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

Childhood reading, the critical and the intellectual

Expand Messages
  • ted.wrinch
    Over on WC, Diana has expressed her view that it s not normal for reading to begin around the age of 7; and that it s normal for children before this age to
    Message 1 of 10 , Feb 16, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Over on WC, Diana has expressed her view that it's not normal for reading to begin around the age of 7; and that it's normal for children before this age to develop critical and intellectual faculties, this latter view being supposedly 'what is known of child development'. Diana's views on child development aren't likely to be more than an expression of her opinion and we can certainly see many countervailing individual and scientific opinions in existence these days. But I wonder what people here think about this and what their own experiences as children were? For my self, I didn't learn to read until I was 7 and then reluctantly, and wasn't actually interested in reading for myself until I was 9, after which I loved it and remained 2 years ahead of my 'chronological reading age' thereafter. As for the critical and intellectual - if we take these as a weighing up of the evidence for and against the truth of something - I had no interest in them, didn't even know what they might have meant, until I was nearing puberty. After which, I was more and more critical of everything, eventually including even the WC's favourite 'criticism and the intellect' itself, until my mid-20s. Maybe Diana and the WC are against Waldorf's childhood developmental model because they themselves never experienced a normal childhood?

      T.

      Ted Wrinch
    • Frank Thomas Smith
      Diana, after a couple of weeks as a kindergarten assistant, thinks she s an expert on child development, whereas she is only an expert in mudslinging bullshit.
      Message 2 of 10 , Feb 16, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Diana, after a couple of weeks as a kindergarten assistant, thinks she's an expert on child development, whereas she is only an expert in mudslinging bullshit. In Waldorf schools children are not taught to read until the second grade (when they are usually 7) for purely practical pedagogical reasons. Methodologically they learn to write in the first grade (artistically of course, meaning fun) as part of the learning-to-read process. Once you know how to write, reading is as easy as falling into a sandbox. It has nothing to do with some children learning to read earlier on their own. If they can and do anyone who says they should not, Waldorf teacher or not, is mistaken. They should not, however, be forced to do so before they are psychologically mature enough. For the majority of children this is still around 7, along with the change of teeth. That's when they *want*to learn to read and therefore learn much more easily than if they were forced to earlier. It is a great error to think that the earlier children start intellectual activity, the more and better they will learn. The facts and long experience shows the opposite to be true. Also they are less likely to be psychologically damaged by their environment.
        Frank

        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@...> wrote:
        >
        > Over on WC, Diana has expressed her view that it's not normal for reading to begin around the age of 7; and that it's normal for children before this age to develop critical and intellectual faculties, this latter view being supposedly 'what is known of child development'. Diana's views on child development aren't likely to be more than an expression of her opinion and we can certainly see many countervailing individual and scientific opinions in existence these days. But I wonder what people here think about this and what their own experiences as children were? For my self, I didn't learn to read until I was 7 and then reluctantly, and wasn't actually interested in reading for myself until I was 9, after which I loved it and remained 2 years ahead of my 'chronological reading age' thereafter. As for the critical and intellectual - if we take these as a weighing up of the evidence for and against the truth of something - I had no interest in them, didn't even know what they might have meant, until I was nearing puberty. After which, I was more and more critical of everything, eventually including even the WC's favourite 'criticism and the intellect' itself, until my mid-20s. Maybe Diana and the WC are against Waldorf's childhood developmental model because they themselves never experienced a normal childhood?
        >
        > T.
        >
        > Ted Wrinch
        >
      • elfuncle
        ... model because they themselves never experienced a normal childhood? Not so sure about that -- even Adolf had a normal childhood and a mom who loved him.
        Message 3 of 10 , Feb 16, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@...> wrote:
          >
          > Maybe Diana and the WC are against Waldorf's childhood developmental model because they themselves never experienced a normal childhood?


          Not so sure about that -- even Adolf had a normal childhood and a mom who loved him. Psychoanalysis won't lead anywhere with those people. You need to investigate their former incarnations and their latest sojourns between death and rebirth. Out of courtesy, however, I think they should be informed that they're under occult investigation.

          Tarjei
        • ted.wrinch
          And the response? Diana sounding like Der Staudi: Yes, that is known in child development. You don t need to take my word for it, though. Consulting any
          Message 4 of 10 , Feb 17, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            And the response?

            Diana sounding like Der Staudi:

            "Yes, that is known in child development. You don't need to take my word for it,
            though. Consulting any nearby child psychologist or pediatrician would set you
            straight on this. Or even consulting a nearby child."

            And then back to her opinions:

            "I increasingly think what we really ought to do is encourage intellectual
            activity at very young ages, then ease up when they are teenagers. Philosophy
            and trigonometry in third grade, when they are chomping at the bit to learn,
            every waking moment"

            So, no normal childhood. I think we can see where some of the problems in the US education system are coming from with parents like that. If you're not part of the solution …

            T.

            Ted Wrinch

            --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@...> wrote:
            >
            > Over on WC, Diana has expressed her view that it's not normal for reading to begin around the age of 7; and that it's normal for children before this age to develop critical and intellectual faculties, this latter view being supposedly 'what is known of child development'. Diana's views on child development aren't likely to be more than an expression of her opinion and we can certainly see many countervailing individual and scientific opinions in existence these days. But I wonder what people here think about this and what their own experiences as children were? For my self, I didn't learn to read until I was 7 and then reluctantly, and wasn't actually interested in reading for myself until I was 9, after which I loved it and remained 2 years ahead of my 'chronological reading age' thereafter. As for the critical and intellectual - if we take these as a weighing up of the evidence for and against the truth of something - I had no interest in them, didn't even know what they might have meant, until I was nearing puberty. After which, I was more and more critical of everything, eventually including even the WC's favourite 'criticism and the intellect' itself, until my mid-20s. Maybe Diana and the WC are against Waldorf's childhood developmental model because they themselves never experienced a normal childhood?
            >
            > T.
            >
            > Ted Wrinch
            >
          • ted.wrinch
            She continues: Really think on this Ted - who gave you the right to decide that a child who is intellectually inclined in the third grade isn t normal ?
            Message 5 of 10 , Feb 17, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              She continues:

              "Really think on this Ted - who gave you the right to decide that a child who is
              intellectually inclined in the third grade isn't "normal"?"

              You're an idiot, Diana. *You* said trigonometry and philosophy at 8! You are imposing your views of what's 'normal', based on a mixture of your opinions and some spurious notion of what 'child psychologist[s] or pediatrician[s]' think, whose opinions change every few years and who disagree with each other all the time. My observation concerning reading readiness was at least based on my own life; my wife, who started reading 2 years earlier than I, under her school's influence, confirms that she also had no interest in reading until 8 or 9, and thereafter took to it so well that she finished up taking an English Literature degree at one of our top universities. As Frank says, there are many indications, anecdotal, scholarly and practical, that 7 is a good age to start; as Frank also says, this should not be a barrier to those who wish to start earlier.

              The rest of your pedagogy on stuffing books into children under 10 and dropping formal study for adolescents is just bonkers. Sheesh, you just don't know how you show yourself up; I wonder if its connected with your frequent mention of reduced brain function with ageing.

              T.

              Ted Wrinch

              --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@...> wrote:
              >
              > And the response?
              >
              > Diana sounding like Der Staudi:
              >
              > "Yes, that is known in child development. You don't need to take my word for it,
              > though. Consulting any nearby child psychologist or pediatrician would set you
              > straight on this. Or even consulting a nearby child."
              >
              > And then back to her opinions:
              >
              > "I increasingly think what we really ought to do is encourage intellectual
              > activity at very young ages, then ease up when they are teenagers. Philosophy
              > and trigonometry in third grade, when they are chomping at the bit to learn,
              > every waking moment"
              >
              > So, no normal childhood. I think we can see where some of the problems in the US education system are coming from with parents like that. If you're not part of the solution …
              >
              > T.
              >
              > Ted Wrinch
              >
              > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
              > >
              > > Over on WC, Diana has expressed her view that it's not normal for reading to begin around the age of 7; and that it's normal for children before this age to develop critical and intellectual faculties, this latter view being supposedly 'what is known of child development'. Diana's views on child development aren't likely to be more than an expression of her opinion and we can certainly see many countervailing individual and scientific opinions in existence these days. But I wonder what people here think about this and what their own experiences as children were? For my self, I didn't learn to read until I was 7 and then reluctantly, and wasn't actually interested in reading for myself until I was 9, after which I loved it and remained 2 years ahead of my 'chronological reading age' thereafter. As for the critical and intellectual - if we take these as a weighing up of the evidence for and against the truth of something - I had no interest in them, didn't even know what they might have meant, until I was nearing puberty. After which, I was more and more critical of everything, eventually including even the WC's favourite 'criticism and the intellect' itself, until my mid-20s. Maybe Diana and the WC are against Waldorf's childhood developmental model because they themselves never experienced a normal childhood?
              > >
              > > T.
              > >
              > > Ted Wrinch
              > >
              >
            • elfuncle
              ... Wrong approach, Ted. Believe me, I ve been there. Back in 2004, something like that. Check the AT archives for details. Diana has been called every name in
              Message 6 of 10 , Feb 17, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@...> wrote:

                > You're an idiot, Diana.

                Wrong approach, Ted. Believe me, I've been there. Back in 2004, something like that. Check the AT archives for details. Diana has been called every name in the book, and I think Bradford was probably the most imaginative -- a hyena with a pea-sized shrunken etheric brain or something.

                But that was before we discovered the Inner Diana. Just ask Frank; he was totally enamored by her true charms. You see, behind all the venom and confusion, there's a Goddess Diana, a Princess Diana, a Queen Diana, who is struggling to be set free from the bondage of her demons by none other than the Son of Man. Diana, Diana, the lofty soul in captivity, she's the very inspiration behind our Lovathons. So instead of calling her an idiot, you should call her a crumbling sweet honeypie that may need a little extra chocolate sauce or marzipan or maybe some butterscotch ice cream topping. And don't forget to say something beautiful about her kittycats; they're very advanced animal souls, even to the point of equality with humans. They read the newspapers, cook dinner, listen to the radio etc. just like Garfield. The path to Diana's heart goes through the furs of her kittycats. It's easy to misunderstand Diana, because her cats do a lot of her writing; it all began when they began playing with her computer mouse, and before she knew it, they had taken over her keyboard too. They read some Steiner online and were offended by the idea that animals belong to a hierarchy that's one stage lower than man and two stages lower than the angels and so on.

                So just ask Diana to accept your love and bring her a personal message from Jesus. She has too hard a time with Steiner; she needs more of Paul's epistles methinks, so quote the New Testament frequently and talk to her about the blessings of salvation. She has actually said that anthroposophists don't speak enough about salvation, so that should be sweet music to her soon-to-be-heavenly-tuned ears.

                Tarjei

                P.S. Diana, you're the sweetest bird in Sugarland, and we love you. And your mama, and your cats too.

              • elfuncle
                Roman Huntress Diana
                Message 7 of 10 , Feb 17, 2012
                • 0 Attachment

                  Roman Huntress Diana 

                  r562diana Gems of the Goddess 

                  She is the protector of all things wild; trees, animals, flowers, and most of all women.  Her name itself means "Goddess", a very blunt meaning, but one that fits her well in all the very literal things she did and still continues to do.  She brought the ancient Romans the gift of magic and eternal motherly love.  She taught them the importance of nature, and that the streams that run through the forest are the veins within her body.


                  She's also got a smart cat:



                  Our Beloved Diana is an ancient Pagan Goddess, so full of love for all living creatures, with a deep longing for the Christ.


                  Tarjei


                  --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" <elfuncle@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch"
                  > ted.wrinch@ wrote:
                  >
                  > > You're an idiot, Diana.
                  >
                  > Wrong approach, Ted. Believe me, I've been there. Back in 2004,
                  > something like that. Check the AT archives for details. Diana has been
                  > called every name in the book, and I think Bradford was probably the
                  > most imaginative -- a hyena with a pea-sized shrunken etheric brain or
                  > something.
                  >
                  > But that was before we discovered the Inner Diana. Just ask Frank; he
                  > was totally enamored by her true charms. You see, behind all the venom
                  > and confusion, there's a Goddess Diana, a Princess Diana, a Queen Diana,
                  > who is struggling to be set free from the bondage of her demons by none
                  > other than the Son of Man. Diana, Diana, the lofty soul in captivity,
                  > she's the very inspiration behind our Lovathons. So instead of calling
                  > her an idiot, you should call her a crumbling sweet honeypie that may
                  > need a little extra chocolate sauce or marzipan or maybe some
                  > butterscotch ice cream topping. And don't forget to say something
                  > beautiful about her kittycats; they're very advanced animal souls, even
                  > to the point of equality with humans. They read the newspapers, cook
                  > dinner, listen to the radio etc. just like Garfield. The path to Diana's
                  > heart goes through the furs of her kittycats. It's easy to misunderstand
                  > Diana, because her cats do a lot of her writing; it all began when they
                  > began playing with her computer mouse, and before she knew it, they had
                  > taken over her keyboard too. They read some Steiner online and were
                  > offended by the idea that animals belong to a hierarchy that's one stage
                  > lower than man and two stages lower than the angels and so on.
                  >
                  > So just ask Diana to accept your love and bring her a personal message
                  > from Jesus. She has too hard a time with Steiner; she needs more of
                  > Paul's epistles methinks, so quote the New Testament frequently and talk
                  > to her about the blessings of salvation. She has actually said that
                  > anthroposophists don't speak enough about salvation, so that should be
                  > sweet music to her soon-to-be-heavenly-tuned ears.
                  >
                  > Tarjei
                  >
                  > P.S. Diana, you're the sweetest bird in Sugarland, and we love you. And
                  > your mama, and your cats too.
                  >
                • Frank Thomas Smith
                  ... Frank You see, behind all the venom
                  Message 8 of 10 , Feb 17, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" <elfuncle@...> wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch"
                    > <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
                    >
                    > > You're an idiot, Diana.
                    >
                    > Wrong approach, Ted. Believe me, I've been there. Back in 2004,
                    > something like that. Check the AT archives for details. Diana has been
                    > called every name in the book, and I think Bradford was probably the
                    > most imaginative -- a hyena with a pea-sized shrunken etheric brain or
                    > something.
                    >
                    > But that was before we discovered the Inner Diana. Just ask Frank; he
                    > was totally enamored by her true charms.
                    ______

                    :::Tarjei is quite right, Ted. All she needs is love and you seem to be the anointed guy to provide it in these difficult times. I must warn you, however, - the result of bitter experience - not to go on a date with her during the full moon...when she becomes insatiable like the spider (sic) who kills her mates after copulation, but in her case also drinks their blood. The only antidote is an aerosol spray of Dornach air blessed by S. Prokofieff.

                    Frank

                    You see, behind all the venom
                    > and confusion, there's a Goddess Diana, a Princess Diana, a Queen Diana,
                    > who is struggling to be set free from the bondage of her demons by none
                    > other than the Son of Man. Diana, Diana, the lofty soul in captivity,
                    > she's the very inspiration behind our Lovathons. So instead of calling
                    > her an idiot, you should call her a crumbling sweet honeypie that may
                    > need a little extra chocolate sauce or marzipan or maybe some
                    > butterscotch ice cream topping. And don't forget to say something
                    > beautiful about her kittycats; they're very advanced animal souls, even
                    > to the point of equality with humans. They read the newspapers, cook
                    > dinner, listen to the radio etc. just like Garfield. The path to Diana's
                    > heart goes through the furs of her kittycats. It's easy to misunderstand
                    > Diana, because her cats do a lot of her writing; it all began when they
                    > began playing with her computer mouse, and before she knew it, they had
                    > taken over her keyboard too. They read some Steiner online and were
                    > offended by the idea that animals belong to a hierarchy that's one stage
                    > lower than man and two stages lower than the angels and so on.
                    >
                    > So just ask Diana to accept your love and bring her a personal message
                    > from Jesus. She has too hard a time with Steiner; she needs more of
                    > Paul's epistles methinks, so quote the New Testament frequently and talk
                    > to her about the blessings of salvation. She has actually said that
                    > anthroposophists don't speak enough about salvation, so that should be
                    > sweet music to her soon-to-be-heavenly-tuned ears.
                    >
                    > Tarjei
                    >
                    > P.S. Diana, you're the sweetest bird in Sugarland, and we love you. And
                    > your mama, and your cats too.
                    >
                  • ted.wrinch
                    The path to Diana s heart goes through the furs of her kittycats. It s easy to misunderstand Diana, because her cats do a lot of her writing; it all began
                    Message 9 of 10 , Feb 17, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      "The path to Diana's heart goes through the furs of her kittycats. It's easy to misunderstand Diana, because her cats do a lot of her writing; it all began when they began playing with her computer mouse, and before she knew it, they had taken over her keyboard too. They read some Steiner online and were offended by the idea that animals belong to a hierarchy that's one stage lower than man and two stages lower than the angels and so on. "

                      Makes sense. Bit like Alicia and the Dog.

                      That pagan site has this interesting motto:

                      "From Knowledge Grows Acceptance"

                      A refreshing departure from the ignorance fest on WC. They suggest:

                      'Write a wish on a leaf and set it free in a stream."

                      T.

                      Ted Wrinch

                      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" <elfuncle@...> wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch"
                      > <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
                      >
                      > > You're an idiot, Diana.
                      >
                      > Wrong approach, Ted. Believe me, I've been there. Back in 2004,
                      > something like that. Check the AT archives for details. Diana has been
                      > called every name in the book, and I think Bradford was probably the
                      > most imaginative -- a hyena with a pea-sized shrunken etheric brain or
                      > something.
                      >
                      > But that was before we discovered the Inner Diana. Just ask Frank; he
                      > was totally enamored by her true charms. You see, behind all the venom
                      > and confusion, there's a Goddess Diana, a Princess Diana, a Queen Diana,
                      > who is struggling to be set free from the bondage of her demons by none
                      > other than the Son of Man. Diana, Diana, the lofty soul in captivity,
                      > she's the very inspiration behind our Lovathons. So instead of calling
                      > her an idiot, you should call her a crumbling sweet honeypie that may
                      > need a little extra chocolate sauce or marzipan or maybe some
                      > butterscotch ice cream topping. And don't forget to say something
                      > beautiful about her kittycats; they're very advanced animal souls, even
                      > to the point of equality with humans. They read the newspapers, cook
                      > dinner, listen to the radio etc. just like Garfield. The path to Diana's
                      > heart goes through the furs of her kittycats. It's easy to misunderstand
                      > Diana, because her cats do a lot of her writing; it all began when they
                      > began playing with her computer mouse, and before she knew it, they had
                      > taken over her keyboard too. They read some Steiner online and were
                      > offended by the idea that animals belong to a hierarchy that's one stage
                      > lower than man and two stages lower than the angels and so on.
                      >
                      > So just ask Diana to accept your love and bring her a personal message
                      > from Jesus. She has too hard a time with Steiner; she needs more of
                      > Paul's epistles methinks, so quote the New Testament frequently and talk
                      > to her about the blessings of salvation. She has actually said that
                      > anthroposophists don't speak enough about salvation, so that should be
                      > sweet music to her soon-to-be-heavenly-tuned ears.
                      >
                      > Tarjei
                      >
                      > P.S. Diana, you're the sweetest bird in Sugarland, and we love you. And
                      > your mama, and your cats too.
                      >
                    • ted.wrinch
                      I agree, excepting the anointing bit. T. Ted Wrinch
                      Message 10 of 10 , Feb 17, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I agree, excepting the anointing bit.

                        T.

                        Ted Wrinch

                        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Thomas Smith" <fts.trasla@...> wrote:
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" <elfuncle@> wrote:
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch"
                        > > <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > > You're an idiot, Diana.
                        > >
                        > > Wrong approach, Ted. Believe me, I've been there. Back in 2004,
                        > > something like that. Check the AT archives for details. Diana has been
                        > > called every name in the book, and I think Bradford was probably the
                        > > most imaginative -- a hyena with a pea-sized shrunken etheric brain or
                        > > something.
                        > >
                        > > But that was before we discovered the Inner Diana. Just ask Frank; he
                        > > was totally enamored by her true charms.
                        > ______
                        >
                        > :::Tarjei is quite right, Ted. All she needs is love and you seem to be the anointed guy to provide it in these difficult times. I must warn you, however, - the result of bitter experience - not to go on a date with her during the full moon...when she becomes insatiable like the spider (sic) who kills her mates after copulation, but in her case also drinks their blood. The only antidote is an aerosol spray of Dornach air blessed by S. Prokofieff.
                        >
                        > Frank
                        >
                        > You see, behind all the venom
                        > > and confusion, there's a Goddess Diana, a Princess Diana, a Queen Diana,
                        > > who is struggling to be set free from the bondage of her demons by none
                        > > other than the Son of Man. Diana, Diana, the lofty soul in captivity,
                        > > she's the very inspiration behind our Lovathons. So instead of calling
                        > > her an idiot, you should call her a crumbling sweet honeypie that may
                        > > need a little extra chocolate sauce or marzipan or maybe some
                        > > butterscotch ice cream topping. And don't forget to say something
                        > > beautiful about her kittycats; they're very advanced animal souls, even
                        > > to the point of equality with humans. They read the newspapers, cook
                        > > dinner, listen to the radio etc. just like Garfield. The path to Diana's
                        > > heart goes through the furs of her kittycats. It's easy to misunderstand
                        > > Diana, because her cats do a lot of her writing; it all began when they
                        > > began playing with her computer mouse, and before she knew it, they had
                        > > taken over her keyboard too. They read some Steiner online and were
                        > > offended by the idea that animals belong to a hierarchy that's one stage
                        > > lower than man and two stages lower than the angels and so on.
                        > >
                        > > So just ask Diana to accept your love and bring her a personal message
                        > > from Jesus. She has too hard a time with Steiner; she needs more of
                        > > Paul's epistles methinks, so quote the New Testament frequently and talk
                        > > to her about the blessings of salvation. She has actually said that
                        > > anthroposophists don't speak enough about salvation, so that should be
                        > > sweet music to her soon-to-be-heavenly-tuned ears.
                        > >
                        > > Tarjei
                        > >
                        > > P.S. Diana, you're the sweetest bird in Sugarland, and we love you. And
                        > > your mama, and your cats too.
                        > >
                        >
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.