotion or attitude of hate that makes it
contentious and a strong word. Peter clearly is disapproving of people
not being clear on the "facts" or reasoning in the discussion, and no
one it seems quite sees it his way or is interested in doing so.
But since you brought it up does your response
) mean that you are self-identifying yourself as an anthroposophist in
) question? If so, would you be so kind to supply what your, as in your
) own, definition of an anthroposophist is? Thanks, Val
Well, it's difficult to say if I'm an anthroposophist, considering the
ambiguity the term seems faced with. I'm an occultist really, but
anthroposophy by *my* application of the term would be:
A movement or state of mind whereby goals and ideas are pursued to
improve the human condition via an appreciation of the nuances and
wisdom of human culture and civilization, with a focus on intuitive and
spiritual development. Anthroposophy thus should be a humanitarian
activity, focusing on improving the lot of all human beings and
increasing their sensitivity to spiritual/intuitive activity.
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: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 20:01:22 +0000
From: Valerie Walsh (isenhart7 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
SerenaBlaue aol.com wrote:
) Dear Val,
)
) Exactly.
)
) WC'ers know full well that I received the pointed toe of a dan-boot to
) my
) backside quite a while ago, thus no posts from me. Funny that they
) haven't
) written to correct PS's mistake.
Dear Serena,
Like I was saying to Franky, there doesn't seem to be a bar here but
that doesn't mean there isn't a punch table. Just don't turn your back
on Dan and you should be fine. I expect Peter will rectify his mistake
himself as soon as he realizes it and make it up to you in spades on the
dance floor.-Val
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 20:12:17 +0000
From: Valerie Walsh (isenhart7 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
eurythmy wrote:
) Dear all,
)
) A dose of Fichte, written long before The Philosophy of Freedom.
)
) 1-One can wonder why Rudolf Steiner did not build up his Philosophy
) directly
) on quotes like that it would have made easier for Peter to see the link
) with
) Anthroposophy.
Thanks for the dose of Fitche, Franky. As I was saying to Pete a while
back-looking at how things actually developed can give one pause as to
how clarivoyant Steiner really was.
)
) "I do not need to wait until I am removed from the things around me in
) the
) physical world to gain entry into the spirit realm. I already exist and
) live
) in the latter much more truly than in the former. It is my only firm
) basis,
) and the eternal life I took possession of long ago is the sole reason
) why I
) still wish to continue the earthly one. Heaven does not lie beyond the
) grave; it is here already, pervading all of nature and its light rises
) in
) every pure heart." Die Bestimmung des Menschen ("The Vocation of Man"),
) vol.
) 3, section III, Berlin 1800.
Sounds pretty serious to me. It is his "only firm basis" and "sole
reason" to-do you think-continue earthly life? Would that mean that if
Fitche found out that there was not a spirit realm and an eternal life
that he'd like want to leave?-Val
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 20:42:33 +0000
From: charles morrison (charlie morrison5.fsnet.co.uk)
Subject: RE: anthroposophy by association 1
Hi Peter and all,
I'm having a hard job reading all the posts that are coming in let alone
replying to any of them. I've replied to a few points below.
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
)
)
) Hi Charlie,
)
)
) )You.Peter, say, "anthroposophy is merely one branch of occultism", then
) )you say, "anthroposophy really is among other things a branch of
) )occultism". So which is it, merely one branch of occultism or more than
) )that?
)
)
(PS):) It's both. (It's a number of other things, too.) Anthroposophy is
an
) esoteric worldview / belief system / path of knowledge, as well a
) movement,
) a set of social institutions, a constellation of ideas and an ensemble
) of
) practical endeavors, including Waldorf, biodynamic farming, and others;
) Anthroposophy is a prominent stream within contemporary western
) esotericism
) and the most successful branch of the modern German occult revival, a
) spinoff of theosophy and a continuation of many of its core themes. It
) isn't
) merely some nondescript "social philosophy", it has specific content.
)
)
(CM):) )You admit that anthroposophy doesn't just consist of
esotericism,
) )but, you stipulate that in order for someone to prove that P of F is
) )anthroposophical it must have esoteric content.You're not being very
) )consistant.
)
)
(PS):) It would be interesting to learn what you find inconsistent about
the above
) summary. Historical phenomena are often complex, Charlie, with lots of
) different facets. If anthroposophy only “consisted of esotericism”, it
) would
) be impossible to distinguish it from any other variety of esoteric
) thought
) and practice. One of the facets of anthroposophy – a central one,
) historically speaking – is its ideas, its teachings, its specific
) content.
) That is one thing that books do: they convey ideas, they propound
) teachings,
) they present specific content. If you want to classify the content of a
) particular book as belonging to a particular worldview, what you need to
) do
) is show how the text includes elements that distinguish that particular
) worldview from other worldviews.
Charlie M:
What I find inconsistent is the fact that you say anthroposophy is
merely one thing and then go on to summarise a variety of other things
which you say it is. The summary itself is not what I find inconsistent.
)
(PS):) You haven't done anything like this with PoF. What you have done
so far is
) demonstrate that the content of PoF is philosophical, which is something
) I
) certainly don't dispute, but which is about as helpful as pointing out
) that
) the content of a mathematics textbook is mathematical, when what you
) actually claimed is that the content was about algebra, not about
) arithmetic. Algebra is a specific kind of mathematics. Anthroposophy is
) a
) specific kind of philosophy. Merely noting the philosophical content of
) PoF
won't show that the book is anthroposophical.
Charlie M:
And in effect you say that something is merely algebra and then you go
on to say that it is also trigonometry, basketball, flower arranging,
etc.he philosophical content of PoF
) won't show that the book is anthroposophical.
)
(CM):) )I made an analogy between anthroposophy and mathematics.
) )
) )"Esotericism is related to anthroposophy in a similar way that algebra
) )is related to mathematics."
) )
) )I do not think that substituting algebra for mathematics in the analogy
) )makes anywhere near as good an analogy, and you argue as if this was the
) )analogy that I was making.
)
)
(PS):) I didn’t substitute anything in your analogy. Your analogy itself
fails to
) distinguish arithmetic from algebra, in a way that is very similar to
) your
) mixing up of Steiner’s pre-1900 works with anthroposophy. Nobody
) disagrees
) that in order to do algebra, you first need to learn something about
) arithmetic. But learning arithmetic is itself hardly the same thing as
) learning algebra. If you're trying to say that in order to do
) anthroposophy,
) you first need to learn something about philosophy, I'm glad to agree.
) Alas,
) this does not mean that philosophy and anthroposophy are the same thing.
Charlie M:
Distinguishing arithmetic from algebra wasn't necessary for the point I
was making which, as I've already said, compared anthroposophy with
mathematics. It's clear from what you say in the following quote you are
comparing anthroposophy with algebra:
"Uh, Charlie? If it's an arithmetic text book, and contains no algebra,
then
it really and truly isn't an algebra textbook. If PoF is a philosophical
text and contains no anthroposophy, then it really and truly isn't an
anthroposophical text. Despite the fact that arithmetic plays a big role
in
algebra. Despite the fact that philosophy plays a big role in
anthroposophy.
Is something unclear about that?"
Now let's substitute mathematics for algebra in your quote and see how
it reads.
"Uh, Charlie? If it's an arithmetic text book, and contains no
mathematics, then
it really and truly isn't an mathematics textbook. If PoF is a
philosophical
text and contains no anthroposophy, then it really and truly isn't an
anthroposophical text. Despite the fact that arithmetic plays a big role
in
mathematics. Despite the fact that philosophy plays a big role in
anthroposophy.
Is something unclear about that?"
Does this quote make sense to you? It makes no sense to me, but that's
the way you would have to frame it if you were using my analogy.
(CM):) )I see you are still arguing that PoF does not contain
esotericism.
)
)
(PS):) Yes, I am indeed arguing that. You could very easily disprove
this argument
) by simply quoting any esoteric passage from the book.Charlie M:
Charlie M:
I'll just say again what I said before. Why do we keep getting asked for
quotes from P of F and "A Theory of Knowledge Based on Goethe's World
Conception", when Steiner himself says "you will find nothing at all
that is derived from communications of spiritual science" in them. You
already know this but you still keep asking.
You say you are looking at anthroposophy as it is in the real world, yet
you dismiss the testimony of anthroposophists and followers of Steiner
when they say that Steiner's earlier philosophical writings are the
foundation for his later works. Why whould they all agree on this if
there were no substance to it? Granted some may believe, "Steiner said
it, so it must be true". But not all. I would say that most find the
connection because of their own findings through their own practical
inner work. Those who say that Steiner's early philosophy is purely
concerned with the sense world will need to demonstrate that Goethe's
urpflanze according to Steiner is to be found in this sense world and is
not an objective perception of something above the sense world.
)From "A Theory of Knowledge":
"To deny to thinking the capacity for perceiving in itself entities
which are inaccessible to the senses is a degradation of thought. Apart
from the factor of sensible qualities, there must be within reality a
factor which is apprehended by thought. Thinking is an organ of man
ordained to observe something higher than is afforded by the senses."
If this doesn't imply higher worlds I don't know what does.
(CM):) )What the exchange below sums up (I like the pun by the way) is
that
) )Peter twisted my analogy. I wasn't saying that arithmetic is algebra,
) )but that both arithmetic (P of F) and algebra (anthroposophical
) )esotericism) are branches of mathematics (anthroposophy).
)
)
(PS):) I didn’t twist your analogy. According to your reasoning,
arithmetic and
) algebra are essentially the same thing – after all, they’re both
) branches of
) mathematics – just as Steiner’s early philosophical works and his later
) anthroposophical works are essentially the same thing – after all,
) they’re
) both written by Rudolf Steiner. That's anthroposophy by association.
)
Charlie M:
Now on top of twisting my analogy you are twisting the meaning of my
words. I don't see why two things, because they are branches of
something, have to be essentially the same thing as each other. After
all my sister and myself are two branches of the Morrison family but I
wouldn't say that we were essentially the same thing.
(CM):) )Peter says above that anthroposophy isn't just esotericism, but
the P of
) )F needs to have esoteric content to be classed as anthroposophical.
) )Can't you see the contradiction?
)
)
(PS):) There is no contradiction between those two claims. A biodynamic
farm is
) part of anthroposophy, right? And a Waldorf school is part of
) anthroposophy,
) right? But a biodynamic farm isn't a book, and a Waldorf school isn't a
) book. Philosophy of Freedom is a book. It's a collection of ideas in
) textual
) form. In order to figure out how to class those ideas, how to class the
) book
) as a text, you'll have to look at the specific content, not simply
) observe
) that the ideas are in some way vaguely philosophical. As it happens,
) anthroposophy's core ideas are esoteric. If you want to show that PoF
) contains anthroposophical content and not merely philosophical content,
) then
) yes, you do indeed need to show that it contains esoteric content, at
) the
) very least some tendentially esoteric content.
)
Charlie M:
Well in my local library Waldorf books are classed under education,
books on biodynamic farming are classed under agriculture and the P of F
is classed under philosophy. I certainly wouldn't use the term "part of
anthroposophy", I would much prefer anthroposophically inspired
initiatives.
(CM):) )There's no big deal here. But you did say that you found this
discussion
) )fascinating, so it must have some merit. It's just that I prefer to
) )dance with Franky's anthroposophy than to watch Peter dissecting a
) )corpse.
)
)
(PS):) I think most of us probably share that preference; dancing is
more fun than
) providing evidence and reasoning in a public discussion. For better or
) worse, however, this is a public discussion, not a dance floor, and yes,
) you
) really do need to provide evidence and reasoning for your claims if you
) want
) others to be able to assess them.
)
)
Charlie M:
Besides, I can't see where you would find the time for dancing, Peter.
(CM):) )Couldn't we just agree that some people have found that the P of
F IS
) )anthroposophical while others haven't found this (yet;)).
)
)
(PS):) We already agree on that. You and Franky and Jean-Marc and Frank
and several
) others believe that PoF is anthroposophical. The next step in the dance
) is
) to offer some evidence and some reasoning to support and substantiate
) that
) notion.
Charlie M:
Well if you think that both Steiner and Descartes had the same thing in
mind when they used the term "thinking", then there's not much else to
talk about from a philosophical perspective. Oh, and by the way, when
did you change your name to Walden?:)
(PS):) It's worth noting that the dance consistently grinds to a halt at
exactly
) this point. Back in October, for example, I wrote the following to
) Frank:
)
) "Other than the fact that they were written by the same author, in what
) sense do you consider the meditative practices outlined in KoHW to be a
) further development of the intuitive thinking discussed in PoF? What
) substantive relationship do you discern between the two?"
)
) And a month ago I wrote to you:
)
) "I really am indifferent to what you get out of PoF. If it works for you
) as
) a secretly coded guide to the higher worlds, that's cool with me. But we
)
) weren't discussing what the book means to you personally. We were
) discussing
) what the book actually says and does not say, what positions Steiner
) held
) and did not hold at the time he wrote it, how it fits in to his
) intellectual
) development in the course of the 1890s and beyond.”
)
) (That was in the “anthroposophy by association 2” thread, which never
) went
) anywhere)
)
) And before that I wrote:
)
) "Steiner in the 1890s tried out all sorts of different philosophies and
) worldviews, and didn't settle on theosophy\anthroposophy until the turn
) of
) the century. [...] I'd still be mildly interested in hearing just what
) it is
) in PoF or any of Steiner's pre-1900 published works that they [the
) proponents of the PoF-is-anthroposophical line] consider implicitly
) esoteric
) or in some way influenced by esotericism or tending toward esotericism.
) It
) is more than a little odd that this straightforward question should
) prove so
) difficult for anthroposophists to answer; lots of prominent figures in
) the
) history of philosophy and the history of science and the history of
) literature and art were strongly interested in and influenced by various
)
) forms of esotericism and occultism and dabbled quite a bit in these
) phenomena, and it isn't difficult to trace those influences and
) dabblings.
) How come none of the folks who insist so loudly that Steiner was an
) esotericist in 1894 can come up with any evidence whatsoever for this
) notion?”
)
)
) I would be delighted to get meaningful replies to those queries. The
) question isn't an especially important one to me, and I am wide open to
) changing my mind on the matter (for what it's worth, I've changed my
) mind on
) it before), and this list seems like a fine place to carry out the
) debate,
) er, dance, so if there is some aspect of PoF that strikes you as
) distinctively anthroposophical and not just generally philosophical, the
)
) floor is yours, and I'll follow your lead.
Charlie M:
I'm sure that Steiner never "dabbled" in esotericism or occultism. He
took his own experiences very seriously. I think you just need to get it
out of your head that anthroposophy equals esotericism and then you
might get somewhere in understanding why anthroposophists see the P of F
as an anthroposophical book. It's obviously not to do with timing
because you agree that some of his works that pre-dated "anthroposophy"
are anthroposophical books.
When Dr. Rittlemeyer asked him one day: 'Why was it that in spite of all
you must have known, even in your early years, you were so completely
silent about occult matters until your fortieth year?' Steiner replied:
'I had to make a certain position for myself in the world first. People
may say nowadays that my writings are mad, but my earlier work is also
there, and they cannot ignore it. And moreover, I had to bring things to
a certain clarity in myself, to a point where I could give them form,
before it was possible to talk about them. That was not easy. And then -
I admit it frankly - it needed courage to speak openly about such
things. I had first to aquire that courage.'"
Slainte,
Charlie M.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 09:54:52 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: [NNA] Signature campaign aims to give anthroposophy a political
voice at the EU
Signature campaign aims to give anthroposophy a political voice at the EU
LÖRRACH, Germany (NNA) - A campaign to collect a
million signatures in support of anthroposophy by
next July has appealed for more support.
The Eliant initiative was established last summer
and has as its aim to give the anthroposophical
movement with all its practical fields of
application a political voice at the EU in
Brussels.
In order to be taken seriously in Brussels,
evidence of popular support is required. Such
support is now to be demonstrated across Europe
through this campaign.
The collection of signatures started in November
and by the end of December over 6,600 signatures
had been registered.
But the one million signatures is only a start.
The longer term objective was five to seven
million signatures, including from non-EU
countries, to demonstrate the worldwide support
for anthroposophical initiatives, Eliant
co-founder Michaela Glöckler said.
According to Eliant, EU legislation caused ever
growing problems for anthroposophical products
and services. Children's food required the
artificial addition of vitamins, medicines were
no longer allowed to be sold and biodynamic
preparations had fallen victim to the fight
against mad cow disease (BSE). EU regulations
were increasingly preventing the development of
anthroposophical initiatives to the extent of
threatening their very existence.
A charter for the Eliant initiative was adopted
by representatives from a number of European
anthroposophical organisations in Brussels last
June which has already been translated into
various languages. In this context a conscious
decision had been taken to highlight the
anthroposophical identity of Eliant.
The time had come for initiatives working on the
basis of anthroposophy to declare themselves
openly and to work towards common goals in Europe
with other civil society networks and
organisations, the Eliant founders said.
END/nna/ung/cva
Link: www.eliant.eu
Item: 070115-02EN Date: 15 January 2007
Copyright 2007 News Network Anthroposophy
Limited. All rights reserved. See:
www.nna-news.org/copyright/
More NNA reports at: www.nna-news.org/en/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:04:24 -0000
From: "eurythmy" (eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Warm Greetings
Dear Komso,
What does our name Komso means, is it a derivativ of Kosmo?
Your two quotes can be dedicated to Peter, the historian guardian of the
keys of Paradise of common sense, and to Dan, the ver watchful of biodynamic
and other homeopatic things.
Kind Regards
Franky
----- Original Message -----
From: "Komso Monast" (komso26416 gmail.com)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 2:54 PM
Subject: Warm Greetings
)
) Hello everyone,
)
) I am a new member on the Waldorf Critics list. Nice to be here. :)
)
) I have made some reading of the works of Rudolf Steiner and the Steiner
) community, and notice there are several "camps" regarding his work. It
) is most interesting.
)
) As a mystic and spiritual ray (like we as humans all are), I would like
) to render my services to the group. If I can be of help I will be most
) glad. :)
)
)
) May love be with you.
)
) - Master Komso
)
)
) "Great wisdom may resemble foolishness."
)
) - Chinese proverb, Lao-tzu (philosopher).
)
) "The greatest delight which the fields and woods minister, is the
) suggestion of an occult relation between man and the vegetable. I am not
) alone and unacknowledged. They nod to me, and I to them."
)
) - Ralph Emerson
)
)
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
) New threads are always welcome.
)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:17:36 -0000
From: "eurythmy" (eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk)
Subject: Human rights education put on timetable of Austrian Waldorf school
Human rights education put on timetable of Austrian Waldorf school
INNSBRUCK (NNA) - The subject of human rights has been made a regular part
of the timetable at the Innsbruck Waldorf school in Austria following a
four-year pilot project and is included as a subject in pupils' school
reports.
"The new subject shows that we are a school which continues to evolve and
which is determined to give its pupils a foundation for life which is both
comprehensive and topical," school principal Hermann Hauser said
Last month the school, together with the Tyrol Institute for Human Rights,
had undertaken a review of this unique project on occasion of International
Human Rights Day. Ninety percent of the teachers, pupils and parents
involved spoke positively about it.
Precisely in a time in which human rights appeared under threat from
opposing sides through the "interplay of terror and anti-terrorist
measures," it was important to promote human rights as "a central principle
of co-existence based on respect and a peaceful outlook," Raimund Pehm from
the Tyrol Institute for Human Rights emphasised.
The four-year pilot study has produced a comprehensive set of practice
reports as well as a framework curriculum for the subject of "human rights
education" on which future teaching will be based.
The pilot phase was used to develop the subject which was taught in
four-week blocks and started with a relatively open educational outline.
"There is no previous experience for us to fall back on so we are proceeding
through 'learning by doing'," Pehm said at the time when the project
started (see also NNA report "Waldorf school introduced human rights as a
subject in its own right", 29 April 2003).
In Pehm's view, human rights education represents "an exciting perspective"
for schools which want to give their pupils a varied and personality-forming
experience of the fields of society and democracy in their teaching. But the
new subject was also associated with risks. "Human rights are uncomfortable
and start things moving. They create productive unrest." They therefore
represented a major challenge for every school community.
Pehm thinks human rights could also be introduced as a compulsory subject in
state schools. "It is high time that human rights are given greater
importance in school education," the stressed.
NNA/end/ung/cva
Link: www.human-rights.at
Item: 070115-01EN Date: 15 January 2007
Copyright 2007 News Network Anthroposophy Limited. All rights reserved. See:
www.nna-news.org/copyright/
More NNA reports at: www.nna-news.org/en/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:20:28 -0000
From: "eurythmy" (eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk)
Subject: Signature campaign aims to give anthroposophy a political voice at the EU
Signature campaign aims to give anthroposophy a political voice at the EU
LÖRRACH, Germany (NNA) - A campaign to collect a million signatures in
support of anthroposophy by next July has appealed for more support.
The Eliant initiative was established last summer and has as its aim to give
the anthroposophical movement with all its practical fields of application a
political voice at the EU in Brussels.
In order to be taken seriously in Brussels, evidence of popular support is
required. Such support is now to be demonstrated across Europe through this
campaign.
The collection of signatures started in November and by the end of December
over 6,600 signatures had been registered.
But the one million signatures is only a start. The longer term objective
was five to seven million signatures, including from non-EU countries, to
demonstrate the worldwide support for anthroposophical initiatives, Eliant
co-founder Michaela Glöckler said.
According to Eliant, EU legislation caused ever growing problems for
anthroposophical products and services. Children's food required the
artificial addition of vitamins, medicines were no longer allowed to be sold
and biodynamic preparations had fallen victim to the fight against mad cow
disease (BSE). EU regulations were increasingly preventing the development
of anthroposophical initiatives to the extent of threatening their very
existence.
A charter for the Eliant initiative was adopted by representatives from a
number of European anthroposophical organisations in Brussels last June
which has already been translated into various languages. In this context a
conscious decision had been taken to highlight the anthroposophical identity
of Eliant.
The time had come for initiatives working on the basis of anthroposophy to
declare themselves openly and to work towards common goals in Europe with
other civil society networks and organisations, the Eliant founders said.
END/nna/ung/cva
Link: www.eliant.eu
Item: 070115-02EN Date: 15 January 2007
Copyright 2007 News Network Anthroposophy Limited. All rights reserved. See:
www.nna-news.org/copyright/
More NNA reports at: www.nna-news.org/en/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 21:07:35 +0000
From: charles morrison (charlie morrison5.fsnet.co.uk)
Subject: RE: swimming in the wrong direction
Hi Val,
Well if you are it's probably because I'm a little out of step. Besides
my wife has just cut in and it would be more than my life's worth to
damage her toes so I better give her my full attention. (keeping your
fiddler in the background of course).
Slainte,
Charlie M.
Valerie Walsh wrote:
.
)
) Well, Charlie,
)
) I hope I'm not stepping on your toes but I do feel the need for a little
)
) fiddle music to go along with the "sperm and egg detour." I first heard
) this at a little dive in Urbana-Champaign but I remember it was rather
) rousing and seems to fit here.-Val
)
) Running in the wrong direction
) Isn't it a long way home,
) People with the wrong intentions
) Isn't it a long way home.
)
) City, you are dying real slow
) Country, you are calling me to go.
) Smokestacks, I don't need you no more
) I'm gonna fly...
)
) To where the sky meets the land
) And the living is not planned
) And the children can laugh just
) Cause they're living.
)
) I'll send for you
) If you ever want me to
) But you'll have to find
) A whole new way of giving.
)
) Running from the noise and poison
) Isn't it a long way home.
) Wounded by a law man's toy gun
) Isn't it a long way home.
)
) City, no more shadows to be seen.
) Country, all the sunshine you can dream.
) Smokestacks spew your sour-smelling
) steam
) I'm gonna fly.
)
) To where the sky meets the land
) And the living is not planned
) And the children can laugh
) Just cause they're living.
) I'll send for you
) If you ever want me to
) But you'll have to find
) A whole new way of giving.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 15:29:59 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
Hi Serena,
)It is the "open secret" nature of PoF that makes it a deeply esoteric work
)and one's own personal work/practice that reveals the open secret.
I'm afraid that's not sufficient for public discussion, not least because
you haven't told us anything about what work/practice you did to reach the
conclusion that PoF is a deeply esoteric work, thus nobody is able to assess
the conclusion you have stated or determine whether your work/practice was a
sensible way to arrive at that conclusion. In my case, for instance, the
work/practice I did was to read the book. Since it has no esoteric content,
I concluded that it is not an esoteric book. How about you?
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
)From photos to predictions, The MSN Entertainment Guide to Golden Globes has
it all. http://tv.msn.com/tv/globes2007/?icid=nctagline1
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 15:33:22 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
Hi Frank,
)No thanks, that subject has been exhausted.
In other words, you're having trouble "admitting" you were wrong. I'll take
that as an invitation, and follow up with some helpful information for you,
in a day or so. I was serious about your daughter, by the way; if you do
nothing else with my subsequent post on the topic, at least forward it to
her. If she's still working as a translator, it'll save her from future
errors. Grammatical greetings,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Get live scores and news about your team: Add the Live.com Football Page
www.live.com/?addtemplate=football&icid=T001MSN30A0701
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 15:32:39 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
Hi Franky,
)About the first paragraph above, Peter may point out again that some of
)Hegel was taken on by Marx and that does not make Hegel a Marxist, and he
)will add that the same can be said of Rudolf Steiner from The Philosophy of
)Freedom to 'later' Anthroposophic work.
Yep. Just as later Marxist appropriations of earlier Hegelian works do not
retrospectively transform those works into Marxist works, so later
Anthroposophist appropriations of earlier Steinerian works do not
retrospectively transform those works into Anthroposophist works.
)Following the Peter method it is obvious that Rudolf Steiner in Chapter 3
)is a different Rudolf Steiner of later chapters, especially when one
)notices the shifts in the second part of The Philosophy of Freedom.
I think that might be true according to your method, but isn't according to
my method. The shift from the first to the second part of PoF is from
epistemology to ethics. It is not a shift to esotericism. None of the parts
of PoF is esoteric.
)May be Peter main and only point is that Chapter 1 to 3, 5 to 7,the second
)part and the ultimate question chapter all disagreed quite a bit
)philosophically, which is one reason why the notion that The Philosophy of
)Freedom was genetically programmed to grow into anthroposophy is goofy.
I don't know what that means. My main and only point is that there is no
specifically anthroposophical content in PoF, or even any generally esoteric
content. The quote you just provided from Fichte is an excellent point of
comparison, though its siginificance appears to have eluded you:
)"I do not need to wait until I am removed from the things around me in the
)physical world to gain entry into the spirit realm. I already exist and
)live in the latter much more truly than in the former. It is my only firm
)basis, and the eternal life I took possession of long ago is the sole
)reason why I still wish to continue the earthly one. Heaven does not lie
)beyond the grave; it is here already, pervading all of nature and its light
)rises in every pure heart." Die Bestimmung des Menschen ("The Vocation of
)Man"), vol. 3, section III, Berlin 1800.
I take it you think this is an eminently esoteric passage. It isn't. It is
Fichte's closing statement in the atheism controversy and part of his
defense of rational theology, about as far away from esotericism as one
could get in the spectrum of turn-of-that-century thought. My best guess is
that you have been mislead by the word "spirit" here, which is "Geist" in
German, one of Fichte's favorite terms and one which is often translated as
"mind" in English, which in this case would yield "the mental realm". Try
reading the passage again with that in mind, er, spirit, and see if you
still think it's esoteric.
)2-So why did Rudolf Steiner choose to write The Philosophy of Freedom the
)way he did with no reference to the obvious spiritual world?
There are numerous references to the obvious spiritual world, i.e. the
mental world, in PoF, as there are throughout German Idealism. There are no
references at all in PoF the other kinds of spiritual worlds, the higher
worlds, the ones that are central to anthroposophy, the ones populated by
beings that remind you of Disney movies.
)3-Did Rudolf Steiner distaste that kind of utterance by Fichte and other
)German Idealists and only after 1900 started to appreciate it?
Steiner did not have distaste for Fichte, though he did for other Idealists,
most notably Kant.
)4-Or did Rudolf Steiner choose to show how to attain knowledge of the
)spiritual world through working exercises written with German Idealist
)philosophic words?
If you mean the mundane spiritual/mental world that everybody agrees exists,
the answer is yes. If you mean the higher worlds, the answer is no.
Greetings,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Find sales, coupons, and free shipping, all in one place! MSN Shopping
Sales & Deals
http://shopping.msn.com/content/shp/?ctid=198,ptnrid=176,ptnrdata=200639
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 15:38:19 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: anthroposophy by association 1
Hi Charlie,
)Distinguishing arithmetic from algebra wasn't necessary for the point I
)was making which, as I've already said, compared anthroposophy with
)mathematics.
Yep. That's not specific enough for our purposes. We don't disagree that PoF
is part of philosophy, just as we don't disagree that algebra is part of
mathematics. We disagree about *what part* of philosophy PoF most readily
fits into. To get to the level of specificity necessary to our actual
disagreement, you'll need to compare anthroposophy to a specific branch of
mathematics, not to the whole thing, as that simply avoids the question.
)I'll just say again what I said before. Why do we keep getting asked for
)quotes from P of F
Because that's how public discussion works. You need to provide evidence for
your claims, so that others can assess them. You have made a claim about the
content of PoF. To provide evidence for that claim, you need to point out
passages in the text of PoF that contain that content. That's what content
is.
)You say you are looking at anthroposophy as it is in the real world, yet
)you dismiss the testimony of anthroposophists and followers of Steiner
)when they say that Steiner's earlier philosophical writings are the
)foundation for his later works.
I don't dismiss that testimony, I examine it to see if it constitutes
reliable evidence about the content of PoF. That's the proper approach to
all testimony, not just testimony from anthroposophists. By the way, the
'foundation' part is avoiding the question again. The claim you were
supposedly defending is that PoF itself *already was anthroposophical*, not
that it merely furnished the foundation upon which anthroposophy was later
constructed.
)Why whould they all agree on this if
)there were no substance to it?
Because they're looking at PoF as a source of inspiration and wisdom and
experience and practice, rather than looking at it as a historical document,
and because they're looking at Steiner as a spiritual master and initiate,
rather than looking at him as a historical figure.
)I would say that most find the
)connection because of their own findings through their own practical
)inner work.
Yep. Their own practical inner work is entirely irrelevant to the content of
PoF, which is the subject under discussion.
)Those who say that Steiner's early philosophy is purely
)concerned with the sense world
As far as I know, nobody says this. I keep saying the opposite. Steiner's
early philosophy, like the rest of German Idealism, is concerned with both
the sense world and the mental world, the world of Geist, the world of the
mind or spirit, where percepts and concepts come together. Steiner's early
philosophy is not concerned with the higher worlds and says nothing about
them.
)From "A Theory of Knowledge":
)"To deny to thinking the capacity for perceiving in itself entities
)which are inaccessible to the senses is a degradation of thought. Apart
)from the factor of sensible qualities, there must be within reality a
)factor which is apprehended by thought. Thinking is an organ of man
)ordained to observe something higher than is afforded by the senses."
)
)If this doesn't imply higher worlds I don't know what does.
Of course that doesn't imply higher worlds, Charlie. It is about the mind
and thinking. It is not about supernatural beings and hierarchies of angels
and astral planes and Akashic chronicles and guardians of the threshold.
)Well in my local library Waldorf books are classed under education,
)books on biodynamic farming are classed under agriculture and the P of F
)is classed under philosophy.
Yep. That's because it is philosophy.
)Besides, I can't see where you would find the time for dancing, Peter.
Don't take this the wrong way, but at this level of discussion, replying to
the PoF-is-anthro mantra doesn't require all that much exertion. When I have
to grade papers, for instance, the ones that end up getting low grades make
very quick work, because there is so little to respond to, and the respones
are very simple. Thankfully, I am not the teacher in this instance.
Philosophical greetings,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Find sales, coupons, and free shipping, all in one place! MSN Shopping
Sales & Deals
http://shopping.msn.com/content/shp/?ctid=198,ptnrid=176,ptnrdata=200639
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 15:40:45 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: swimming in the wrong direction
Hi Frank,
) )
)P: Indeed. Now all you have to do is tell us what distinguishes the
) ) non-anthroposophist German Idealist philosophers from the
) ) anthroposophist
) ) German Idealist philosophers.
)
)F: I don't have to do anything, Peter, especially not fall into your
)pseudo-socratic traps.
You can't say anything at all about what would distinguish
non-anthroposophist German Idealist philosophy from anthroposophist German
Idealist philosophy? Not a single distinguishing criterion? Yet you somehow
managed to classify PoF in the (otherwise empty) latter category rather than
in the former? But you can't tell us anything about why?
)F: I missed nothing. But pray tell how you can insist on citations
)before 1900
Because that is the period we disagree about. We do not disagree about the
post-1900 period. If you cannot point to any anthroposophical or even
vaguely esoteric reference to PoF before 1900, it means you don't have
evidence for your position.
) )
)P: Not before 1900. There isn't a single instance of Steiner saying
)anything at
) ) all prior to 1900 about PoF being in any way anthroposophical, or even
) ) theosophical, or even esoteric. Hmm... why do you suppose that is?
) )
)F: I suppose that is because the subject or question hadn't come up.
Of course it had come up. Steiner attacked theosophy in print in 1897. You
thought maybe he really meant theocracy but his pen slipped or something?
)F: Oh, I see. Everybody who reads PoF has more right than the author to
)interpret what it means.
Yes. That is the case for many texts, not simply Steiner's. Authors are
generally poor interpreters of their own works.
) )
)P: No, you are denying the early Steiner that right. The author who
)wrote PoF
) ) is not the Steiner of 1923 or 1913 or 1903, it is the Steiner of 1893.
)
)F: Really? How come he had the same name and fingerprints?
Because his fingerprints and his name hadn't changed. His ideas had.
)F: And yours is an absurd position and splendid instance of confused
)time-warped thinking. How could he possibly have said in the 1890s that
)anything at all was anthroposophical when the word wasn't even used
)before 1913?
At last we're getting somewhere. To think historically about texts like PoF,
you do indeed need to put yourself in a kind of time warp: you need to try
to bracket out the things you know or think you know about everything that
happend after 1894, because those things hadn't happened yet when the text
appeared. If you don't do that, you aren't taking the text seriously in its
own right. You are instead merely "experiencing" it through your own
post-1894 eyes, through other anthroposophists' eyes, through the later
Steiner's eyes. That will inevitably distort your view of the original text.
For what it's worth, the word "anthroposophy" was used even before 1894,
though not by Steiner and not to mean what it now means. Steiner first used
it in 1903, not 1913. Theosophy, as I have pointed out, did exist in the
1890s, and Steiner did express his views on it at that time, and they were
harshly negative. But it is, anyway, indeed possible to discuss phenomena
before they have acquired their current names; lots of people discussed
racism, for example, before the term was coined or came into wider
circulation. That's very normal, historically speaking.
In any case, the terminology is not the important matter under dispute here,
the ideas are. If you think there are anthroposophical ideas in PoF,
presented in any terminology, ideas that you can distinguish from the ideas
of German Idealism, all you need to do is point them out in the text.
Greetings,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Get live scores and news about your team: Add the Live.com Football Page
www.live.com/?addtemplate=football&icid=T001MSN30A0701
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 15:41:28 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: the appeal of anthroposophy
Hi Serena,
)WC'ers know full well that I received the pointed toe of a dan-boot to my
)backside quite a while ago, thus no posts from me.
It sounds like you have mixed up your backside with your toes. If you mean
to say that your suspension in September 2005 was permanent, that would
indeed be news to me, but I wasn't here at the time. I know Dan has
permanently banned people from the list before, and when they pop up again
anyway, he deletes their subscription again, which he evidently hasn't done
so far in your case, leaving this something of a puzzle. For whatever time
you might have left here, do you have any arguments to offer about
anthroposophy?
Bootless greetings,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
)From photos to predictions, The MSN Entertainment Guide to Golden Globes has
it all. http://tv.msn.com/tv/globes2007/?icid=nctagline1
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 15:42:23 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Staudenmaier hates slackers
Hi Keith,
)Peter clearly is disapproving of people
)not being clear on the "facts" or reasoning in the discussion,
That's often true. I don't suffer fools gladly, and when people act
foolishly, I think it's important to let them know it. It's also a
distraction from genuine discussion; folks who can't follow their own
arguments, much less other people's arguments, are wasting everybody's time.
)and no
)one it seems quite sees it his way or is interested in doing so.
That part is mistaken, based I think on a misunderstanding about what it is
that I have been trying to say over and over again throughout this exchange.
I am indifferent to whether anthroposophists 'see it my way', especially on
unimportant matters like PoF. Reminding anthroposophists that they really do
need to use evidence and reasoning in public discussion is not asking them
to 'see it my way', it's asking them to actually participate in the
discussion, in the only meaningful way available when anthroposophists and
non-anthroposophists are both involved. People who are not interested in
doing that are not interested in public discussion of their views, quite
regardless of whether those views have anything in common with my own, that
is, quite regardless of whether they do or do not 'see it my way'.
Greetings,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
)From photos to predictions, The MSN Entertainment Guide to Golden Globes has
it all. http://tv.msn.com/tv/globes2007/?icid=nctagline1
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 15:29:23 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: to read or not to read
Hi other Charlie,
)I have only seen bits and pieces of this discussion, and I am a bit
)confused by it.
)This may be a gross over-simplification (especially in the light of the
)excessive bandwidth dedicated to the subject), but it seems to me that A
)Philosophy of Freedom (or A Philosophy of Spiritual Activity, which, I
)believe, was Steiner's preference for the title in English)is simply a
)way of looking at life that Steiner hoped his Anthroposophists (and,
)eventually, others) would take up.
Sounds about right to me. This is what he hoped after 1900.
) It seems to me that PoF loomed large in Steiner's life when
)Anthroposophy was coming into its own,
I think that's true too.
)and it is a cornerstone of
)Anthroposophical thought.
It is now, as anthroposophists see it, anyways. It wasn't when it was
written.
)Would this not make it an Anthroposophical text?
Not in the sense that we have been discussing. If you look at your copy of
the book, for example, it's in English. It makes sense to refer to it in
that sense as an English text. But when the book was written, it was not an
English text, it was a German text. Later it was translated into English and
became an English text. That hardly means that it was one back in 1894.
)And...what's the diff if it is or isn't?
Very little, in my view. To the extent that this exchange is interesting to
me, it's because of how it reveals basic tendencies in contemporary
anthroposophist approaches to evidence, reasoning, argument, and public
discourse.
)Do you not think it's a really cool book?
No, I think it's a philosophically mediocre book, but that's neither here
nor there as far as the present discussion goes. Greetings,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Get live scores and news about your team: Add the Live.com Football Page
www.live.com/?addtemplate=football&icid=T001MSN30A0701
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 16:33:29 EST
From: SerenaBlaue aol.com
Subject: Re: anthroposophy by association 1
In a message dated 1/15/2007 3:43:16 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
charlie morrison5.fsnet.co.uk writes:
(CM):) )What the exchange below sums up (I like the pun by the way) is
that
) )Peter twisted my analogy. I wasn't saying that arithmetic is algebra,
) )but that both arithmetic (P of F) and algebra (anthroposophical
) )esotericism) are branches of mathematics (anthroposophy).
)
)
(PS):) I didn’t twist your analogy. According to your reasoning,
arithmetic and
) algebra are essentially the same thing – after all, they’re both
) branches of
) mathematics – just as Steiner’s early philosophical works and his later
) anthroposophical works are essentially the same thing – after all,
) they’re
) both written by Rudolf Steiner. That's anthroposophy by association.
)
Charlie M:
Now on top of twisting my analogy you are twisting the meaning of my
words. I don't see why two things, because they are branches of
something, have to be essentially the same thing as each other. After
all my sister and myself are two branches of the Morrison family but I
wouldn't say that we were essentially the same thing.
Hmmmm, looks like a favorite dance is "Twist and Shout"...didn't that
go out of style quite a few years ago? I once twisted an analogy and
it was very painful, took weeks to get better, but lot's of R & R does
seem to help straighten things out again.
Serena Blaue
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 23:16:00 -0000
From: "eurythmy" (eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
2007-01-15
Dear all,
Serena, sorry to barge in, but all are welcome to comment and answer the
question at theend.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 9:29 PM
Subject: Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
) Hi Serena,
))It is the "open secret" nature of PoF that makes it a deeply esoteric
))work and one's own personal work/practice that reveals the open secret.
) I'm afraid that's not sufficient for public discussion, not least because
you haven't told us anything about what work/practice you did to reach the
conclusion that PoF is a deeply esoteric work, thus nobody is able to assess
the conclusion you have stated or determine whether your work/practice was a
sensible way to arrive at that conclusion. In my case, for instance, the
work/practice I did was to read the book. Since it has no esoteric content,
I concluded that it is not an esoteric book. How about you?
) Peter S.
)
Dear all,
I will try to have a fair comment, same music, same song, same dancing
technique, same tempo:
I'm afraid that's not sufficient for public discussion, not least because
you haven't told us anything about what work/practice you did to reach the
conclusion that PoF is a non esoteric work, thus nobody is able to assess
the conclusion you have stated or determine whether your work/practice was a
sensible way to arrive at that conclusion. In my case, for instance, the
work/practice I did was to read the book. Since it has esoteric content, I
concluded that it is an esoteric book. How about you?
Peter you can dance as much as you want alone in a room with 1 or 20
mirrors, I suggest you dance with the book, then go in the real world and
dance with others who have danced with the book.
Reading a dance manual is not enough you have to do some practice alone or
in a class/university, then people will not be worried about their toes.
Reading like that you have thoughts that have content.
For me I can 'read' some music, but I cannot sight read and I need a
musician to hear it. Then I have a better idea of what I read when I read
the score. This remark is not that foreign to The Philosophy of Freedom as
in his first preface, not in 1918 but before 1900, Rudolf Steiner writes his
philosophy IS and art and chooses as illustration for art not painting or
architecture but music. Reading like that you have thoughts that have life
and content, then it has many different content, the content moves on and
metamorphoses.
I have the feeling that Rudolf Steiner did not appreciate or would not
advocate Jazz as a road to knowledge or spiritual science, and was probably
fonder of the art of the fugue. But as there are very few people able to
dance a fugue. However most people who dance on Jazz would dance on the
general impression of the music, either alone or as a lonely pair, they
would not dance it as improvising and yet together as the different
musicians of the band do. To do that would be to have moral imaginations on
the same dance floor, and we can remember from The Philosophy of Freedom
that different people's moral imaginations do not walk on each other feet.
Reading like that thoughts have moral imaginations, different lives, and
even more content adaptable to the situation one is.
In The Philosophy of Freedom Rudolf Steiner speaks of a further step in
thinking, what dance experience would you compare it with, would you imagine
it is? It was practiced of old and there are still some people in Asia that
do it.
Kind Regards,
Franky
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:43:18 EST
From: SerenaBlaue aol.com
Subject: Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
In a message dated 1/15/2007 6:25:40 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk writes:
2007-01-15
Dear all,
Serena, sorry to barge in, but all are welcome to comment and answer the
question at theend.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 9:29 PM
Subject: Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
) Hi Serena,
))It is the "open secret" nature of PoF that makes it a deeply esoteric
))work and one's own personal work/practice that reveals the open secret.
) I'm afraid that's not sufficient for public discussion, not least because
you haven't told us anything about what work/practice you did to reach the
conclusion that PoF is a deeply esoteric work, thus nobody is able to assess
the conclusion you have stated or determine whether your work/practice was a
sensible way to arrive at that conclusion. In my case, for instance, the
work/practice I did was to read the book. Since it has no esoteric content,
I concluded that it is not an esoteric book. How about you?
) Peter S.
)
Dear all,
I will try to have a fair comment, same music, same song, same dancing
technique, same tempo:
I'm afraid that's not sufficient for public discussion, not least because
you haven't told us anything about what work/practice you did to reach the
conclusion that PoF is a non esoteric work, thus nobody is able to assess
the conclusion you have stated or determine whether your work/practice was a
sensible way to arrive at that conclusion. In my case, for instance, the
work/practice I did was to read the book. Since it has esoteric content, I
concluded that it is an esoteric book. How about you?
Peter you can dance as much as you want alone in a room with 1 or 20
mirrors, I suggest you dance with the book, then go in the real world and
dance with others who have danced with the book.
Reading a dance manual is not enough you have to do some practice alone or
in a class/university, then people will not be worried about their toes.
Reading like that you have thoughts that have content.
For me I can 'read' some music, but I cannot sight read and I need a
musician to hear it. Then I have a better idea of what I read when I read
the score. This remark is not that foreign to The Philosophy of Freedom as
in his first preface, not in 1918 but before 1900, Rudolf Steiner writes his
philosophy IS and art and chooses as illustration for art not painting or
architecture but music. Reading like that you have thoughts that have life
and content, then it has many different content, the content moves on and
metamorphoses.
I have the feeling that Rudolf Steiner did not appreciate or would not
advocate Jazz as a road to knowledge or spiritual science, and was probably
fonder of the art of the fugue. But as there are very few people able to
dance a fugue. However most people who dance on Jazz would dance on the
general impression of the music, either alone or as a lonely pair, they
would not dance it as improvising and yet together as the different
musicians of the band do. To do that would be to have moral imaginations on
the same dance floor, and we can remember from The Philosophy of Freedom
that different people's moral imaginations do not walk on each other feet.
Reading like that thoughts have moral imaginations, different lives, and
even more content adaptable to the situation one is.
In The Philosophy of Freedom Rudolf Steiner speaks of a further step in
thinking, what dance experience would you compare it with, would you imagine
it is? It was practiced of old and there are still some people in Asia that
do it.
Kind Regards,
Franky
Thanks, Franky, such a lovely dance you've done, as always, with
grace. I've read your and Jean Marc's messages with intense
appreciation.
As for me, why dance with a tone deaf partner with two left feet who thinks
he
knows all the steps but nonetheless drones in your ear the history of every
dance ever danced, harangues you with a thousand titles that prove his point?
Oh, and he's always *right*, always has been right, always will be right.
I leave this boogie to the dancers who have more skill and time than I to
engage such a one.
However, I do think that the future historical analyzers of "text" who will
pore
over the WC archives to exhaustively determine how PS came to his theories
and conclusions will have interesting reading.
Serena Blaue (and when did Anthroposophy become the subject of the WC
and is PS now the moderator who uses the royal We and Us? Did I miss a
transition while I was away?)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 15:45:04 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: doing the time warp
Thought I'd give it one more shot at explaining the difference between
"experiencing" PoF and reading PoF. I think that what the PoF-is-anthro
faction are doing is looking at PoF through the lens of the present, which
makes it look, to their anthroposophical eyes, like an anthroposophical
book. But PoF is not a book from the present, it is a book from the past,
and the way to make sense of it as a historical text is to look at it
historically.
)From the evidence of his published works of that decade, Rudolf Steiner in
the 1890s had a remarkably rich and heterogenous intellectual life, engaging
intensively at various points with Goethe and Schiller, Idealism and
Romanticism, Nietzsche and Nietzscheanism, individualist anarchism via
Stirner and Mackay, anti-clericalism and atheism and freethought, Haeckelian
Monism, and a number of other philosophical and cultural currents of the
time. It was not until the turn of the century that he turned to
esotericism, first in the form of theosophy, then in the form of
anthroposophy. To project his mature theosophical/anthroposophical phase
back onto his very different pursuits and commitments in the 1890s is to
look at history in reverse and thus to lose its historical specificity.
This is why it is a serious mistake to simply assume, as Frank and others
do, that authors who change their minds thereby also change the content of
their own earlier works. I'm guessing that this basic principle, which is
obvious to historians and lots of other people but seems virtually
incomprehensible to Frank and Franky and Charlie and Charlie and Serena and
Val and Dottie et alia, is hard for anthroposophists and their sympathizers
to get their heads around because it means stepping outside of one's own
mental present for a moment. To try to make it clearer, let's go back to the
Chomsky example that I tried to talk about with Frank.
Chomsky writes a lot about linguistics and he writes a lot about politics.
His books in these two categories are very different from one another. He is
generally reticent about drawing direct and substantial connections between
the two. So far so good.
Unlike Steiner, Chomsky is still alive. Let’s say he changes his mind
tomorrow about the lack of connection between the two chief areas of his
work, and spends the rest of his life insisting that, in fact, the
linguistic writings and the political writings are really deeply intertwined
and always have been and that everyone must understand them as part of one
great comprehensive whole.
A major question then arises for the PoF-is-anthro faction: Do you genuinely
think that this would somehow alter the content of Chomsky's previously
published works? That their meaning had changed because the author had
changed his mind? Do you think that people who had already read his
previously published works would suddenly change their minds, too? Would you
therefore decide that the later Chomsky was actually right about the earlier
Chomsky’s works, merely because he said so?
It is possible, I suppose, that some anthroposophists actually answer 'yes'
to these questions. To those who don't, I encourage you to re-evaluate your
position on PoF and try to look at the book as a historical text in its own
right, not as an opportunity for anthroposophical experience and practice in
the present.
Timeless greetings to all,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Dave vs. Carl: The Insignificant Championship Series. Who will win?
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://davevscarl.spaces.live.com/?icid=T001MSN38C07001
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 2422
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
By isenhart7 yahoo.com
RE: doing the time warp
By isenhart7 yahoo.com
RE: Staudenmaier hates slackers
By isenhart7 yahoo.com
Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
By eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk
Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
By eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk
RE: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
By isenhart7 yahoo.com
Re: Signature campaign aims to give anthroposophy a political voice at
the EU
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: doing the time warp
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
By isenhart7 yahoo.com
RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
By isenhart7 yahoo.com
Re: the appeal of anthroposophy
By SerenaBlaue aol.com
RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
By isenhart7 yahoo.com
RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
By isenhart7 yahoo.com
Re: [NNA] Signature campaign aims to give anthroposophy a
political voice at th
By dan dandugan.com
Re: [NNA] Signature campaign aims to give anthroposophy a political voice at th
By SerenaBlaue aol.com
Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Signature campaign aims to give anthroposophy a political voice at the EU
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Human rights education put on timetable of Austrian Waldorf
school
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Warm Greetings
By dan dandugan.com
RE: anthroposophy by association 1
By dan dandugan.com
grammatical interlude
By pstaud hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 01:28:17 +0000
From: Valerie Walsh (isenhart7 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
SerenaBlaue aol.com wrote:
) Thanks, Franky, such a lovely dance you've done, as always, with
) grace. I've read your and Jean Marc's messages with intense
) appreciation.
)
) As for me, why dance with a tone deaf partner with two left feet who
) thinks
) he knows all the steps but nonetheless drones in your ear the history of
) every
) dance ever danced, harangues you with a thousand titles that prove his
) point?
) Oh, and he's always *right*, always has been right, always will be
) right.
Dear Serena,
Just to be clear is this Peter you are describing? I guess you'd just
have to really love to dance or really love the guy to be willing to
dance with a guy like that.
)
) I leave this boogie to the dancers who have more skill and time than I
) to
) engage such a one.
I can't do the time warp so I was kinda counting on you.-Val
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 01:52:22 +0000
From: Valerie Walsh (isenhart7 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: doing the time warp
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
)
)
) Thought I'd give it one more shot at explaining the difference between
) "experiencing" PoF and reading PoF.
Dear Peter,
What has been your experience of the PoF and how do you differentiate
your own experience of the PoF from that of reading it? Thanks for
giving this a shot.-Val
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 02:08:47 +0000
From: Valerie Walsh (isenhart7 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Staudenmaier hates slackers
Keith McLean wrote:
) Well, it's difficult to say if I'm an anthroposophist, considering the
) ambiguity the term seems faced with. I'm an occultist really, but
) anthroposophy by *my* application of the term would be:
)
) A movement or state of mind whereby goals and ideas are pursued to
) improve the human condition via an appreciation of the nuances and
) wisdom of human culture and civilization, with a focus on intuitive and
) spiritual development. Anthroposophy thus should be a humanitarian
) activity, focusing on improving the lot of all human beings and
) increasing their sensitivity to spiritual/intuitive activity.
Thanks for the definition, Keith. I am always interested in how people
define anthroposophy and anthroposophist. So far I am completely off the
hook. But this is the first time that I'm aware that anyone has ever
described themselves as an occultist to me. Once, a good friend and
anthro lecturer told me that she was beginning to realize that she
hadn't been a very good occultist-so that's pretty close to saying she
was one, I guess. Then I said that I didn't know what it meant to be an
occultist and she said she wasn't sure either so maybe it's true she
wasn't a very good one.
So when you say you're an occultist what does that mean to you?
Thanks,
Val
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 02:18:01 -0000
From: "eurythmy" (eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
2007-01-15
Dear all,
And if Peter question is not about content but about style?
Before 1900 his remarks about Theosophists are polemical, after they are
pedagogical and diplomatic.
With German Idealists he has a certain style, gentle pedagogical, and at
time in the additions reverential and bordering on reproach. After 1900 his
pedagogy is turned to a mild derision of theosophist, admonition to
anthroposophists, further elaboration with Waldorf teachers, etc.
His styles is very different with workers of the Goetheanum or with
anthroposophists.
Public lectures differs from anthroposophic audiences.
Some lectures seem to have a different style when he speaks in different
cities. Furthermore some specific cities seem to call also for specific
themes.
When he speaks to young people his style is strikingly different than to the
old generation. Even the content is different, and at time contradictorily
different: the brain never thinks with old hand anthroposophists, never,
never, not so with young people it thinks, it secretes thinking and it is
time it stops doing it. He asks older generation not to speak about their
own spiritual experiences, to let them mature, to young generation it
advocates that it is something their should overtly discuss between
themselves.
In England he does not tiptoe about spiritual facts and often goes strait to
the point without much theoric justification about the existence of the
spiritual world. He can also talks to English doctors strait about
influences from the periphery as opposed to Cartesian space driven
phenomenon and avoid his favourite pet name of etheric etc.
Post 1924 he has a similar uproar and incomprehension than in 1900s when he
takes up the occultist language. He decides not to speaks of different kinds
of gnomes, sylphs etc and give the shock of their live to the old guard of
theosophists when he gives the modern names of phosphate, nitrates, silica
etc to these beings in the agriculture course.
At times he has fun or more than fun in writing or lecturing on core
Christology without mentioning the name of Christ.
And these different styles not only bringing confusion for systematic
historian, but also for systematic anthroposophists. I remember an English
group of doctors and therapists who spend 5 days on each lecture of a
medical course. They did not include the evening lectures to
anthroposophists which were given during the original week of lectures to
doctors, and to which the historic doctors attended. In these lectures,
Rudolf Steiner spoke the complement of the morning lectures to the doctors,
Yet neither publishers put a foot not, nor these zealous and assiduous
doctors and therapists, all post 1924, put tow and two together! The styles
are different!
Kind Regards,
Franky
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 01:16:18 -0000
From: "eurythmy" (eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
2007-01-15
Dear all,
I hope Peter and Val will allow me to move the maths question to the dance
floor.( Of course I will come back to the 7 notes and 7/7 beat when Dan will
condescend to answer my questions, as it can also be done on the dance
floor.)
Let us say that one reads a score, and the music could be fine but people
argue by which instruments it can be played.
Say that broadly speaking, and only for the sake of the argument, scientific
scores are written for string instruments, and religious and esoteric have
the wind ones, as in the trumpets of apocalypse. The percussions, of which
the piano is one, will be for philosophy. The percussions are always
present, even if not heard when there is a beat.
All can be in tune or in disharmony in a symphonic piece.
But in the case of The Philosophy of Freedom one wonders if that piece of
music could be played by the strings, or by a wind ensemble, There is no
instrument mentioned in the preface to the book, so xylophones could do for
some chapters, harpsichord or harp for others, piano for two hands, does it
nee four hands at time, or at least good pedals and room acoustic. But some
one says as no instrument is mentioned, one could use a wind ensemble. More
discussions, more polemic even.
Is Franky airing some of his private jokes again, or taking ‘too seriously’,
‘more seriously than Peter’ at any rate the remark by Rudolf Steiner that
The Philosophy of Freedom is work of art, and his hint that it has more to
do with music than another one?
We could turn to one other ‘basic book’ Theosophy. There we have some music
exercises on the constituents of Man, then we have a music score. The
problem is that it is not the conductor score, as Rudolf Steiner dislike the
theosophical habit of putting everything in seven he did not want to publish
this piece as a musical finished piece for performances, only for practice
by the different corposants of the chamber orchestra. He also had a main
artistic problem with the theosophist in that they only saw the passage of
time from past to present and could not perceive the harmony created by
using time the other way round as when one uses chiastic forms. To come back
to the cores in Theosophy, all the realm of the soul are for one group of
instruments, all the realms of the spirit for another group etc etc. The
point of the book is not to read one after the other, but have them played
together ass if written for the conductor, one under the other and reading
the different instruments all at once.
When one reads a lecture series such as Study of Man, or the Drama Course it
goes the same way, one reads a chapter then ‘on top of it’ the corresponding
chapter, then we have an added movement that we do not have in the non
artistic, non anthroposophical book of Theosophy, which was only a practice
book, a pedagogical book for non anthroposophist theosophists, we have the
last lecture as well as the 7th last one to read with the first one and its
corresponding one, the one before last as well as the 8th last one to read
with the second etc.
With lectures like ‘The spiritual beings in their relations…’ we have more a
painting book, with water colour pictures with added veil painting
technique, as one lecture covers again and again the ground of a previous
lecture. But to stay with music, one could use Gongs, chimes, metal balls,
metal drums etc to achieve a corresponding musical effect. Some of the dance
would be slow and sculptural/statuesque, costumes would be elaborate, with
headgear, masks etc.
To conclude what are the reading skills required for The Philosophy of
Freedom and other anthroposophic works?
Any one who can only read a score with a music level two will not be able to
read a conductor score. Even if he can read his own instrumental part to
which he is used, that reader will not be able to read/hear notes he is not
used to play. When the tempo is very quick a slow reader can’t get at first
the effect, the style of the piece. For the player/reader who is sight
reading it is at some point necessary to learn the whole piece by heart in
order to be free in performing, or simply hearing it as a conductor does. I
hear ‘twinkle twinkle little stars’ played by Yehudi Menuin in Les Halles in
Paris, just a few simple notes, but the passer by were so struck by the
quality that they stopped in their tract, and listened.
Similarly reading the philosophy may require many skills as well as simple
speed reading. To be able to read quickly without loosing a word. To be able
to read a sentence at a time with as much energy as one reads a chapter,
like Yehudi with a simple melody. To follow the thread forward and backward
etc. Then content and context dance together. To appreciate the phrases,
like in music. A short one, a long one. A change of rhythm, a change of
style, as Val remarks going from ¾ to 4/4 suddenly, or change of key, etc.
Also some literature reading skills, where does he speaks of God, of the
Universal, of nerves, and other scientific facts, is there blood and lungs,
limbs and heads? Where are the plants, the roses, the tulip, other species,
trees, animals, what ages of man are represented, which professions etc.
Does he uses the present, the past tense, others? What are the favourite
propositions, figures of speech etc. It is well known that in literature
often sense only comes when some pattern are broken, or new elements of
language, per se or as sign and structure are coming in.
It is very interesting to see which words Rudolf Steiner changes in the
text, and which words appear in the addition to the text at the end of
chapters, and that would probably be one small step for Peter to understand
how anthroposophical or not it was already in 1894. Or does Peter, or any
one else for that matter, asserts that The Philosophy of Freedom of 1918 is
no more anthroposophic that The Philosophy of Freedom of 1894? That would be
a very interesting assertion in this debate!
Is Rudolf Steiner a chameleon, a contortionist dancer, a split personality
guy or what?
How can a man dare write opera, pieces for gong, for piano with 7 hands, a
piano with 4 hands plus a piano for two-hands-and-a left-hand, and go back
for a piece for piano with two hands? How can he dare put a simple melody on
piano in the midst of an opera for two choirs? Into which category the
historian of music will put that?
Kind Regards,
Franky
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 9:38 PM
Subject: RE: anthroposophy by association 1
Hi Charlie,
)Distinguishing arithmetic from algebra wasn't necessary for the point I
)was making which, as I've already said, compared anthroposophy with
)mathematics.
Yep. That's not specific enough for our purposes. We don't disagree that PoF
is part of philosophy, just as we don't disagree that algebra is part of
mathematics. We disagree about *what part* of philosophy PoF most readily
fits into. To get to the level of specificity necessary to our actual
disagreement, you'll need to compare anthroposophy to a specific branch of
mathematics, not to the whole thing, as that simply avoids the question.
)I'll just say again what I said before. Why do we keep getting asked for
)quotes from P of F
Because that's how public discussion works. You need to provide evidence for
your claims, so that others can assess them. You have made a claim about the
content of PoF. To provide evidence for that claim, you need to point out
passages in the text of PoF that contain that content. That's what content
is.
)You say you are looking at anthroposophy as it is in the real world, yet
)you dismiss the testimony of anthroposophists and followers of Steiner
)when they say that Steiner's earlier philosophical writings are the
)foundation for his later works.
I don't dismiss that testimony, I examine it to see if it constitutes
reliable evidence about the content of PoF. That's the proper approach to
all testimony, not just testimony from anthroposophists. By the way, the
'foundation' part is avoiding the question again. The claim you were
supposedly defending is that PoF itself *already was anthroposophical*, not
that it merely furnished the foundation upon which anthroposophy was later
constructed.
)Why whould they all agree on this if
)there were no substance to it?
Because they're looking at PoF as a source of inspiration and wisdom and
experience and practice, rather than looking at it as a historical document,
and because they're looking at Steiner as a spiritual master and initiate,
rather than looking at him as a historical figure.
)I would say that most find the
)connection because of their own findings through their own practical
)inner work.
Yep. Their own practical inner work is entirely irrelevant to the content of
PoF, which is the subject under discussion.
)Those who say that Steiner's early philosophy is purely
)concerned with the sense world
As far as I know, nobody says this. I keep saying the opposite. Steiner's
early philosophy, like the rest of German Idealism, is concerned with both
the sense world and the mental world, the world of Geist, the world of the
mind or spirit, where percepts and concepts come together. Steiner's early
philosophy is not concerned with the higher worlds and says nothing about
them.
)From "A Theory of Knowledge":
)"To deny to thinking the capacity for perceiving in itself entities
)which are inaccessible to the senses is a degradation of thought. Apart
)from the factor of sensible qualities, there must be within reality a
)factor which is apprehended by thought. Thinking is an organ of man
)ordained to observe something higher than is afforded by the senses."
)
)If this doesn't imply higher worlds I don't know what does.
Of course that doesn't imply higher worlds, Charlie. It is about the mind
and thinking. It is not about supernatural beings and hierarchies of angels
and astral planes and Akashic chronicles and guardians of the threshold.
)Well in my local library Waldorf books are classed under education,
)books on biodynamic farming are classed under agriculture and the P of F
)is classed under philosophy.
Yep. That's because it is philosophy.
)Besides, I can't see where you would find the time for dancing, Peter.
Don't take this the wrong way, but at this level of discussion, replying to
the PoF-is-anthro mantra doesn't require all that much exertion. When I have
to grade papers, for instance, the ones that end up getting low grades make
very quick work, because there is so little to respond to, and the respones
are very simple. Thankfully, I am not the teacher in this instance.
Philosophical greetings,
Peter S.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 03:37:46 +0000
From: Valerie Walsh (isenhart7 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
eurythmy wrote:
) To conclude what are the reading skills required for The Philosophy of
) Freedom and other anthroposophic works?
Peter wrote (to Serena):
If the tune you're dancing to says that there is some reference
to supernatural perception in PoF, or the the higher worlds, or to
anything esoteric whatsoever, all you need to do is show us where in the
text these passages can be found. Then everybody can listen to the tune
for themselves and see whether it's danceable or not.
This might mean, Franky, that everybody has the ability to determine
whether music is inherently danceable or not. I wouldn't agree because
as I already think I mentioned there's certain music that I can't dance
to-wouldn't even attempt to dance to-and yet I know there are other
people who do and do it quite well.-Val
) Any one who can only read a score with a music level two will not be
) able to
) read a conductor score. Even if he can read his own instrumental part to
)
) which he is used, that reader will not be able to read/hear notes he is
) not
) used to play. When the tempo is very quick a slow reader can’t get at
) first
) the effect, the style of the piece. For the player/reader who is sight
) reading it is at some point necessary to learn the whole piece by heart
) in
) order to be free in performing, or simply hearing it as a conductor
) does. I
) hear ‘twinkle twinkle little stars’ played by Yehudi Menuin in Les
) Halles in
) Paris, just a few simple notes, but the passer by were so struck by the
) quality that they stopped in their tract, and listened.
)
) Similarly reading the philosophy may require many skills as well as
) simple
) speed reading. To be able to read quickly without loosing a word. To be
) able
) to read a sentence at a time with as much energy as one reads a chapter,
)
) like Yehudi with a simple melody. To follow the thread forward and
) backward
) etc. Then content and context dance together. To appreciate the phrases,
)
) like in music. A short one, a long one. A change of rhythm, a change of
) style, as Val remarks going from ¾ to 4/4 suddenly, or change of key,
) etc.
)
) Also some literature reading skills, where does he speaks of God, of the
)
) Universal, of nerves, and other scientific facts, is there blood and
) lungs,
) limbs and heads? Where are the plants, the roses, the tulip, other
) species,
) trees, animals, what ages of man are represented, which professions etc.
)
) Does he uses the present, the past tense, others? What are the favourite
)
) propositions, figures of speech etc. It is well known that in literature
)
) often sense only comes when some pattern are broken, or new elements of
) language, per se or as sign and structure are coming in.
)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:44:32 -0800
From: Walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Signature campaign aims to give anthroposophy a political voice at
the EU
Franky forwarded:
)Signature campaign aims to give anthroposophy a political voice at the EU
)LÖRRACH, Germany (NNA) - A campaign to collect a million signatures in
)support of anthroposophy by next July has appealed for more support.
)The Eliant initiative was established last summer and has as its aim to
)give the anthroposophical movement with all its practical fields of
)application a political voice at the EU in Brussels.
)In order to be taken seriously in Brussels, evidence of popular support is
)required. Such support is now to be demonstrated across Europe through this
)campaign.
)The collection of signatures started in November and by the end of December
)over 6,600 signatures had been registered.
)But the one million signatures is only a start. The longer term objective
)was five to seven million signatures, including from non-EU countries, to
)demonstrate the worldwide support for anthroposophical initiatives, Eliant
)co-founder Michaela Glöckler said.
So they only need another 993,000 signatures in the next 6 months and then
only a few more million signatures after that. Think it will happen? Of
course, that would mean people actually looking at and understanding
anthroposophy in the first place, something few people seem able to do.
Unless, of course, we'll be seeing Dotties and Franks on street corners
inviting people to sign petitions supporting the "Wisdom of Man" while
feigning surprise at any questions about racism, etc.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 03:49:28 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: doing the time warp
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
)
)
) Thought I'd give it one more shot at explaining the difference between
) "experiencing" PoF and reading PoF. I think that what the PoF-is-anthro
) faction are doing is looking at PoF through the lens of the present,
) which
) makes it look, to their anthroposophical eyes, like an anthroposophical
) book. But PoF is not a book from the present, it is a book from the
) past,
) and the way to make sense of it as a historical text is to look at it
) historically.
)
) From the evidence of his published works of that decade, Rudolf Steiner
) in
) the 1890s had a remarkably rich and heterogenous intellectual life,
) engaging
) intensively at various points with Goethe and Schiller, Idealism and
) Romanticism, Nietzsche and Nietzscheanism, individualist anarchism via
) Stirner and Mackay, anti-clericalism and atheism and freethought,
) Haeckelian
) Monism, and a number of other philosophical and cultural currents of the
)
) time. It was not until the turn of the century that he turned to
) esotericism, first in the form of theosophy, then in the form of
) anthroposophy. To project his mature theosophical/anthroposophical phase
)
) back onto his very different pursuits and commitments in the 1890s is to
)
) look at history in reverse and thus to lose its historical specificity.
)
) This is why it is a serious mistake to simply assume, as Frank and
) others
) do, that authors who change their minds thereby also change the content
) of
) their own earlier works. I'm guessing that this basic principle, which
) is
) obvious to historians and lots of other people but seems virtually
) incomprehensible to Frank and Franky and Charlie and Charlie and Serena
) and
) Val and Dottie et alia, is hard for anthroposophists and their
) sympathizers
) to get their heads around because it means stepping outside of one's own
)
) mental present for a moment. To try to make it clearer, let's go back to
) the
) Chomsky example that I tried to talk about with Frank.
)
) Chomsky writes a lot about linguistics and he writes a lot about
) politics.
) His books in these two categories are very different from one another.
) He is
) generally reticent about drawing direct and substantial connections
) between
) the two. So far so good.
)
) Unlike Steiner, Chomsky is still alive. Let’s say he changes his mind
) tomorrow about the lack of connection between the two chief areas of his
)
) work, and spends the rest of his life insisting that, in fact, the
) linguistic writings and the political writings are really deeply
) intertwined
) and always have been and that everyone must understand them as part of
) one
) great comprehensive whole.
)
) A major question then arises for the PoF-is-anthro faction: Do you
) genuinely
) think that this would somehow alter the content of Chomsky's previously
) published works? That their meaning had changed because the author had
) changed his mind? Do you think that people who had already read his
) previously published works would suddenly change their minds, too? Would
) you
) therefore decide that the later Chomsky was actually right about the
) earlier
) Chomsky’s works, merely because he said so?
)
) It is possible, I suppose, that some anthroposophists actually answer
) 'yes'
) to these questions. To those who don't, I encourage you to re-evaluate
) your
) position on PoF and try to look at the book as a historical text in its
) own
) right, not as an opportunity for anthroposophical experience and
) practice in
) the present.
)
)
) Timeless greetings to all,
)
)
) Peter S.
Did Steiner change his mind about what he wrote in PoF.
Am I missing the point?
It's late.
c
)
) _________________________________________________________________
) Dave vs. Carl: The Insignificant Championship Series. Who will win?
) http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://davevscarl.spaces.live.com/?icid=T001MSN38C07001
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 04:31:23 +0000
From: Valerie Walsh (isenhart7 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
I wrote:
This in no way constitutes a statement of low
opinion of a person.
Peter replied:
Indeed. I didn't say that Serena's one lonely post last week stated a
low opinion of me. What I said is that Serena has expressed a low
opinion of me and of other critics of anthroposophy before, and that
this is what has heretofore kept her from discussing things
anthroposophical with me.
Val writes now:
Guten Abend again. I haven't seen a post from you substantiating your
statement above so I went back through your posts on this subject.
You said on 1-12-07 to Serena:
I'm not sure why you don't find that sort of thing fun. I do. Along with
a number of your fellow anthroposophists, you have a very low opinion of
people like me. This doesn't make it somehow less fun for me to discuss
with folks like you in public, in fact in many ways it makes it more
fun. Why is this not the case for you, I wonder?
Now you say:
What I said is that Serena has expressed a low opinion of
me and of other critics of anthroposophy before, and that this is what
has heretofore kept her from discussing things anthroposophical with me.
Val:
What you actually said was that Serena has a very low opinion of people
like you. And you asked her why she doesn't consider discussion fun.
You also wrote in a post to me that:
You are mistaken about that, but if the topic is of interest to you, you
could take a look at the archives of this list and the anthroposophy
tomorrow list, among others.
and:
I'm not sure if you mean "why did you reach this conclusion" or if you
mean "why do you think you're not very appealing to anthroposophists";
if you mean the former, I again recommend a look at the list archives;
if you mean the latter, I think the biggest reason is probably that a
lot of anthroposophists think I'm arrogant, but I don't really know, and
it isn't a matter of particular interest for me.
Now you say:
What I said is that Serena has expressed a low opinion of
me and of other critics of anthroposophy before, and that this is what
has heretofore kept her from discussing things anthroposophical with me.
Val:
Yet these quotes don't even mention Serena.
You also wrote:
I am not sure if this genuinely wasn't clear before, but I definitely do
not want praise from anthroposophists. That would be a bad thing, in my
view, not a good thing. If anything, I suppose I get a little swell of
pride when people like Serena (or Mike, or whoever) declare their
distaste for me and what I do. But to be honest, I'm not sure it
registers most of the time. The only reason it can sometimes be
important is when it prevents anthroposophists from engaging in public
discussion with critics of anthroposophy.
and:
No, I meant critics of anthroposophy (which is why I wrote "critics of
anthroposophy" in my post to Serena). Serena does not seem troubled by
historians or reluctant to engage them in public discussion, as far as
can be determined from the various things she has written about me and
other critics of anthroposophy. She really doesn't like us, by the way,
in case you're still in some sort of doubt about that. You have read at
least some of her posts on anthroposophy tomorrow, right?
Now you say:
What I said is that Serena has expressed a low opinion of
me and of other critics of anthroposophy before, and that this is what
has heretofore kept her from discussing things anthroposophical with me.
Val:
So I'm not seeing it-the statement that Serena has expressed a low
opinion of you or any of the rest of it. I think it would be fair to say
that you inferred these things in your earlier posts but it is not true
that you said them as far as the actual text is concerned. Do you think
that I as a reader should give you the writer the benefit of the doubt
that this is indeed what you meant and that therefore your more current
statement is consistent with your past writing on the subject?-Val
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 05:20:47 +0000
From: Valerie Walsh (isenhart7 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
...why not take a couple minutes for a cursory look at the context of
the issue you chose to comment on?
) )The context being the non-existant exchange between
) )you and Serena? How would you suggest that I go about looking at that?
) By looking at the archives of this list and of the anthroposophy
) tomorrow
) list, as I have suggested several times now. That is where you can find
) lots
) of things that Serena has written about me. That's how we know she has a
) low
) opinion of me.
Dear Peter,
First of all if the context is a non-existant exchange between you and
Serena then it can not be located. I may, in fact, be able to locate
many things that Serena has said about you but just as her comments
about lousy dancing they may not constitute a statement of low opinion
of you. They may be critical of, as you have said, what you write about
anthroposophy and again that's not the same thing as having a low
opinion of you.
I might also fing some kind of statement of Serena's where she actually
says that she has a very low opinion of you. Let's say that I found a
statement like that from two years ago. Then would "we" know that Serena
holds a low opinion of you? Or is it possible that her opinion could
change over time?
)(You thought maybe it was my clairvoyant powers that told me
) this?) You could also check out the Defending Steiner site, for
) )example, or the Americans for Waldorf Education site. She's not
) )exactly hard to track down.
No, I didn't think it was your clairvoyant powers that told you this but
it is a question what does tell you this? You've not engaged in a
discussion with this individual directly so are you inferring from what
she writes about you that she doesn't like you and that she holds a low
opinion of you? So that'd be your powers of inferrence at work? I did
check out these sites and went through their menus and I didn't find
Serena but since I've never had any interest in tracking down people I'm
probably not very skillful in finding them.-Val
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 00:35:20 EST
From: SerenaBlaue aol.com
Subject: Re: the appeal of anthroposophy
In a message dated 1/15/2007 11:31:52 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
isenhart7 yahoo.com writes:
I wrote:
This in no way constitutes a statement of low
opinion of a person.
Peter replied:
Indeed. I didn't say that Serena's one lonely post last week stated a
low opinion of me. What I said is that Serena has expressed a low
opinion of me and of other critics of anthroposophy before, and that
this is what has heretofore kept her from discussing things
anthroposophical with me.
Val writes now:
Guten Abend again. I haven't seen a post from you substantiating your
statement above so I went back through your posts on this subject.
You said on 1-12-07 to Serena:
I'm not sure why you don't find that sort of thing fun. I do. Along with
a number of your fellow anthroposophists, you have a very low opinion of
people like me. This doesn't make it somehow less fun for me to discuss
with folks like you in public, in fact in many ways it makes it more
fun. Why is this not the case for you, I wonder?
Now you say:
What I said is that Serena has expressed a low opinion of
me and of other critics of anthroposophy before, and that this is what
has heretofore kept her from discussing things anthroposophical with me.
Val:
What you actually said was that Serena has a very low opinion of people
like you. And you asked her why she doesn't consider discussion fun.
You also wrote in a post to me that:
You are mistaken about that, but if the topic is of interest to you, you
could take a look at the archives of this list and the anthroposophy
tomorrow list, among others.
and:
I'm not sure if you mean "why did you reach this conclusion" or if you
mean "why do you think you're not very appealing to anthroposophists";
if you mean the former, I again recommend a look at the list archives;
if you mean the latter, I think the biggest reason is probably that a
lot of anthroposophists think I'm arrogant, but I don't really know, and
it isn't a matter of particular interest for me.
Now you say:
What I said is that Serena has expressed a low opinion of
me and of other critics of anthroposophy before, and that this is what
has heretofore kept her from discussing things anthroposophical with me.
Val:
Yet these quotes don't even mention Serena.
You also wrote:
I am not sure if this genuinely wasn't clear before, but I definitely do
not want praise from anthroposophists. That would be a bad thing, in my
view, not a good thing. If anything, I suppose I get a little swell of
pride when people like Serena (or Mike, or whoever) declare their
distaste for me and what I do. But to be honest, I'm not sure it
registers most of the time. The only reason it can sometimes be
important is when it prevents anthroposophists from engaging in public
discussion with critics of anthroposophy.
and:
No, I meant critics of anthroposophy (which is why I wrote "critics of
anthroposophy" in my post to Serena). Serena does not seem troubled by
historians or reluctant to engage them in public discussion, as far as
can be determined from the various things she has written about me and
other critics of anthroposophy. She really doesn't like us, by the way,
in case you're still in some sort of doubt about that. You have read at
least some of her posts on anthroposophy tomorrow, right?
Now you say:
What I said is that Serena has expressed a low opinion of
me and of other critics of anthroposophy before, and that this is what
has heretofore kept her from discussing things anthroposophical with me.
Val:
So I'm not seeing it-the statement that Serena has expressed a low
opinion of you or any of the rest of it. I think it would be fair to say
that you inferred these things in your earlier posts but it is not true
that you said them as far as the actual text is concerned. Do you think
that I as a reader should give you the writer the benefit of the doubt
that this is indeed what you meant and that therefore your more current
statement is consistent with your past writing on the subject?-Val
Val,
Points well taken!
It is troubling that PS does not give any evidence of his claim that I
have a "low opinion" of him. He might ask himself why he finds it
helpful to make this a matter of personal likes or dislikes. I thought
those aspiring to be historians were somewhat more dispassionate
and objective, but perhaps I am mistaken and personal vendettas
-- in these days of a dearth of critical thinking and low standards --
are now accepted as scholarship.
Serena
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 05:45:07 +0000
From: Valerie Walsh (isenhart7 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
Valerie Walsh wrote:
) But, I was
) thinking that Serena was speaking from experience and it sounds like you
) are saying that she was not.
Peter replied:
) ) Not to put too fine a point on it, but why exactly did you think this?
) ) Did
) ) you think that Serena's conspiracist fantasies about 911, for example,
) ) were
) ) also "speaking from experience"?
I responded:
) Why would I think otherwise? I should have thought-oh this just doesn't
) square with what I have seen here regarding Peter? He is an excellent
) dancer by my own observations and by all accounts so Serena obviously
) doesn't know what she is talking about? The fact is, besides maybe some
) wishful thinking on my part, that this wasn't obvious to me at all. If
) you were really an excellent dancer then I figure we wouldn't be here
) talking about dancing. I know nothing about Serena's views on 911.
Peter the says:
) I began this thread with a reflection on critical reading skills.
) Assuming,
) as you did, that posts like Serena's are speaking from experience (you
) think
) maybe she was in on the Great September Eleventh Conspiracy personally?)
) is
) credulous reading, not critical reading.
I have to ask why you would ask me if I thought she was in on 911
personally when I already replied to your question about 911? Was there
something lacking for you here with regard to your reading
comprehension? Or is this an example of what you consider critical
writing?-Val
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 06:18:13 +0000
From: Valerie Walsh (isenhart7 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
I wrote:
) )I guess I miss the point of discussing right and
) )wrong things or aspects when the entire belief system is considered
) )incorrect in the first palce.
)
Peter responded:
) So there's no point in discussing Nazism, in your view?
I have no interest in discussing good and bad aspects of Nazism, no.
Val:
) )So maybe exoterically anthroposophy is what you say it is, Peter and
) )there is also an esoteric side that Charlie and Jean-Marc have
) )experienced.
)
Peter:
) Yes indeed. If their experience magically transformed PoF into an
) anthroposophical work, then their claims would be a lot more sensible.
So an esoteric side versus an exoteric side translates to magically
transformed to you? An individual's experience of the book could
transform the book somehow? Esoteric is synonymous with magic? Sounds
like magical thinking on your part to me. If individuals experience PoF
as an anthroposophical text then their claims can not be negated merely
because they don't make sense to you. You can say that they don't make
sense to you, you can say that you think they are mistaken, you can say
that their experience is not sufficient evidence for you to accept PoF
as an anthroposophical text. But what you can not say is that the PoF as
an anthroposophical text does not exist.
)
Val:
) )And yes I
) )do generally assume that people know what they are talking about.
)
Peter:
) So much for critical reading...
Yes, indeed, I think you dispatched with it nicely.-Val
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:06:20 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: [NNA] Signature campaign aims to give anthroposophy a
political voice at the EU
)The Eliant initiative was established last
)summer and has as its aim to give the
)anthroposophical movement with all its practical
)fields of application a political voice at the
)EU in Brussels.
Anthroposophy always was a political cult. But
there's no problem with it being registered
non-governmental organization (NGO) with the EU,
if that's what they're talking about. Does
anybody know?
)In order to be taken seriously in Brussels,
)evidence of popular support is required. Such
)support is now to be demonstrated across Europe
)through this campaign.
Perhaps there might be evidence of popular dissatisfaction, too.
)The collection of signatures started in November
)and by the end of December over 6,600 signatures
)had been registered.
)
)But the one million signatures is only a start.
)The longer term objective was five to seven
)million signatures, including from non-EU
)countries, to demonstrate the worldwide support
)for anthroposophical initiatives, Eliant
)co-founder Michaela Glöckler said.
)
)According to Eliant, EU legislation caused ever
)growing problems for anthroposophical products
)and services. Children's food required the
)artificial addition of vitamins, medicines were
)no longer allowed to be sold and biodynamic
)preparations had fallen victim to the fight
)against mad cow disease (BSE). EU regulations
)were increasingly preventing the development of
)anthroposophical initiatives to the extent of
)threatening their very existence.
So there's the problem. Anthroposophists have
collided with consumer protection legislation.
They want to influence future legislation so they
can continue their practices unencumbered by
concerns for public health and safety. Perhaps an
exempton; since they're spiritual, they couldn't
possibly do any harm (sarcasm).
)A charter for the Eliant initiative was adopted
)by representatives from a number of European
)anthroposophical organisations in Brussels last
)June which has already been translated into
)various languages. In this context a conscious
)decision had been taken to highlight the
)anthroposophical identity of Eliant.
Do they mean to identify themselves as Anthroposophists? If so, that's good.
)The time had come for initiatives working on the
)basis of anthroposophy to declare themselves
)openly and to work towards common goals in
)Europe with other civil society networks and
)organisations, the Eliant founders said.
)
)END/nna/ung/cva
)
)Link: www.eliant.eu
No relevant information in English.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 02:25:08 EST
From: SerenaBlaue aol.com
Subject: Re: [NNA] Signature campaign aims to give anthroposophy a political voice at th
In a message dated 1/16/2007 2:07:08 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
dan dandugan.com writes:
So there's the problem. Anthroposophists have
collided with consumer protection legislation.
They want to influence future legislation so they
can continue their practices unencumbered by
concerns for public health and safety. Perhaps an
exempton; since they're spiritual, they couldn't
possibly do any harm (sarcasm).
-----------
Yes, and our first step in this nefarious strategy
is to infiltrate the funny pages. O the vile and low
wickedness of it all.
http://www.gocomics.com/cathy/2007/01/14/
Serena Blaue
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 04:11:23 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
Hi Franky,
)I'm afraid that's not sufficient for public discussion, not least because
)you haven't told us anything about what work/practice you did to reach the
)conclusion that PoF is a non esoteric work
I just told you that in the post you are replying to. This allows everybody
else to repeat the same work/practice themselves (namely, reading the text)
and see what result they achieve, rather than simply taking somebody else's
personal results for granted, as you and Serena are asking us to do.
)I suggest you dance with the book
I'm afraid that won't work, for you or for anybody else. To understand the
book, you really do need to read it, not dance with it, not practice it, not
experience it, not adapt it for a string quartet.
)For me I can 'read' some music, but I cannot sight read and I need a
)musician to hear it.
I take it you mean that it needs to be performed in order for you to hear
it, though I'm not sure why your analogy doesn't include simply playing it
yourself, which is what I recommend if you've got a piano around, or
whatever instrument you can play. In any case, philosophical books are not
musical scores, and you don't need to perform them, you need to read them.
)And if Peter question is not about content but about style?
That's a fine question, albeit not the one we were discussing. Here is how
Christoph Lindenberg's biography of Steiner addresses the striking shift in
Steiner's style after his turn to esotericism: reviewing Steiner's first
articles for the theosohical journal Luzifer in 1903, Lindenberg observes
that these texts "must surprise every linguistically sensitive person.
Suddenly Rudolf Steiner speaks a completely different language." After
quoting a sample, Lindenberg continues: "Here no argument is offered, here
suddenly is description, atmospheric and vivid. The new aura that wafts
through these words strikes us as utterly different from what we had
previously heard from Steiner." (Christoph Lindenberg, Rudolf Steiner: Eine
Biographie, pp. 358-9)
You and Charlie and the rest of the PoF-is-anthro faction are completely
ignoring these factors.
)To conclude what are the reading skills required for The Philosophy of
)Freedom and other anthroposophic works?
The same ones required for reading any historical text, the ones
non-esotericists use every day.
)Is Rudolf Steiner a chameleon, a contortionist dancer, a split personality
)guy or what?
A historical figure. A writer who wrote a lot and changed his mind from time
to time. I think your efforts to puzzle through PoF would be much more
succesful if you could acknowledge that simple matter. Greetings,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Get live scores and news about your team: Add the Live.com Football Page
www.live.com/?addtemplate=football&icid=T001MSN30A0701
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 04:19:14 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Signature campaign aims to give anthroposophy a political voice at the EU
Walden wrote:
)Of course, that would mean people actually looking at and understanding
)anthroposophy in the first place, something few people seem able to do.
)Unless, of course, we'll be seeing Dotties and Franks on street corners
)inviting people to sign petitions supporting the "Wisdom of Man" while
)feigning surprise at any questions about racism, etc.
Let's just hope they're dancing to the tune of PoF while they do so.
Musical greetings,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Type your favorite song. Get a customized station. Try MSN Radio powered
by Pandora. http://radio.msn.com/?icid=T002MSN03A07001
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 04:13:09 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
Hi Val,
)What you actually said was that Serena has a very low opinion of people
)like you.
Yep. You can assess this claim by reading the various things that Serena has
written about me and about other critics of anthroposophy. I gave you lots
of specific suggestions a couple days ago.
)Yet these quotes don't even mention Serena.
I don't know what that part means. Serena's posts to this list before she
thinks she was permanently expelled from it do indeed mention me, if that is
what you were trying to say.
)So I'm not seeing it-the statement that Serena has expressed a low
)opinion of you or any of the rest of it. I think it would be fair to say
)that you inferred these things in your earlier posts but it is not true
)that you said them as far as the actual text is concerned. Do you think
)that I as a reader should give you the writer the benefit of the doubt
)that this is indeed what you meant and that therefore your more current
)statement is consistent with your past writing on the subject?-Val
Beats me. Aside from the fact that you have evidently mixed up 'infer' and
'imply', I have very little idea what you are asking. The reason I think
that Serena has a low opinion of me and of other critics of anthroposophy is
that I have read what she has written about me and other critics of
anthroposophy. It is certainly possible that you would read those things in
a different way, if you get around to reading them at all.
)I may, in fact, be able to locate
)many things that Serena has said about you but just as her comments
)about lousy dancing they may not constitute a statement of low opinion
)of you.
Yep. Now you're catching on.
)They may be critical of, as you have said, what you write about
)anthroposophy and again that's not the same thing as having a low
)opinion of you.
Indeed. All you need to do to form your own opinion on the matter is read
them.
)I might also fing some kind of statement of Serena's where she actually
)says that she has a very low opinion of you. Let's say that I found a
)statement like that from two years ago. Then would "we" know that Serena
)holds a low opinion of you? Or is it possible that her opinion could
)change over time?
Sure. The way we would "know" that is if she has written other things about
me since then that express a different opinion about me and what I do.
) )(You thought maybe it was my clairvoyant powers that told me
) ) this?) You could also check out the Defending Steiner site, for
) ) )example, or the Americans for Waldorf Education site. She's not
) ) )exactly hard to track down.
)
)No, I didn't think it was your clairvoyant powers that told you this but
)it is a question what does tell you this?
Readng what she has written about me.
)You've not engaged in a
)discussion with this individual directly so are you inferring from what
)she writes about you that she doesn't like you and that she holds a low
)opinion of you? So that'd be your powers of inferrence at work?
That's not necessarily a bad way of putting it, but it isn't exactly what I
was saying. I don't think her statements about me were implicit, and thus
called for inference, I think they were largely explicit, but yes, it is on
the basis of those statements that I concluded that she holds a low opinion
of me and of other critics of anthroposophy. We can all read those
statements again to see whether that conclusion is tenable. Serena, for
example, now seems to think that it isn't.
)I have to ask why you would ask me if I thought she was in on 911
)personally when I already replied to your question about 911? Was there
)something lacking for you here with regard to your reading
)comprehension?
Possibly. I asked you if you thought that Serena's conspiracist fantasies
about 9/11 were an example of her speaking from experience, and you answered
"Why would I think otherwise?" I thought that meant that yes, you do
consider it possible that her conspiracist fantasies about 9/11 are indeed
based on her personal experience.
)If individuals experience PoF
)as an anthroposophical text then their claims can not be negated merely
)because they don't make sense to you.
They can't be negated in any case. That's why they aren't arguments.
)You can say that they don't make
)sense to you, you can say that you think they are mistaken, you can say
)that their experience is not sufficient evidence for you to accept PoF
)as an anthroposophical text.
That is what I have been saying.
)But what you can not say is that the PoF as
)an anthroposophical text does not exist.
That it does not exist outside of their personal experience? That is, as it
happens, what I am saying.
Greetings,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Dave vs. Carl: The Insignificant Championship Series. Who will win?
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://davevscarl.spaces.live.com/?icid=T001MSN38C07001
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:12:12 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Human rights education put on timetable of Austrian Waldorf
school
Franky, you posted an NNA press release:
)INNSBRUCK (NNA) - The subject of human rights has been made a
)regular part of the timetable at the Innsbruck Waldorf school in
)Austria following a four-year pilot project and is included as a
)subject in pupils' school reports.
Wow! A Waldorf school has actually added a new course that wasn't
suggested by Rudolf Steiner! That's certainly headline news for the
most conservative school system in the world.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:08:29 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Warm Greetings
Komso Monast, you wrote:
)I am a new member on the Waldorf Critics list. Nice to be here. :)
Welcome!
)I have made some reading of the works of Rudolf Steiner and the Steiner
)community, and notice there are several "camps" regarding his work. It
)is most interesting.
)
)As a mystic and spiritual ray (like we as humans all are), I would like
)to render my services to the group. If I can be of help I will be most
)glad. :)
Thank you. Do you have any experience with Waldorf education? Do you
have a particular area of expertise?
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:22:25 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: anthroposophy by association 1
)(CM):) )I made an analogy between anthroposophy and mathematics.
)) )
)) )"Esotericism is related to anthroposophy in a similar way that algebra
) ) )is related to mathematics."
'scuse me for chiming in, but it appears to me that you've got that
backwards. From the outside, Anthropsophy is an occultist (esoteric)
sect. Just one of many.
You seem to be claiming that Anthroposophy is superior to occultism,
that occultism is contained within it. Steiner did speak
megalomaniacally about Anthroposophy as being superior to all
religions and sects, which only contain parts of the whole truth that
Anthroposophy presents.
But perhaps we're a cross-purposes because I'm speaking of
Anthroposophy as a social phenomenon, and you of it as a way of life.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 04:18:57 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: grammatical interlude
Hi everybody,
this post is about a sentence in one of Rudolf Steiner's early antisemitic
articles, published in the pan-German newspaper that Steiner edited in 1888.
As I mentioned last week, a few years ago on the Anthroposophy Tomorrow
email list a German Waldorf PR spokesperson, Detlef Hardorp, declared that I
had mistranslated this sentence. I'll give details below in case anybody who
wasn't following it at the time is interested.
I'd like to make clear that on this question I do not have a beef with Frank
particularly; in the Anthroposophy Tomorrow discussion he was virtually the
only person who bothered to think the matter through (in stark contrast to
Detlef or to Daniel Hindes, for example), even though he came to an
erroneous conclusion.
The disagreement hinged on an interesting phrase in German, "nichts weniger
als". To some people -- including at least one native speaker of German,
namely Detlef Hardorp -- this phrase looks like it ought to mean "nothing
less than". In fact in standard usage it means the opposite: it means
"anything but".
There are evidently a number of people who have had trouble grasping this
phrase in German, and since the Anthroposophy Tomorrow exchange I have come
across a number of helpful references for the benefit of those who still
think the phrase, and Steiner's sentence, means the opposite of what it
means. One of them is available online, a grammar lesson for folks learning
German:
http://german4u2know.tripod.com/nouns/07.html
A more thorough one is the handy book in the German series Duden, the
standard dictionary series in Germany; this particular book is about tricky
grammatical constructions. I thought it might make a useful source because
it's been around long enough that Detlef (and even Frank) might recognize
it, rather than some new-fangled work about how German is changing today and
so forth. The book is Duden: Zweifelsfälle der deutschen Sprache (Mannheim:
Bibliographisches Institut, 1972), by Dieter Berger et al. On p. 483 there
is a very helpful entry on the phrase "nichts weniger als". Here we read
that "nichts weniger als" is properly used to amplify a negation, to mean
"anything but". The example they give reads as follows: "Er ist nichts
weniger als höflich bedeutet also soviel wie Er ist alles andere, nur nicht
höflich."
The whole entry is worth reading, for those who can do so; it discusses why
and how the phrase can be misconstrued in precisely the way that Detlef et
al. misconstrued it, and it even recommends avoiding the phrase in
situations where it might be ambiguous (since the words “nichts weniger” can
in other contexts indeed mean “nothing less,” for example in the
construction “nichts mehr und nichts weniger”).
But to really get at how Steiner used the phrase -- which is after all
potentially ambiguous -- we need to look not only at dictionaries and
grammar lessons but at other occurences of the phrase in Steiner's own
works. And wouldn't you know it, there's an example of the very same phrase
right there in The Philosophy of Freedom, that famously anthroposophical
work.
In chapter 1 of PoF, Steiner quotes Eduard von Hartmann; the quote reads as
follows in the German edition:
"Wenn aber auch wir selbst die Vorstellungen erst zu Motiven erheben, so tun
wir dies doch nicht willkürlich, sondern nach der Notwendigkeit unserer
charakterologischen Veranlagung, also nichts weniger als frei."
In the English edition that sentence reads as follows:
"Even though we ourselves first adopt a mental picture as a motive, we do so
not arbitrarily, but according to the necessity of our characterological
disposition, that is, we are anything but free."
(Those last three words are italicized in the online version of PoF at the
Rudolf Steiner archive elib site.)
Thus right there in PoF, the phrase "nichts weniger als frei" means
"anything but free".
As it happens, there are quite a few other instances of the phrase "nichts
weniger als" in Steiner's collected works. There they also mean "anything
but". Significantly, several of them are part of Steiner's quotations from
other authors, which is important in giving us a sense of how he saw the
phrase being used in diverse contexts by authors besides himself. Examples
include the following:
A quote from Dühring in Die Rätsel der Philosophie p. 497; a quote from
Brentano in Von Seelenrätseln p. 166; a quote from Spengler in Der
Goetheanumgedanke inmitten der Kulturkrisis der Gegenwart p. 94; a quote
from Snyder in Das Ewige in der Menschenseele p. 372.
Several of these books are available in English; if others have them handy,
feel free to tell us how the quotes are rendered there. Then there's Steiner
himself, in his very own words, using "nichts weniger als" to mean "anything
but"; examples include:
Aufsätze über die Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus p. 472 (Frank, you
must have that one at least); Die Tempellegende und die Goldene Legende p.
369; Das esoterische Christentum und die geistige Führung der Menschheit p.
195; Esoterische Betrachtungen karmischer Zusammenhänge vol. 2 p. 175. There
are lots of others.
For those interested, my summary of the Anthroposophy Tomorrow exchange can
be found here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/4909
The disputed sentence from Steiner's 1888 article reads as follows:
“Es ist gewiß nicht zu leugnen, daß heute das Judentum noch immer als
geschlossenes Ganzes auftritt und als solches in die Entwickelung unserer
gegenwärtigen Zustände vielfach eingegriffen hat, und das in einer Weise,
die den abendländischen Kulturideen nichts weniger als günstig war.”
(Rudolf Steiner, Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Literatur, p. 152)
Here is how I translate the sentence:
“It certainly cannot be denied that Jewry today still behaves as a closed
totality, and that it has frequently intervened in the development of our
current state of affairs in a way that is anything but favorable to European
ideas of culture.”
Greetings to all,
Peter Staudenmaier
_________________________________________________________________
Dave vs. Carl: The Insignificant Championship Series. Who will win?
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://davevscarl.spaces.live.com/?icid=T001MSN38C07001
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 2423
-- Topica Digest --
Re: the appeal of anthroposophy
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: doing the time warp
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
By Diana.Winters verizon.net
Re: the appeal of anthroposophy
By SerenaBlaue aol.com
Re: the appeal of anthroposophy
By SerenaBlaue aol.com
RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
By Diana.Winters verizon.net
RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
By isenhart7 yahoo.com
RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
By Diana.Winters verizon.net
Re: the appeal of anthroposophy
By SerenaBlaue aol.com
Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
By eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk
Re: Human rights education put on timetable of Austrian Waldorf school
By eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk
Re: the appeal of anthroposophy
By eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk
RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
By isenhart7 yahoo.com
RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
By isenhart7 yahoo.com
RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
By dan dandugan.com
RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
By isenhart7 yahoo.com
RE: Staudenmaier hates slackers
By dan dandugan.com
RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: anthroposophy by association 1
By charlie morrison5.fsnet.co.uk
Staudenmaier versus Standards, Objectivity, and Serious Regards
By eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk
Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
By eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk
Ex Communicata, Ex Topica, was Ad Hominem or Ad Nauseam
By eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk
Re: PLANS and INTEGRITY
By eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk
Admin: OT warning (Valerie Walsh) [RE: the appeal of
anthroposophy]
By dan dandugan.com
RE: Admin: OT warning (Valerie Walsh) [RE: the appeal of anthroposophy]
By isenhart7 yahoo.com
Re: the appeal of anthroposophy
By SerenaBlaue aol.com
Re: the appeal of anthroposophy
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: Truth or not?
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: anthroposophy by association 1
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Staudenmaier versus Standards, Objectivity, and Serious Regards
By pstaud hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 04:16:01 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: the appeal of anthroposophy
Hi Serena,
)It is troubling that PS does not give any evidence of his claim that I
)have a "low opinion" of him.
It isn't true that I do not give evidence of this, but in any case, why is
this troubling to you? You are the world's leading expert on the topic, and
you can simply say whether or not the claim is accurate.
)He might ask himself why he finds it
)helpful to make this a matter of personal likes or dislikes.
It isn't personal, as far as I can tell. We've never met, have we?
)I thought
)those aspiring to be historians were somewhat more dispassionate
I am dispassionate about your opinion of me. I think the gentle way to put
it is that I don't much care what you think of me. The way it can become a
problem is if it hinders you from engaging in direct public discussion with
me. Other than that, I am indifferent to the matter.
)and objective, but perhaps I am mistaken
Yes, you are mistaken about the 'objective' part, but lots of
anthroposophists are.
)and personal vendettas
)-- in these days of a dearth of critical thinking and low standards --
)are now accepted as scholarship.
Lots of contemporary scholarship could probably be described as personal
vendettas, I suppose. But I don't have a vendetta toward you, and I don't
think you have a vendetta toward me. I do think you are reluctant to engage
in public discussion with me about anthroposophy, and I would be very glad
to find out that I am wrong about that.
Greetings,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Communicate instantly! Use your Hotmail address to sign into Windows Live
Messenger now. http://get.live.com/messenger/overview
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 04:14:02 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: doing the time warp
Hi Charlie,
)Did Steiner change his mind about what he wrote in PoF.
)Am I missing the point?
)It's late.
Yes, I think you may have been missing the point, though given the volume of
this exchange that's entirely understandable. What the other Charlie and I
have been arguing about, along with lots of other listmates, is whether
Steiner changed his mind in an important way when he went from philosopher
to occultist around the turn of the century, and what this might tell us
about his earlier philosophical works such as PoF. My position is that yes,
he did change his mind when he turned to theosophy, and that he then changed
his estimation of his own previous works, most notably PoF, which is why the
1918 preface to the book says what it does. The PoF-is-anthroposophical
faction, in contrast, variously insist that Steiner was already an
esotericist in 1894 and that PoF was already an anthroposophical work when
it was written and that it has lots of anthroposophical content and is
actually all about the higher worlds and so forth.
Late greetings,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Your Hotmail address already works to sign into Windows Live Messenger! Get
it now
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://get.live.com/messenger/overview
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:25:00 +0000
From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: the appeal of anthroposophy
Valerie Walsh wrote:
)I might also fing some kind of statement of Serena's where she )actually
)says that she has a very low opinion of you. Let's say that )I found a
)statement like that from two years ago. Then would "we" )know that
)Serena holds a low opinion of you?
Those of us who can read would then know this, yes. Blah, blah. Val, I
think your intention to be disruptive here is obvious and I think Dan
should boot you.
)Or is it possible that her opinion could change over time?
If her opinion has changed, maybe she could consider updating her own
web site.
)You've not engaged in a discussion with this individual directly so )are
)you inferring from what she writes about you that she doesn't )like you
)and that she holds a low opinion of you? So that'd be your )powers of
)inferrence at work?
No, that would be his powers of READING.
)I did check out these sites and went through their menus and I )didn't
)find Serena but since I've never had any interest in tracking )down
)people I'm probably not very skillful in finding them.-Val
I guess that must be it. I'll help you out. Here's the site:
http://www.americans4waldorf.org/AboutAWE.html
Serena is one of the founders of the site, as this page should clarify
for you if you can bring yourself to scroll all the way up and down it.
And here's its page on Peter S.
http://www.americans4waldorf.org/MrStaudenmaier.html
Hopefully this clarifies for you not only what Serena thinks of Peter
S., but also how some people go about figuring things like this out.
When someone puts up a web site, and puts an article on that site
describing her opinion of someone, hey presto, she has made it very easy
for us to determine what she thinks of that someone.
And yes, we will know she has changed her opinion when or if she updates
her site, or removes her name from it, or states there or elsewhere that
she has changed her opinion. Same way we know that Steiner changed his
opinions over the course of time.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 09:30:27 EST
From: SerenaBlaue aol.com
Subject: Re: the appeal of anthroposophy
In a message dated 1/16/2007 7:01:34 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
pstaud hotmail.com writes:
Hi Serena,
)It is troubling that PS does not give any evidence of his claim that I
)have a "low opinion" of him.
It isn't true that I do not give evidence of this, but in any case, why is
this troubling to you? You are the world's leading expert on the topic, and
you can simply say whether or not the claim is accurate.
)He might ask himself why he finds it
)helpful to make this a matter of personal likes or dislikes.
It isn't personal, as far as I can tell. We've never met, have we?
)I thought
)those aspiring to be historians were somewhat more dispassionate
I am dispassionate about your opinion of me. I think the gentle way to put
it is that I don't much care what you think of me. The way it can become a
problem is if it hinders you from engaging in direct public discussion with
me. Other than that, I am indifferent to the matter.
)and objective, but perhaps I am mistaken
Yes, you are mistaken about the 'objective' part, but lots of
anthroposophists are.
)and personal vendettas
)-- in these days of a dearth of critical thinking and low standards --
)are now accepted as scholarship.
Lots of contemp