Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Social Ecology Part One

Expand Messages
  • Mike Helsher
    ... that ... polemic, I ... layman s ... It 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
    Message 1 of 6 , Feb 29 8:09 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi again Christine, you wrote:

      > Thank you for the compliment Mike,
      >
      > However, I think it is important to be able to take a work on the basis
      that
      > the author intended. Since the article is a political and economic
      polemic, I
      > just wanted to approach it on its own terms as I understand them at a
      layman's
      > level. The only time the "social" per se came in was when he specifically
      > stated:

      It'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,
      > philosophy, religious belief system or political ideology and STILL be
      objective
      > in one's work. Objectivity, to my understanding does not require
      neutrality,
      > only honesty and a willingness to take another point of view into serious
      > consideration. What academic study requires, to my understanding is (in
      addition
      > to objectivity) the readiness of the scholar to not only entertain
      opposing
      > ideas, but to surrender his or her own pre-conceptions in the face of
      facts
      > brought forward that remove the foundations of those pre-conceptions. This
      is an
      > expanded form of honesty.

      I think your right too! Honesty! Above all Self Honesty!

      >Real scholars, in my opinion, are less concerned with
      > "addressing a non-specialist audience" than in contributing something of
      > substance to their chosen field of research.

      And real scholars probably won't create a bias Polemic tirade, motivated by
      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 definition
      above.

      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

      Mike
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.