It's Elemental

Tag: Interconnectedness

  • Alchemy and narcissistic, reproductive, and creative learning

    Alfonso Montuori, one of my professors at CIIS, has identified three styles, or modes, of learning, which he calls the narcissistic, the reproductive, and the creative.

    From his article, The Quest for a New Education, From Oppositional Identities to Creative Inquiry, narcissistic learning is “an approach to education that sees the source of knowledge as inside the knower.  It focuses on the expression of the knower’s experience and interiority and his or her personal growth and transformation.” (Montuori, Quest: p5)

    Reproductive learning, by contrast, is “an approach to education that sees the source of knowledge as almost exclusively outside the knower, and focuses on the accurate reproduction of that knowledge by the knower.” (Montuori, Quest: p5)

    Creative learning is a middle path, “an approach that views inquiry as a creative process.” (Montuori, Quest: p5)

    I see a correspondence with Montuori’s categories and those of the alchemical tradition and the anthroposophical tradition.  Alchemically, what Montuori describes as reproductive, creative, and narcissistic learnings are embodied in the principles of Salt, Mercury, and Sulfur.  The Salt principle is one which is observable when you have a solution out of which a precipitate falls.  The process is ruled by Gravity and tends to result in innumerable discrete bits with a greater density than the original solution.  The precipitate literally ‘falls out’ of the continuously interconnected fluid mass to become something distinct, something identifiable and separate.  Alchemically, the Salt process produces forms which have Earth characteristics.  This describes the process of reproductive learning as an exact analogue: more of the same.  Specific bits of information carry the value in reproductive learning, to the detriment of the interconnectedness of the facts when they were ‘in solution’.  It is a strange irony that reproductive learning has most strongly co-opted the very metaphor that exemplifies the state of being inextricably contextually connected and turned it into its rally cry: “Solve!”  The word ‘solve’ actually means to loosen, but the Salt process of reproductive learning inverts the dynamic into one that requires a singular, discrete, and correct answer to the undifferentiated mass of the original ‘solution’ out of which a ‘solution’ is derived!  The Salt process densifies, separates, and agglomerates into ‘false’ wholes by virtue of external pressures while lacking inner coherence or connectivity.

    Taken to the other extreme, we end up in narcissistic learning, exemplified by the process known alchemically as Sulfur.  Here, learning ignites itself from within, taking its own substance as fuel.  Sulfur is ruled by the higher-order process of Levity, and is precisely what counteracts (in a polar-opposite way) the Gravity of the Salt process.  The Sulfur process tends towards the periphery, taking the facts in only inasmuch as they can be added fuel to the fire; i.e. Sulfur as a process is completely self-involved.  The particularity, the individuality, the singularity of the specific facts are burnt away exactly to the extent that they carry within them what relates to the particular mode of manifestation of the Sulfur process.  Everything else gets left behind as a char, an ash, devoid of (apparent) life (in fact, you may notice, the Salt and Sulfur processes always occur together in reciprocity, complementarity, or opposition).  Sulfur, like narcissistic learning, takes only itself as its object and contextualizes everything else around its own process.

    Creative inquiry embodies the Mercuric process.  Mercury is the process that links the Salt and Sulfur – it is the process that performs the alchemical ‘marriage’ between the Salt and the Sulfur.  The goal “to make the academic transformative and to ground the transformative in the academic” (Montuori, Quest: p5) is a way of saying that the transformative (Sulfuric) needs to ‘marry’ the academic (Salt) in order for a healthy learning to occur.  Montuori recognizes explicitly that the path of creative inquiry is one that exemplifies “a middle way, a spectrum of possibilities between extremes” (Montuori, Quest: p5).  The Mercuric process is the go-between, the walker of boundaries, the oscillator, the Messenger, the one who takes on the characteristics of the other while leading the other beyond itself.  It embodies aspects of both the Salt and Sulfur processes, by integrating them into a new form – a creative act – that is impossible without either the Salt or Sulfur.  Mercury’s/Herme’s caduceus, with its two entwined snakes, can be considered the alchemical Mercuric ideal of continuous interplay and harmonizing between the Salt and Sulfur processes, acted out in the being himself and carried as his most prominent symbol.

    Anthroposophically speaking, the Salt process is linked to a being known as Ahriman (a name taken from ancient Persia) while the Sulfur process is linked to a being known as Lucifer (whom I imagine you are all familiar with in some form).  The Mercury process – the middle way – is linked to the Christ being.  However, I won’t go into the details as this post has probably already put some people to sleep (another dual Salt/Sulfur process: part of you becomes a precipitate – your physical and life bodies – while another part of you expands to the periphery – your astral body and “I”; and in your dreams you embody Mercury…)

    Tulip-5

     

  • Waldorf and Montessori – a tiny perspective

    There is often confusion about the differences between Waldorf and Montessori methods of education.  Having been a Waldorf teacher for six years certainly puts me in a biased position, but potentially one that can also offer some perspective on the matter.

    The Waldorf pedagogy recognizes that how one approaches the child is keyed closely to the developmental stages that naturally occur as the child grows, including a conscious awareness of not just the physical but also the life-body (etheric), desire/sense-body (astral), and ego realms.  It is a major tenet of the Waldorf method that these developmental stages are not either random or completely individualistic, but partake of physical and spiritual patterns that have to do with the wider picture of the evolution of the human being in general.  In other words, Waldorf pedagogy has a deeply spiritual background, and views education as a therapeutic, health-producing activity.  The health in this case is produced not simply in the physical realm (although of course education works here too), but addresses the underlying growth-forces, the emotional, the intellectual, and the moral realms as well.

    To give you an example of how Waldorf might differ from Montessori, a Waldorf educator (particularly regarding early childhood / kindergarten / first few grades) would see that the level to which Montessori educators allow ‘free reign’ of the children’s predelictions can potentially be harmful, because this brings in aspects of the child’s astral body (life of desire) too early, which can result in the hampering of the development of the child’s sense of interconnectedness, feelings of social responsibility, and sense of humility.  In contrast, the Waldorf educator provides a robust curricula that addresses a wide array of inner potentials that the child may not be conscious of, let alone would choose to exercise, but which need care and environmental response to come to fruition.

    The child cannot be asked to take on these aspects of self-development in a conscious, self-reflective way, because this requires the benefit of a well-formed and integrated ego which they can only enjoy once the education has taken effect!  In other words, the educators are the ones which must provide for an environment which is conducive to the all-around present and future health of the growing child.  Providing such environments is the art of educating, and it is important that what is presented to the child find deep resonance in the particular experiences that accompany the child’s inner life as they grow from year to year.

    The pegagogical background of Waldorf education is geared towards identifying how the various aspects that make up the growing human being (physical, etheric, astral, ego) uniquely manifest themselves at different stages of development, so that educators can craft potential experiences which meet their changing needs–many of which the child is not able to consciously recognize or express, but whose recognition by the educator is essential if they are to be met in a healthy and integrated way.

    You can think of it a bit like this: if you plant a seed in the soil, you wouldn’t want to do so at the wrong time of the year.  You also wouldn’t treat the seed in the same way as you would a grown plant, or a plant that is about to produce fruit.  Each stage of the plant’s growth requires (and is evolutionarily keyed to) specific environmental potentials, and it is the processual, rhythmically experienced flowing from stage to stage, environmental condition to environmental condition, that nurtures the overall health of the plant as a whole, over its entire life-cycle.

    Montessori education can (of course this depends on the specific conditions under consideration, including the particular child) serves to maximize particular potentials of the child, which can work against the overall development of the child if allowed to proceed too strongly or for too long.  It’s like giving too much fertilizer to a young plant, which cannot process the nutrient efficiently or quickly enough, resulting in stunted growth, overgrowth, or other imbalances.

    Of course, when speaking of children, we are talking about things like developing a sense of community, of fairness, of warmth of soul, of enjoyment of diversity, of respect for otherness, and so forth.  Montessori does an excellent job of promoting individuality, and the availability of the arts is fantastic and a terribly under-represented realm of human experience in education.  Long term Montessori students may be more likely to find themselves in a particular realm of experience–one that they have chosen, yes–but which may rigidify their soul forces so that they have a harder time appreciating other realms of human experience and effort.

    Creativity should not be too linked to personal desire, because the deepest source of creativity is–in the end–always found beyond the part of ourselves that initiates desire.  It is rather about balance, or better yet harmony between structure and freedom, contraction and expansion, the inner and the outer.  If we do not pay attention to the subtle shifts in the inner life of the developing child, we will miss the opportunities made possible by meeting the associated needs with the appropriate challenges and experiences, or we may alternately overdevelop and underdevelop specific patterns that take place in the child’s soul life.

    See also:

    http://www.steinerstorehouse.com/blog/archives/206 (an article written by someone who has been a teacher in both educational systems)

    http://www.jnorth.net/mindmaps/personal/parenting/parenting%20research/Waldorfvs.Montesorri.html

    http://www.mothering.com/discussions/showthread.php?t=199390

    Felted Alphabet