| Author | |
Chari
Forum Moderator
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5228
|
| Posted: Feb 20 2005 at 12:18pm | IP Logged
|
 |
|
Okay.......below you find an email I sent to a CCM
list when we were attenpting to do a book study on Volume 5.........we never got past page 32  , but, maybe we could go further than that over time....in the meantime, here is my post, just for discussions sake....
let's read up to page 32 for post..........this includes two chapters, and lots of intros and prefaces, etc
If you do not have the book............I believe you can read it online:
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/leslienoelani/toc.html
scroll down to find this book............Volume 5
The post:
I decided to use a pencil when I read to make comments in the book when I think
of them.....so I can discuss easier and also to remind me of earlier thoughts
the next time I peruse the book. Though, funnily, I keep thinking the next
person who will read the book will be Anne(my oldest)as
she prepares to homeschool her
own brood.  In fact, she has already asked me if it was necessary to read
CM's volumes....and when would be the best time to read them
do any of you have kids who talk about how they are going to homeschool their
own kids someday?
First, it is important to know: everybody can take part in the discussion,
whether you are reading the book or not.
anyway.....my thoughts...just some, I do not have time to write all!
oh, one more comment: all those prefaces and prologues and introductions are
serious and full of many inspirations.once you get past those....the book gets
lighter, as CM tells stories to get her point across....though the stories
inspire LOTS of thoughts.....too many to keep track of......so, for those of
you reading online.....or putting it off.....know it gets easier to read
my thoughts, again:
What do you think CM meant of this quote in the preface to the HE series:
"One thesis, which is, perhaps new, that EDUCATION IS THE SCIENCE OF RELATIONS,
appears to me to solve the question of a curriculum, as showing that the object
of education is to put a child in living touch with as much as may be the life
of Nature and of thought."
another quote in the same section:
"The mind feeds on ideas, and therefore children should have a generous
curriculum."
Here is more on this topic:
"But believing that the normal child has powers of mind that fit him to deal
with all knowledge proper to him, we must give him a full and generous
curriulum; taking care only, that the knowledge offered to him is vital----
that is, that facts are not presented without their informing ideas."
"13. EDUCATION IS THE SCIENCE OF RELATIONS; that is, that a child has
natural relations with a vast number of things and thoughts: so we must train
him upon physical exercises, nature, handicrafts, science and art, and upon
many living books; for we know that our business is, not to teach him all about
anything, but to help him to make valid as many as may be of -- "
What do you think CM means by the above? How do YOU provide this for your
children? Do you find any hindrances to your providing YOUR ideal of a
generous curriculum? What would you/do you want to do differently? What do
you think is working the best for you?
"These three principles (15, 16 and 17) should save children from some of the
loose thinking and heedless action which cause most of us to live at a lower
level than we need." see 15, 16 and 17 below:
15. The Way of the Will. -- Children should be taught -- (a) To
distinguish between 'I want' and 'I will.' (b) That the way to will effectively
is to turn our thoughts from that which we desire but do not will. (c) That the
best way to turn our thoughts is to think of or do some quite different thing,
entertaining or interesting. (d) That, after a little rest in this way, the
will returns to its work with new vigour. (This adjunct of the will is familiar
to us as diversion, whose office it is to ease us for a time from will effort,
that we may 'will' again with added power. The use of suggestion -- even self-
suggestion -- as an aid to the will, is to be deprecated, as tending to
stultify and stereotype character. It would seem that spontaneity is a
condition of development, and that human nature needs the discipline of failure
as well as of success.)
16. The Way of the Reason. -- We should teach children, too, not
to 'lean' (too confidently) 'unto their own understanding,' because the
function of reason is, to give logical demonstration (a) of mathmatical truth;
and (b) of an initial idea, accepted by the will. In the former case reason is,
perhaps, an infallible guide, but in the second it is not always a safe one;
for whether that initial idea be right or wrong, reason will confirm it by
irrefragable proofs.
17. Therefore children should be taught, as they become mature enough
to understand such teaching, that the chief responsibility which rests on them
as persons is the acceptance or rejection of initial ideas. To help them in
this choice we should give them principles of conduct and a wide range of the
knowledge fitted for them.
What do you make of these three thoughts of CM's? How can we apply these
directly to our lives?
CM writes in her preface:
"I should like to urge that this incidental play of education and circumstances
upon personality is our only legitimate course. We may not make character our
conscious objective. Provide a child with what he needs in the way of
instruction, opportunity, and wholesome occupation, and his character will take
care of itself: for normal children are persons of good will, with honest
desires toward right thinking and right living. All we can do further is to
help a child to get rid of some hindrance -- a bad temper, for example --
likely to spoil his life. In our attempts to do this, our action should, I
think, be most guarded. We may not interfere with his psychological
development, because we recognise that children are persons, and personality
should be far more inviolable in our eyes than property. We may use direct
teaching and command, but not indirect suggestion, or even the old-
fashioned 'influence.' Influence will act, of course, but it must not be
consciously brought to bear."
What do you mnake of the above? Do you agree or disagree with it?
Here is the last word in her preface: amanuensis
does anyone know the definition of this word, without looking it up?
Here is the full context of the word:
"I should like, in this fifth volume of the 'Home Education' Series, to
acknowledge my indebtedness to Miss Elsie Kitching for the constant interest
she has thrown into the work, and her always intelligent collaboration as
amanuensis."
just guessing, using Latin roots: a- means without and man- refers to
hand....so I am thinking maybe "hands-off"? what do you think?
okay, onto the first chapter: "The Philosopher at Home"
anyone have one of these kids in their home? what do you find in this chapter
that could be useful to you?
here is a small section of the chapter:
"He is getting the habit of running away from the evil, and may for that be the
more ready to run when it's at his heels; this, of running away from
temptation, is the right principle, and may be useful to him in a thousand
ways."
"Indeed, it may be a safeguard to him through life. How did you get the idea?"
"Do you remember how Rover was cured of barking after carriages? There were two
stages to the cure; the habit of barking was stopped, and a new habit was put
in its place; I worked upon the recognised law of association of ideas, and got
Rover to associate the rumble of wheels with a newspaper in his mouth. I tried
at the time to explain how it was possible to act thus on the 'mind' of a dog."
"I recollect quite well; you said that the stuff––nervous tissue, you called it–
–of which the brain is made is shaped in the same sort of way––at least so I
understood––by the thoughts that are in it, as the cover of a tart is shaped by
the plums below. And then, when there's a place ready for them in the brain,
the same sort of thoughts always come to fill it."
"I did not intend to say precisely that," said Mr. Belmont,
laughing, "especially the plum part. However, it will do. Pray go on with your
metaphor. It is decided that plums are not wholesome eating. You put in your
thumb, and pick out a plum; and that the place may be filled, and well filled,
you pop in a––a––figures fail me––a peach!"
"I see! I see! Guy's screaming fits are the unwholesome plum which we are
picking out, and the running away from Cross-man the peach to be got instead.
(I don't see why it should be a peach though, unpractical man!) His brain is to
grow to the shape of the peach, and behold, the place is filled. No more room
for the plum." [To state the case more accurately, certain cell connections
appear to be established by habitual traffic in certain thoughts; but there is
so much danger in overstating or in localising mental operations, that perhaps
it is safer to convey the practical outcome of this line of research in a more
or less figurative way––as, the wearing of a field-path; the making of a
bridge; a railway, etc.]
"You have it; you have put, in a light way, a most interesting law, and I take
much blame to myself that I never thought until now of applying it to Guy's
case. But now I think we are making way; we have made provision for dislodging
the old habit and setting a new one in its place."
"Don't you think the child will be a hero in a very small way, when he makes
himself run away from his temper?"
"Not in a small way at all; the child will be a hero. But we cannot be heroes
all the time. In sudden gusts of temptation, God grant him grace to play the
hero, if only through hasty flight; but in what are called besetting sins,
there is nothing safe but the contrary besetting good habit. And here is where
parents have immense power over the future of the children."
When I read this.....I am wondering how I can apply it to one of my children
who is often just plain mean to her siblings....most of the time. It would
surprise you about whom I am speaking, because everyone finds this child sweet
and pleasant. Except her siblings :( (PS......she is already improved these days, deo gratias)
anyone have any ideas on how to help her "exchange" this bad habit, for the
good habit of being sweet to her siblings as well?
anyone have any other comments regarding this chapter? any thoughts that
struck you?
now for Chapter two: "Inconstant Kitty"
Do you have an inconstant Kitty? are YOU an inconstant kitty?
reading this.....tells me of a mistake I made from the beginning with my
kids. I thought the kids should have a free-spirited childhood and did not have
routine from the beginning (NOT schedule....just routine)...I figured there was
always time for that.....now it is "I" who struggles with keeping to
routines....so, I probably have a little inconstant kitty in me......and
therefore, a few of my children also exhibit some of her traits
here is a quote:
"It is quite true; we are in fault. Those butterfly ways of Kitty's were
delicious to behold until we thought it time to set her to work, and then we
found that we should have been training her from babyhood"
this is me  and I pay regularly......of course, now that I think of
it  ....my mom was most definitely an inconstant kitty....and we had no
routines....and our family split apart when I was nine.....so, again, no more
routine...so, it's all her fault  oh, wait....my grandma .....well, we
won't go there  I am just another one of those Catholic hsing moms trying
to make things WAY better for my kids....and learning through my
failures, as Dr. Terry Brazelton likes to say
....training myself in the way I should go
CM recommends the mom help her inconstant kitty this way:
"First, as to her lessons: you must help her to gain the power of attention;
that should have been done long ago, but better late than never, and an aunt
who has given her mind to these matters takes blame to herself for not having
seen the want sooner. 'But,' I fancy you are saying,' if the child has no
faculty of attention, how can we give it to her? It's just a natural defect.'
Not a bit of it! Attention is not a faculty at all, though I believe it is
worth more than all the so-called faculties put together; this, at any rate, is
true, that no talent, no genius, is worth much without the power of attention;
and this is the power which makes men or women successful in life. (I talk like
a book without scruple, because you know my light is borrowed; Professor
Weissall is our luminary.)
"Attention is no more than this––the power of giving your mind to what you are
about––the bigger the better so far as the mind goes, and great minds do great
things; but have you never known a person with a great mind, 'real genius,' his
friends say, who goes through life without accomplishing anything? It is just
because he wants the power to 'turn on,' so to speak, the whole of his great
mind; he is unable to bring the whole of his power to bear on the subject
in hand. 'But Kitty?' Yes, Kitty must get this power of 'turning on.' She must
be taught to give her mind to sums and reading, and even to dusters. Go slowly;
a little to-day and a little more tomorrow. In the first place, her lessons
must be made interesting. Do not let her scramble through a page of 'reading,'
for instance, spelling every third word and then waiting to be told what it
spells, but let every day bring the complete mastery of a few new words, as
well as the keeping up of the old ones.
"But do not let the lesson last more than ten minutes, and insist, with brisk,
bright determination, on the child's full concentrated attention of eye and
mind for the whole ten minutes. Do not allow a moment's dawdling at lessons. "
for those of us who have been studying CM through others' writings, this is old
info to us......and always a good reminder of short lessons with full
attention....for those of you new to this info....this is a good thing to
incorporate into your school lessons
another quote:
"Then, vary the lessons; now head, and now hands; now tripping feet and tuneful
tongue; but in every lesson let Kitty and the other two carry away the joyous
sense of––
"'Something attempted, something done.'
what good advice! I give my kids a daily check off list.....when I read this,
I wondered if I should MAKE them vary the lessons, or let them follow their own
plan....whatever on the list they feel like doing next. what do you think?
any other comments or inspirations while YOU were reading the book?
__________________
Chari...Take Up & Read
Dh Marty 27yrs...3 lovely maidens: Anne 24, Sarah 20 & Maddelyn 17 and 3 chivalrous sons: Matthew 22, Garrett 16 & Malachy 11
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Willa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3881
|
| Posted: Feb 22 2005 at 3:16pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Chari wrote:
do any of you have kids who talk about how they are going to homeschool their own kids someday?
|
|
|
Chari,
I'll try this a piece at a time... you have a lot there!
Clare has already started talking about how she'll mother and homeschool her brood assuming her vocation is not a religious one; she's still undecided about that at age almost 15 but figures any preparation she makes for either vocation will not be wasted time!
I think she will like CM but it would probably be easier for her to start with Karen's book or Elizabeth's. Now THERE's a good idea, I bet she'd like Elizabeth's book a LOT with all the narrations and drawings in there!
My boys don't talk about homeschooling their families but I have no idea if that's a BOY thing or just a RYAN boy thing. I don't think they think much in terms of future partnerships at all.
Wonder what homeschooling will look like for the next generation? Hmm, I guess this is off the subject for pure Charlotte Mason. Off to say the Angelus,
__________________
AMDG
Willa
hsing boys ages 11, 14, almost 18 (+ 4 homeschool grads ages 20 to 27)
Take Up and Read
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Willa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3881
|
| Posted: Feb 22 2005 at 3:25pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Chari wrote:
Here is the last word in her preface: amanuensis does anyone know the definition of this word, without looking it up?
just guessing, using Latin roots: a- means without and man- refers to
hand....so I am thinking maybe "hands-off"? what do you think?
|
|
|
It means transcriber; someone who writes down another's dictation; similar to a secretary but I think it has a more personal connotation. That was a great guess on the etymology. I did have to look that part up; the "man-" refers to hand all right but the "a-" in that context is from "ab" meaning "from" . This vocabulary byte brought to you from a  in central CA
__________________
AMDG
Willa
hsing boys ages 11, 14, almost 18 (+ 4 homeschool grads ages 20 to 27)
Take Up and Read
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Willa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3881
|
| Posted: March 06 2005 at 7:23pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Chari wrote:
(from CM's book)
"I should like to urge that this incidental play of education and circumstances
upon personality is our only legitimate course. We may not make character our
conscious objective. Provide a child with what he needs in the way of
instruction, opportunity, and wholesome occupation, and his character will take
care of itself: for normal children are persons of good will, with honest
desires toward right thinking and right living. All we can do further is to
help a child to get rid of some hindrance -- a bad temper, for example --
likely to spoil his life. In our attempts to do this, our action should, I
think, be most guarded. We may not interfere with his psychological
development, because we recognise that children are persons, and personality
should be far more inviolable in our eyes than property. We may use direct
teaching and command, but not indirect suggestion, or even the old-
fashioned 'influence.' Influence will act, of course, but it must not be
consciously brought to bear."
What do you mnake of the above? Do you agree or disagree with it?
|
|
|
I don't quite understand it, to be honest.
CM seems to say in that quote that education and circumstances are the major factors for forming a child's character. Direct instruction should play a part, too, but no behavioristic appeals to the child's lower nature.
Forming character shouldn't be the conscious objective.... hmmm? I think this is where I get lost. I suppose in this part of the passage, she's talking about education and formation in general rather than talking about specific bad habits to overcome. I suppose it may be like what Chesterton said, that an athlete who is over-conscious of the workings of his muscles in running will handicap his effectiveness at running. Character is a means to an end. We don't want our kids trying to buff up their characters and thus possibly becoming self-absorbed and over-introspective and even spiritually proud. Virtues are like the rungs in a ladder towards God, so education and environment should be about things that draw us toward God and then virtue will fall into place as the most effective way to reach Him.
Giving a child instruction, opportunity (to do right?) and wholesome occupation, and his character will take care of itself? (I'm trying to paraphrase what I understand her to say)
If there is a bad habit that is likely to spoil a child's future, we may act to help him, but it must be most guarded. The child's personality is even more inviolate than property.
We can teach directly and command, but not use indirect suggestion and "influence".
Of course, she says that we WILL influence our children, but we should not USE influence coldbloodedly.... perhaps what she means is what we call manipulation nowadays?
When she talks about how to cure Guy and Kitty of their bad habits of anger and flightiness, respectively, she talks about instilling the opposite virtue. Guy needs to learn to run away from his anger, Kitty needs to learn how to confront her inconstancy.
With both of them, enlisting their cooperation seems to be of importance, but I notice that with both of them, their parents start working on the bad habit BEFORE they make an appeal to their consciences.
I notice this with myself and my own kids, that we need to have run up against our own inadequacies *before* we are motivated to work on them. Guy and Kitty both have to feel some sort of sorrow associated with their actions -- a loss -- before their hearts are softened.
So parents have to try to think of some means to make their child's environment run up against their character flaw. This, I take it, is NOT what CM considers indirect "suggestion" or "influence" -- it's more like what God does when He shows the Israelites again and again where their infidelity and stubborness leads them.
But I guess it's important to keep in mind the child's heart and that the child himself, or herself, has to have that desire to change and WILL to change. Then the parent can be a friend and helper in this endeavour, rather than the opposite camp in a power struggle.
I don't think I have it down yet, but I've been thinking hard about this issue because Lent seems to be bringing out some character flaws in myself and my kids.
__________________
AMDG
Willa
hsing boys ages 11, 14, almost 18 (+ 4 homeschool grads ages 20 to 27)
Take Up and Read
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Willa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3881
|
| Posted: March 20 2005 at 12:35pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
For the CMSeries e-list I wrote this email on CM's ideas about the Will in character formation. I thought it might fit on this thread:
Below is
what I have been thinking on the subject of CM's idea of the Will. I
am diving into some theological waters here but can't see any way to
avoid that territory, since CM's ideas are based on her doctrines --
they are integrated and centered into her Christianity, and not
compartmentalized away from it. That's my ideal too.
First of all, I've been studying the Gospel of John with my teenage
son. I am struck by the reiterated theme that Our Savior's "food is
to do the will of Him who sent me"-- how again, and again, Jesus
emphasizes that He does not come to do His will, but the will of His
Father. His works and sinlessness do not stand alone, He implies,
but are fulfilled in His obedience and submission, which is a free
exercise of His will "His Utmost for His Highness" so to speak.
At the other end of the scale, in Biblical terms, is the sin of Adam
and Eve. Not only did they do what God had forbidden, but "the
serpent tempted me, and I did eat" and "the woman you gave me told me
to eat, and I did eat." So not only is there a rebellion there, but
there is, and I believe this is important, a betrayal and reneging of
the great gift of free will that God has given them. We are made in
the image of God and one of our gifts that reflects God's attributes,
perhaps the most crucial one, is our ability to choose freely and
rationally to do God's will. That's the gift that no other creature
has. And by implying that we do wrong because something else
compelled us to, we are selling our birthright for a mess of pottage
-- grasping at a lesser good and betraying our highest heritage.
If we think logically about it, we see that all our acts are in aid of
something, in service of something. Some rebels think they exercise
their freedom by doing wrong, but in fact they are in slavery to
themselves, and "ourselves" are horrible and petty and unfair tyrants.
Service to God is infinitely expansive, service to anything else is
service to something small and confining and demeaning. It
stultifies us -- look at any person who has been serving himself for
years and years, and you will notice what a cramped, distorted little
personality he or she is developing. CS Lewis's books for example
are great at showing the "shrinking" power of selfishness.
Now in Proverbs, we see that virtue brings temporal rewards and
blessings; and in the Gospels, we see that virtue also brings
spiritual blessings -- "do not lay up for yourselves treasures on
earth, but in Heaven." On the other hand, vice brings temporal AND
spiritual evils... waste, want and destruction. The sluggard and
the fool are poor and sorrowful, and for those who say Lord, Lord and
don't do His will, there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. In
the world God has set up, reality means that following His law will
bring good things and disregarding His laws will bring bad things.
But there is a distinction to be made between doing right things and
being blessed thereby, as a consequence of one's good work, and doing
right things IN ORDER THAT we be rewarded, particularly temporally.
So our Lord says that if someone donates money in order to look good
in front of his neighbors, then that person "has already had his
reward." And the implication is that it's a tiny reward indeed
compared to what he might have had. Like the Prodigal Son taking his
inheritance in cash and throwing up his father's love and his place as
a beloved son in the household. He was within his "rights" naturally
speaking to do so, but it was crass and self-seeking anyway. Again,
the ideal is to do what is right because of God: "my food is to do the
will of Him who sent me." There is an idea of nourishment and
sustenance in obedience to God. Accepting a lesser motive -- doing
good out of fear of punishment or cupidity for blessings-- is probably
better in natural terms than not doing good at all, but it's NOT a
high use of our gift of free will. In a way, it's still a handing
over of free agency to something lesser, a sort of trying to have
one's birthright AND keep the pottage too. We can't serve both God
and mammon so insofar as we hand our free choice over to the
motivational power of lesser things, we are diminishing our true
chivalric service to God. We are possibly attenuated thereby, we are
not receiving our true "food" as Jesus puts it. We become
malnourished and hungry for true bread. We're like the writer of
Ecclesiastes, realizing that all earthly good is vanity and the
chasing of wind.
SO, as to how this might relate to what CM says about the will and
suggestion, etc., here's what I'm tentatively thinking and throwing
out here (please disagree if you see a problem). Children are
persons like us, therefore their free will is like ours, all there in
potentiality, but undeveloped. By throwing things in front of them
-- punishment, rewards, suggestion and manipulation -- we are perhaps
hindering somewhat the exercise of their free will in pursuit of
virtue. ... distracting them a bit in our attempts to help them. NOW
I don't think that it would be scriptural in the least to never
discipline or reward one's child. In order to represent God's
reality in concrete terms to our children, we HAVE to make them
realize His moral ecology--- that good is blessed and evil leads to
evil.
However I do think she is pointing out what we all probably
instinctively recognize, that a purely behavioristic, push the button
and a food pellet drops out model of discipline is extremely demeaning
to a human, no matter how young, though appropriate to an animal. It
is demeaning to humans because it minimizes the free acting of the
human will. The children, with what is good and God-given in them,
recognize it and it seems empty to them, a chasing of wind. But at
the same time it appeals to what is corrupted in them because of their
fallen nature and it strengthens those passions and appetites which
are supposed to be kept tame and subordinate.
We "despise, hinder, and offend" our little ones by offering them
baser motives in place of higher. In some ways we are doing the task
of the serpent, who intended not only to induce rebellion, but to
stultify and cripple the freedom of choice we are given as a
birthright.
So perhaps CM saw even "suggestion" as sort of a serpentine activity.
We shouldn't "tempt" our children even to do good things, because the
way God made us, we are not only to do good, but to do good for the
right reasons, the Highest reasons. Both these aspects of virtue are
equally pivotal -- well, the second one is the pivotal one actually
and incorporates the first. There is a standing back, a
self-restraint and reverence that she constantly emphasizes. We are
on holy ground, she says. It is easy for moms and teachers to
"enable" kids too much, to over-teach and over-train, to micro-manage.
At least it is easy for ME to do these things both in
character-formation and in education. Micro-managing is usually
fatal to morale because it implies lack of trust in the subordinate's
competence and good-will. Kids pick up on that. They become defiant
in an attempt to retain their personhood, or compliant in an
approval-seeking or self-seeking way that diminishes their search for
the higher ground.
I think she emphasizes this in educational spheres as well. Just as
our food should be to do the will of our Creator, so our mind food
should be Knowledge and we as educators have to let the appetite for
knowledge and virtue not be traded in for lower appetites.
I know that this sounds as if we must surgically remove our parental
"claws" and forgo our duty to disciple our children but I do not
believe it is so. I notice that when I stand back in the right way --
not a passive permissive way but a "masterly inactivity" way where I
leave a space for the kids to fill either morally or intellectually,
they usually at least try to respond to the challenge. I have a hard
time explaining quite how I do this when I am able to do it. I find
it difficult to stand back and leave this space--- it doesn't at all
mean allowing my kids to get away with things. Kids need to
recognize consequences for good and evil but we have to let THEM
recognize it, actively, somehow, as much as possible. If I yank my
defiant toddler off the street before he gets hit by a car, I'm doing
what I must do as a parent to preserve him but unfortunately, I'm NOT
really training his will except possibly incidentally. He's still a
little rebel, just a physically safe one for the time being. Only
when he chooses freely to obey me because it is right is he really
exercising the muscles of his will (and of course most toddlers are
very weak and sporadic in their will muscles, just as an infant is
very weak in his physical muscles -- they need lots of practice in
free movement to develop the muscles, physical and mental and
volitional muscles, and I think this is CM's point).
I hope this all makes sense, I am trying to think it out as I write!
It helps my thinking to write, and I hope it helps someone else to
send it!
__________________
AMDG
Willa
hsing boys ages 11, 14, almost 18 (+ 4 homeschool grads ages 20 to 27)
Take Up and Read
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Cindy
Forum Pro
Joined: Feb 01 2005
Location: Texas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 235
|
| Posted: March 20 2005 at 8:34pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
WJFR wrote:
Chari wrote:
(from CM's book)
"I should like to urge that this incidental play of education and circumstances
upon personality is our only legitimate course. We may not make character our
conscious objective. Provide a child with what he needs in the way of
instruction, opportunity, and wholesome occupation, and his character will take
care of itself: for normal children are persons of good will, with honest
desires toward right thinking and right living. All we can do further is to
help a child to get rid of some hindrance -- a bad temper, for example --
likely to spoil his life. In our attempts to do this, our action should, I
think, be most guarded. We may not interfere with his psychological
development, because we recognise that children are persons, and personality
should be far more inviolable in our eyes than property. We may use direct
teaching and command, but not indirect suggestion, or even the old-
fashioned 'influence.' Influence will act, of course, but it must not be
consciously brought to bear."
What do you mnake of the above? Do you agree or disagree with it?
|
|
|
Willa wrote:
CM seems to say in that quote that education and circumstances are the major factors for forming a child's character. Direct instruction should play a part, too, but no behavioristic appeals to the child's lower nature.
Forming character shouldn't be the conscious objective.... hmmm? . |
|
|
Willa and Chari-
Could it be she is saying that we guide them toward good habits and virtues through training, but we respect their personalities? Eg: We work on a bad habit, such as lying, but we leave alone their God given personality traits such as a quiet nature, an active nature-- and respect and encourage learning styles such as visual, kinesttic, etc.
If a child is of an active, kinestetic nature we dont' try to 'train' it out of them but respect it and help them build in other areas, too?
Just thinking ....
__________________
Cindy in Texas
It Is About The Journey
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Willa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3881
|
| Posted: March 20 2005 at 11:06pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Cindy, that's interesting. You may well be right. We have an old reproduction of 19th century schoolhouse rules and my kids were somewhat astonished that one of the rules was "students that write with their left hand will get a rap on the knuckles" (!!!). With CM's respect for the personhood of the child, she probably would resist any disciplinary technique that coerced or exploited the child.
I forget where I was reading it, but just recently -- a book about raising boys, I think, made the point that in the original Hebrew the Proverbs verse "Train up the child in the way he should go and when he is grown he will not depart from it" implied raising up the child in the way HE (or SHE, I guess) should go -- in other words, respecting his individuality and his unique vocation in life.
In other words, that verse wouldn't mean "Train up your child in a cookie-cutter mold however harsh you have to be in the process" which sometimes seems to be the way it is interpreted!
__________________
AMDG
Willa
hsing boys ages 11, 14, almost 18 (+ 4 homeschool grads ages 20 to 27)
Take Up and Read
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Cindy
Forum Pro
Joined: Feb 01 2005
Location: Texas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 235
|
| Posted: March 21 2005 at 10:30pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
WJFR wrote:
original Hebrew the Proverbs verse "Train up the child in the way he should go and when he is grown he will not depart from it" implied raising up the child in the way HE (or SHE, I guess) should go -- in other words, respecting his individuality and his unique vocation in life.
In other words, that verse wouldn't mean "Train up your child in a cookie-cutter mold however harsh you have to be in the process" which sometimes seems to be the way it is interpreted!
|
|
|
Hi Willa-
Yes.. I think you are right... I have an old tape done by Chris Davis of Elijah Company where he talks about 'train up your child...' and he says the word train means 'to narrow'.. so he took that adage to mean help a child discover themselves, then as they get older help them to narrow themselves to their true interests and passions, so hopefully they will have an idea of what their gifts are and what they want to pursue.. or at least what their gifts are... :)
As you wrote, this is not to push them into a mold of our choice, but help them flower in their gifts.
I see Cm reinforcing that in many places in her writings.. though I would have to go look to find them! But, think it is echoed in 'children are born persons'...
__________________
Cindy in Texas
It Is About The Journey
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
|
|
4Real Forums : Living Learning
Topic: CM Volume 5, book study
