Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Social Ecology Part One
- Hi again Christine, you wrote:
> Thank you for the compliment Mike,that
> However, I think it is important to be able to take a work on the basis
> the author intended. Since the article is a political and economicpolemic, I
> just wanted to approach it on its own terms as I understand them at alayman's
> level. The only time the "social" per se came in was when he specificallyIt's cool that you can be so patient and objective - I think that's great! I
on the other hand like to go for the throat, shoot from the hip (something
I've learned from another prominate list member ;^)), and hopefully try and
come close to telling the truth, about how I feel and why. And if I'm wrong,
well - Oops - sorry! I am by no means a scholar, thus my approach is very
unscholarly, but I'm pretty good at sniffing out rats.
I am so very grateful for people like yourself, who have the skills and the
patients to go toe to toe with PS.
> PS - I think I am right in saying that one can be "pro" or "con" any idea,objective
> philosophy, religious belief system or political ideology and STILL be
> in one's work. Objectivity, to my understanding does not requireneutrality,
> only honesty and a willingness to take another point of view into seriousaddition
> consideration. What academic study requires, to my understanding is (in
> to objectivity) the readiness of the scholar to not only entertainopposing
> ideas, but to surrender his or her own pre-conceptions in the face offacts
> brought forward that remove the foundations of those pre-conceptions. Thisis an
> expanded form of honesty.I think your right too! Honesty! Above all Self Honesty!
>Real scholars, in my opinion, are less concerned withAnd real scholars probably won't create a bias Polemic tirade, motivated by
> "addressing a non-specialist audience" than in contributing something of
> substance to their chosen field of research.
concrete and arrogance, with the intent of smearing RS, Anthroposophy and
Waldorf, primarily for the attention, acknowledgement, or just the plain
FUN, that can be had in doing so.
>Rudolf Steiner, in my opinion was a real scholar by my own definitionabove.
Me too. He went to great lengths to define Shoffenhourer's and Von-Hartman's
positions it the POF, before offering up his opposition, and he even
mentioned that he had great respect for the latter. Something Daniel wrote
about in response to what you wrote above.
Respect speaks volumes to me.
All the best