Reading and
Falsehoods
how to misread Steiner
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 11:04 am
Subject: how to misread Steiner
Diana
wrote:
I truly must be missing something, Daniel.
He said nothing at all about their dying of disease! I understand
you think that's what he meant but surely it is obvious
even to you that to claim it's "exactly what Steiner said
too" is preposterous.
I think that this actually is not obvious to Daniel, believe
it or not. As far as I can tell, he really does think -- just
like Detlef and Andrea et al. -- that his own inventive reading
of the Steiner passage is what Steiner himself said. This is
called an eisegetical interpretation: reading into the text content
that is not there. One reason this approach seems sound to so
many anthroposophists is that they believe their own personal
understanding of Steiner's work as a whole sets the standard
for all readings. Andrea, for example, writes:
Anthroposophy is a "Symphony" and
you can't discuss on and on only a single note or movement without
a true knowledge of the whole!!
Because Andrea mistakes himself for the conductor of the symphony,
he thinks that his own perception of "the whole" determines
what "true knowledge" is. Since anthroposophy as a
whole simply cannot contain any jarring notes that do not fit
onto Andrea's or Daniel's or Detlef's private copy of the score,
it is a simple matter to declare that the false notes in Steiner's
published works aren't really there in the first place. Such
arguments are, in turn, remarkably persuasive with people who
find something really weird about examining their own thought
process. Thus does the auto-reinforcing cycle of anthroposophist
misreadings of Steiner continue.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 20:54:53 +0200
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] how to misread Steiner
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 8:04 PM
Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] how to misread Steiner
Diana
wrote:
I truly must be missing something, Daniel.
He said nothing at all about their dying of disease! I understand
you think that's what he meant but surely it is obvious
even to you that to claim it's "exactly what Steiner said
too" is preposterous.
I
Anthroposophy is a "Symphony"
and you can't discuss on and on only a single note or movement
without a true knowledge of the whole!!
[PS:]
Because Andrea mistakes himself for the
conductor of the symphony,
[Andrea:]
Because what????
Pls quote where I presented myself like a "conductor"
or something like this.
Your mental shape is worsening over and over, Peter........
A.
...................................................................................................................................
From: Mike Helsher
Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 12:42 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] how to misread Steiner
Diana wrote:
I truly must be missing something, Daniel.
He said nothing at all about their dying of disease! I understand
you think that's what he meant but surely it is obvious
even to you that to claim it's "exactly what Steiner said
too" is preposterous.
Peter answered:
I think that this actually is not obvious
to Daniel, believe it or not. As far as I can tell, he really
does think -- just like Detlef and Andrea et al. -- that his
own inventive reading of the Steiner passage is what Steiner
himself said. This is called an eisegetical interpretation: reading
into the text content that is not there. One reason this approach
seems sound to so many anthroposophists is that they believe
their own personal understanding of Steiner's work as a whole
sets the standard for all readings. Andrea, for example, writes:
Mike:
You know, If you're just reading words, and
looking for your own bias associations, and have no regard for
the integrated unitary world view that Anthroposophy is, or for
trying to think pictorially (lets not get into the witch hunting
thing) then I can completely understand why you could come the
conclusions that you have on this subject.
I could turn that whole paragraph around on you, Let's give it
a try shall we?
Re-write of Peter's paragraph:
I think that this actually is not obvious to [Peter], believe
it or not. As far as I can tell, he really does think -- just
like [Dianna]and [Dan D.]et al. -- that his own inventive reading
of the Steiner passage is what Steiner himself said. This is
called an eisegetical interpretation: reading into the text content
that is not there. One reason this approach seems sound to so
many [anti] anthroposophists is that they believe their own personal
understanding of Steiner's work as a whole sets the standard
for all readings.
Mike:
RS stated in a 1908 lecture that soon a "rise
against alcohol'' would come into humanity. 20+ years later AA
was founded and has spread all around the globe. But you know
what? he didn't actually say the WORD AA did he?
I guess that if the WORD "clairvoyance" only means
to you the ability to accurately guess lotto numbers, then I
can see why you would throw that whole association above out
the window as well.
Peter:
<snip>
This is called an eisegetical interpretation:
reading into the text content that is not there. One reason this
approach seems sound to so many anthroposophists is that they
believe their own personal understanding of Steiner's work as
a whole sets the standard for all readings. Andrea, for example,
writes:Andrea, for example, writes:
Anthroposophy is a "Symphony"
and you can't discuss on and on only a single note or movement
without a true knowledge of the whole!!
Mike:
There you go again, telling people what other
people believe, based on what you believe they believe. I believe
that you believe this. But I also believe that your beliefs are
just that - belief's.
What makes you believe, that Andrea actually believes, that his
"own personal understanding of Steiner's work as a whole
sets the standard for all readings." I don't believe that
he actually said that. Therefore I'm having trouble believing
that you actually believe it to be true.
All this stuff about your beliefs is un-believably hard for anyone
but your self to believe.
Believe me.
Peter:
Because Andrea mistakes himself for the
conductor of the symphony, he thinks that his own perception
of "the whole" determines what "true knowledge"
is.
Mike:
Well, that's an interesting belief. I don't
believe that this belief is grounded in actual fact. But that's
just my belief.
I also believe that we could do a reversal on this one as well,
with a few added extras, and it might still be believable. Let's
try it shall we?
Re-write of Peters paragraph:
Because [Peter] mistakes himself for the conductor
of the [PLANS cult], he thinks that his own perception of "the
whole" [of anthroposophy] determines what "true knowledge"
[of anthroposophy] is. Since anthroposophy as a whole simply
[must] contain [many] jarring notes that [must] fit onto [his]
or [Dianna's] or [Dan D's] private copy of the score, it is a
simple matter to declare that the false notes in Steiner's published
works [are the only ones] really there in the first place. Such
arguments are, in turn, remarkably persuasive with people who
find something really weird about examining their own thought
process. Thus does the auto-reinforcing cycle of [anti] anthroposophist
misreadings of Steiner continue.
No that I can believe.
Mike
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter
Staudenmaier
Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 8:00 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] how to misread Steiner
Hi Mike, you wrote:
You know, If you're just reading words
Steiner left a lot of words behind. The way to understand words
is to read them. You don't have to "just" read them,
but it is a necessary first step. If you ignore Steiner's words,
you won't understand them.
and have no regard for the integrated unitary world view that
Anthroposophy is
That's backwards, Mike. You don't first decide what his supposed
"integrated unitary world view" is, and then start
reading his words. You need to do it the other way around.
I could turn that whole paragraph around on you, Let's give
it a try shall we?
Sure. That's a good way to get a clearer sense of the difference
between a credulous approach and a critical approach.
Re-write of Peter's paragraph:
I think that this actually is not obvious to [Peter], believe
it or not. As far as I can tell, he really does think -- just
like [Dianna]and [Dan D.]et al. -- that his own inventive reading
of the Steiner passage is what Steiner himself said.
Well, except that I haven't invented any hidden references to
immunology and imagined them floating somewhere behind Steiner's
own words. What I've done is point to what Steiner actually wrote.
The rest of you don't like this because it conflicts with your
perception of Steiner's "integrated unitary world view".
That is why you keep misreading Steiner.
This is called an eisegetical interpretation:
reading into the text content that is not there. One reason this
approach seems sound to so many [anti] anthroposophists is that
they believe their own personal understanding of Steiner's work
as a whole sets the standard for all readings.
But that isn't what I believe, obviously. What I say is that
no understanding of Steiner's work as a whole can possibly
set the standard for specific readings. Not mine, not yours,
not anybody's. To hold otherwise is to misunderstand what reading
means and what it is for. It is entirely wrongheaded to try to
fit specific passages into a pre-existing notion of what his
work "as a whole" stands for.
RS stated in a 1908 lecture that soon a
"rise against alcohol'' would come into humanity. 20+ years
later AA was founded and has spread all around the globe. But
you know what? he didn't actually say the WORD AA did he?
That's an excellent comparison. In that case, Steiner does indeed
refer to alcohol (taking your word for it on the quoted passage),
and it isn't far-fetched to connect this to the later emergence
of things like AA, though it would be a mistake to project this
later development back onto Steiner's 1908 statement. But the
passage Daniel quoted does not mention disease or immunology
in any way. The connection to immunology is something Daniel
invented.
What makes you believe, that Andrea actually
believes, that his "own personal understanding of Steiner's
work as a whole sets the standard for all readings."
Because otherwise he couldn't determine what constitutes "true
knowledge" of Steiner's doctrines, and declare which readings
are and are not compatible with anthroposophy "as a whole",
instead of examining the actual text in question.
I don't believe that this belief is grounded in actual fact.
Then maybe you should read Andrea's post to Diana again. What
do you think he was trying to say about the relation between
specific readings of particular Steiner passages and the ostensible
integrated unitary world view that Anthroposophy is?
Re-write of Peters paragraph:
Because [Peter] mistakes himself for the
conductor of the [PLANS cult],
I am far from the conductor of PLANS. I'm not even a member of
PLANS.
he thinks that his own perception of "the
whole" [of anthroposophy] determines what "true knowledge"
[of anthroposophy] is.
No, that is the opposite of what I've been saying.
Since anthroposophy as a whole simply [must]
contain [many] jarring notes that [must] fit onto [his] or [Dianna's]
or [Dan D's] private copy of the score, it is a simple matter
to declare that the false notes in Steiner's published works
[are the only ones] really there in the first place.
But I keep arguing exactly the contrary of the position you ascribe
to me. My argument is that no appeals, of any kind, to any "integrated
unitary world view" can tell us what specific texts mean.
If you want to make sense of these texts, you need to set aside
the notion that they all form one big harmonious symphony. That
is the case with every single author, Mike, not just with Rudolf
Steiner.
[Mike
in the thread "in my view?":]
I'm not sure that we will ever resolve our
differences of what constitutes "Proof."
I think that's beside the point. The issue isn't resolving our
differences, the issue is that different standards of proof are
likely to impress very different sorts of readers. The standards
you aspire to are a sure-fire way of reassuring people who already
believe that anthroposophy cannot possibly be racist.
I don't believe that Anthroposophy, in written form, couldn't
possibly be interpreted racist. Quite the contrary. Especially
if that's all you're looking for.
But that obviously isn't all I'm looking for. Racism is one aspect
of anthroposophical doctrine, by no means the only one.
I also don't believe that RS is thought of by many on this
list as being "immune to criticism."
Then why do some of you believe that it is racist to sort different
racial groups into higher and lower categories, except when Rudolf
Steiner does so?
If I may make a suggestion: Instead of saying "all they
keep saying" as you do above, you might want to try 'all
I keep hearing.' This kind of approach, I think, is much
more inclusive and less likely to set off other peoples defenses.
That's silly. If I were worried about setting off your defenses,
I wouldn't have come here. Your defenses were already in high
gear long before I joined the list.
I think there's a fine line between "critical thinking"
and Cynicism.
Yes, I've noticed that you have a hard time telling those two
things apart. That's precisely why you find critique so baffling.
Steiner"s would-be defenders?
Yes. They're not defending Steiner, they're defending a cherished
idealized image of Steiner.
Maybe it's because those who utilize anthro ideas on occasion,
like me for instance, don't make sense of it in the same way
that someone else would.
You can say that again.
And why should I?
You shouldn't, if you don't want other people to take what you
say on the topic seriously. But in that case, it doesn't make
sense to moan about how critics of anthroposophy are constantly
misrepresenting Steiner because gosh, that's just not how you
look at Steiner personally.
For someone that claims to be a anarchist, you seem to adhere
to allot of "standards" as to what constitutes racism,
incompetent readers, muddled thinkers and the like. That surprises
me.
It does? Why? Because you think that anarchists oppose standards?
I think that arrogance and a lack of empathy is, for the most
part, based on ignorance.
That could be. But you haven't explained why you think it is
arrogant and unempathetic to point out the circular reasoning
that you find so compelling. Critique is not a sign of arrogance.
It is a sign of arrogance, on the other hand, to pretend that
you have found some sort of special spiritual path, and that
to really understand the doctrines associated with this path
you have to view it from within, and that people who view it
critically from without are unspiritual and lacking in empathy.
Thanks for your thoughts,
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: Mike Helsher
Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 10:48 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] how to misread Steiner
M:
Hey, what the hell happened to over all theme
of my original reply?
and have no regard for the integrated unitary
world view that Anthroposophy is
P:
That's backwards, Mike. You don't first
decide what his supposed "integrated unitary world view"
is, and then start reading his words. You need to do it the other
way around.
M:
I did read the words. I read the words, found
what I was looking for, and found them to ring true for me. just
like you did.
P:
The rest of you don't like this because
it conflicts with your perception of Steiner's "integrated
unitary world view". That is why you keep misreading Steiner.
M:
Well, I could say the same thing in reverse:
that you keep misreading Steiner because you have conflicts with
your "Perception" (or lack there of) of Steiner's integrated
and unitary world view. That is why you keep misreading Steiner.
M:
Since anthroposophy as a whole simply [must]
contain [many] jarring notes that [must] fit onto [his] or [Dianna's]
or [Dan D's] private copy of the score, it is a simple matter
to declare that the false notes in Steiner's published works
[are the only ones] really there in the first place.
P:
But I keep arguing exactly the contrary
of the position you ascribe to me. My argument is that no appeals,
of any kind, to any "integrated unitary world view"
can tell us what specific texts mean. If you want to make sense
of these texts, you need to set aside the notion that they all
form one big harmonious symphony. That is the case with every
single author, Mike, not just with Rudolf Steiner.
M:
So here we are at the old separate the feelings
from the words thing again.
I think it safe to say that you dislike racism. can you honestly
tell me that you separate this (your dislike racism) from the
outcome of your analysis of the material?
M:
I'm not sure that we will ever resolve
our differences of what constitutes "Proof."
P:
I think that's beside the point. The issue
isn't resolving our differences, the issue is that different
standards of proof are likely to impress very different sorts
of readers. The standards you aspire to are a sure-fire way of
reassuring people who already believe that anthroposophy cannot
possibly be racist.
M:
And your standards do just the opposite.
Can we resolve our differences by agreeing to disagree?
M:
I don't believe that Anthroposophy, in
written form, couldn't possibly be interpreted racist.
Quite the contrary. Especially if that's all you're looking for.
P:
But that obviously isn't all I'm looking
for. Racism is one aspect of anthroposophical doctrine, by no
means the only one.
M:
Exactly. But it is certainly all you seem
to want to talk about on this list. And you certainly cast a
negative spin by doing so. And you certainly don't seem to be
looking for any kind of positive outlook
M:
I also don't believe that RS is thought
of by many on this list as being "immune to criticism."
P:
Then why do some of you believe that it
is racist to sort different racial groups into higher and lower
categories, except when Rudolf Steiner does so?
M:
I don't know what others believe in detail,
but I think that RS was defining cultural evolution, not simply
separating racial groups - something I know that you don't believe
in.
So here we are with the "Beliefs" thing again.
M:
If I may make a suggestion: Instead of
saying "all they keep saying" as you do above,
you might want to try 'all I keep hearing.' This kind
of approach, I think, is much more inclusive and less likely
to set off other peoples defenses.
P:
That's silly. If I were worried about setting
off your defenses, I wouldn't have come here. Your defenses were
already in high gear long before I joined the list.
M:
I didn't say that you should worry about my
defenses. Admittedly I was being somewhat patronizing about your
sometimes abrasive callus and curt style. It's a common theme
in psych circles that keeping your statements focused on yourself
- "all I keep hearing" - makes for healthier communication.
M:
I think there's a fine line between "critical
thinking" and Cynicism.
P:
Yes, I've noticed that you have a hard
time telling those two things apart. That's precisely why you
find critique so baffling.
M:
I find cynicism to be always shining a light
on the negative, like you with do with your opinions of RS.
M:
Steiner"s would-be defenders?
P:
Yes. They're not defending Steiner, they're
defending a cherished idealized image of Steiner.
M:
Then maybe you should write: "Steiner's
cherished idealized image defenders."
But don't forget Steiner's would be critics: "Steiner's
racist demonized image creators."
M:
Maybe it's because those who utilize anthro
ideas on occasion, like me for instance, don't make sense of
it in the same way that someone else would.
P:
You can say that again.
M:
No. I don't have time to go read the original
context cause you chopped all out.
M.
I think that arrogance and a lack of empathy
is, for the most part, based on ignorance.
P:
That could be. But you haven't explained
why you think it is arrogant and unempathetic to point out the
circular reasoning that you find so compelling. Critique is not
a sign of arrogance. It is a sign of arrogance, on the other
hand, to pretend that you have found some sort of special spiritual
path, and that to really understand the doctrines associated
with this path you have to view it from within, and that people
who view it critically from without are unspiritual and lacking
in empathy.
M:
I hope not to imply in any way that I have
found "the one and only right way," because in all
honesty I feel that there are as many paths to walk on this planet
as there are people. But I'm not going to "pretend"
that I haven't found some deeply moving aspects of RS's work
either. Just like your not going to pretend that you've found
what looks like racism to you. I don't think that your unspiritual
either, quite the contrary. I think it's dumb to think like that.
I found a spiritual path long before I started reading RS and
I don't think I'm special because of it; dam lackey I think.
I didn't have to many options left.
And we all have our assets and liabilities. I see you as not
understanding the kind of empathy that I have come to understand
after working for 15 years in a Twelve step fellowship. I've
seen it drastically change lives for the better for many people.
On the other hand, Moody mike does have a hard time reeling himself
in sometimes.
P:
Thanks for your thoughts
M:
yeah, you like-em I can see. You like to chew-em
up and spit-em back out. :)
Mike
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 1:17 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] how to misread Steiner
Hi Mike, thanks for the tone of this post.
You wrote:
Hey, what the hell happened to over all theme of my original
reply?
I thought I addressed it. I think the notion that anthroposophy
as taught by Steiner constitutes an integrated unitary world
view is false. I think it constitutes a far-flung, somewhat fragmented,
and internally contradictory set of doctrines.
I did read the words. I read the words,
found what I was looking for, and found them to ring true for
me.
Yep, that's the problem. You found what you were looking for,
instead of looking for whatever you might find, regardless of
whether it happens to ring true.
Well, I could say the same thing in reverse: that you keep
misreading Steiner because you have conflicts with your "Perception"
(or lack there of) of Steiner's integrated and unitary world
view.
Yes, you could say that, but it quite obviously is not what I
say, much less what I do. It is the opposite of my stance. Since
there is no such thing as "Steiner's integrated and unitary
world view", as far as I am concerned, it is plainly not
the case that I am assimilating my reading of specific Steiner
passages to this imaginary construct. Instead, I begin from the
premise that specific passages need to be read within their historical,
textual, and ideological context, keeping in mind that Steiner's
doctrines changed and developed over time and were thus inconsistent,
as with any important thinker. Far from being "the same
thing", my approach is flatly incompatible with yours.
So here we are at the old separate the feelings from the words
thing again.
No, that isn't what I was getting at here (though I do think
you would do well to learn that simple lesson in public discourse).
What I said is that for any author, not just Rudolf Steiner,
if you want to make sense of particular texts, you need to set
aside the notion that they all form one big harmonious symphony.
It's not a matter of feelings.
I think it safe to say that you dislike racism. can you honestly
tell me that you separate this (your dislike racism) from the
outcome of your analysis of the material?
No, of course I don't say that. You and several other listmates
seem to have trouble grasping this. My dislike of racism inevitably
plays a role in my analysis of the material. I told you this
very explicitly when I first joined the list, not to mention
during our earlier exchanges elsewhere. But whether I like or
dislike racism is obviously a different question from whether
some of Steiner's doctrines are racist. Not everybody dislikes
racism, and some folks find Steiner's racial doctrines appealing
precisely because of their racist content.
And your standards do just the opposite.
Uh, yeah, that's the point. My standards of proof are meaningless
to people who have already decided ahead of time that Steiner's
teachings cannot possibly contain any racist elements. That's
why I don't normally write for such people.
Can we resolve our differences by agreeing to disagree?
I think that resolving differences is sort of the opposite of
agreeing to disagree, but I am happy to agree to disagree on
this or on anything else.
But it is certainly all you seem to want to talk about on
this list.
Yes, that is quite true. I have a bad feeling that you're going
to decide I'm a sneaky slippery intellectual for saying this,
but the distinction between "what I'm looking" for
in my research on anthroposophy and "what I'm looking for"
in my participation on this list is a crucial one, and one that
I take to be both obvious and unremarkable. From reading this
list for some time before I joined it, I noticed that quite a
few members took a keen interest in my arguments about Steiner's
attitudes toward Jews, toward "primitive savages",
and so forth. I came to the list in order to discuss those things.
That certainly does not mean that I think Steiner only held racist
views, and no others.
And you certainly cast a negative spin by doing so.
You mean because I don't like racism, and thus I have a negative
attitude toward those doctrines which I consider racist? That
is certainly true, but I don't see why it's a bad thing, if that's
what you're getting at.
And you certainly don't seem to be looking for any kind of
positive outlook
You're right, I didn't come here to talk about what I think is
positive in Steiner's work, though I did address that topic briefly
in my first week on the list, particularly in exchanges with
you and Bradford.
I don't know what others believe in detail, but I think that
RS was defining cultural evolution, not simply separating racial
groups - something I know that you don't believe in.
I'm not sure I follow you -- which part of that do you think
I don't believe in? I agree with you that Steiner was "defining
cultural evolution" as he saw it (and I do believe in cultural
evolution, for what it's worth). The trouble is that he linked
his conception of cultural evolution directly to his model of
progressive racial evolution. In the 'folk souls' book, just
a few sentences after he says that American Indians died out
because of their racial character, Steiner writes that cultural
evolution is a higher stage of racial evolution. He explictly
classified some racial groups as higher and others as lower,
in a variety of contexts. That sort of narrative of racial progress
and racial decline is what lots and lots of people consider racist,
no matter whether Rudolf Steiner promoted it or somebody else.
So here we are with the "Beliefs" thing again.
Yes, I think that's where we've been all along. I do not think
it is wrong to describe some beliefs as racist. I don't think
it is arrogant or unempathetic to do so, and I don't think it
is smearing.
It's a common theme in psych circles that keeping your statements
focused on yourself - "all I keep hearing" - makes
for healthier communication.
Yes, we do that in co-op circles too. In those circles, it often
makes sense to focus on the feelings of the people you share
the room with. I do not think this makes nearly the same sort
of sense on a public email list with a bunch of people who mostly
don't know one another personally.
I see you as not understanding the kind of empathy that I
have come to understand after working for 15 years in a Twelve
step fellowship.
Yes, I know you see me this way, and I have no idea why. You've
never encountered me in a 12 step fellowship. You've only ever
encountered me via the internet, in public forums, discussing
controversial topics on which both of us have strong views. I
don't understand why you want to transfer the practices of the
one realm to the other. Public discussions of controversial topics
are exactly the right place for critique, in my view, and as
far as I can see this tells us nothing about our respective capacities
for empathy. Chewing up ideas and spitting them back out is part
of what public discussion of controversial topics is for.
I find cynicism to be always shining a light on the negative,
like you with do with your opinions of RS.
I'd say that's a pretty good description of criticism, not of
cynicism. Cynicism typically refers to motives and character.
Criticism typically refers to ideas and arguments. Criticism
does indeed involve shining a light on the negative, and that
is exactly what I often do with Steiner. I think this is a very
good thing to do, not a bad thing. In fact I'd go so far as to
say that it would be downright cynical to reject the practice
of criticism.
Thanks again for explaining your thinking,
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: holderlin66
Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 4:37 pm
Subject: Re: how to misread Steiner
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
Uh, yeah, that's the point. My standards
of proof are meaningless to people who have already decided ahead
of time that Steiner's teachings cannot possibly contain any
racist elements. That's why I don't normally write for such people.
Letter to Dr. Staudenmaier
Office of Germanic Racism
Dr. Dr. Staudenmaier, I'm sorry, I thought
you got the memo I left. Well, incase you didn't, to catch you
up; We started out about 30 years ago on the trek, the whole
student body, we left a memo under the doormat with the key.
You know the doormat in front of your office that said, "Welcome
to Racism.Com".
We started off in wagons, shooting Indians
and scalping gooks, by the time we got to our destination, our
fearless leader, Dr. Dread Rudy the Racist, was driving a chevy
pickup truck. Time is a strange thing. Like Cocoon, we never
grew old and we exchanged our bodies with replanted biodynamic
pods. I don't remember any brainwashing, but I fell asleep about
18 years into the trip, but been happy ever since.
But the results of our extended field trip
into Anthro country, was that, to my surprise, anybody could
come for dinner, Dread's motto, was come as you are even if you
are a brittle, anal, sceptic or skeptic. Dr. Dread spent most
of his precious time, between visitations from Angelic Beings,
feeding the hungry with his own Iron ladle. Now there is a story
behind that big huge Iron ladle which I wanna tell ya, when I
see ya.
Habitats for humanity were erected free of
race creed or color, called Wally's Wide Eyed Wonder Holes. Children
flourished as far as I could tell, but when ever Dr. Dread blew
on his famous Socrates Pan Pipes, the children would go single
file like a bunch of mice. I suppose that could be documented
and used for your project. That seemed odd, but I guessed it
was the strange intervals in the music. Most economies of the
little Wally WEWH were a little shaky but they were very disciplined
and took baths on fridays.
So, I'm afraid that I failed in my mission
to find racism. Ain't no Racism here, after 30 years of treking
through the low country of Anthro land, I only saw four kinds
of faces. Giddy-Stern-Jolly-Warrior Class. It kinda reminded
me of the Caste System of India..but as for bad language, yelling
at the stupidity of Red Folks and Yellow Folks and Green Folks,
and Orange folks...like you said, I heard no complaints and recorded
no yelling...Course I yelled at em but Dr. Dread kinda had his
door open all the time for anybody to knock and chat for awhile
when they were peeved.
For awhile I thought that is where he did
his hypnotic Bela Lugoisi magic, by staring in their eyes and
whispering, you know, racist stuff. But anybody could look in
cause his door was always open and I didn't see any of that eye
stuff you were talkin about.
Now instead of telling me who I should marry
and taking all my money, I got showered with riches daily, new
gold just kept popping up where ever I leaned on a shovel. So
I was never told to stop giving my gold away to strangers, in
fact it was encouraged. Dr. Dread always said there was more
where that came from. So I guess he wasn't the old stingy race
baiting scrooge we all thought he was.
I now live in a house in Malibou next to Dick
Clark. Dick has takin a liken to the music of the spheres and
Man as symphony. I frankly didn't think Cassie Casem or Dick
would like classical, but they drop by every chance they get
and study Man as Symphony together.
Anyways Dr. Staudenmaier I hope you are doing
better with the RED HUNT and your mission, given to you from
J.Edgar Hoover's death bed. I also hope the office you share
with Roy Cohn, Office of Red-Racism-Rug Rats isn't too crowded.
As I recall your office was just a block away from McCarthy's
grave site. Ya, I'm still in touch with Dr. Dread, he still wears
that long Black Wyatt Earp coat, with that stupid string tie...
But, I didn't find any Racism.
But don't worry, the Truth is Out There!
...................................................................................................................................
From: Mike Helsher
Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 8:21 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] how to misread Steiner
Peter, I really don't have time to go into
detail right now. This jumped out at me.
M:
I think it safe to say that you dislike
racism. can you honestly tell me that you separate this (your
dislike racism) from the outcome of your analysis of the material?
P:
My dislike of racism inevitably plays a
role in my analysis of the material.
M:
EXACTLY.
My Love of metaphorical understanding obviously influences my
analysis of the material as well.
P:
But whether I like or dislike racism is
obviously a different question from whether some of Steiner's
doctrines are racist.
M:
Well yeah, it's a different question. So what?
Your dislike of racism is going to effect your view of the material
regardless, as well as your many other dislikes that have brought
you to call Anthroposophy a "pseudo-religion" ( I think
that's a negative judgment by the way, something you say you
do not have). All this inevitably plays a role in your
analysis of the material.
The AA big book was written in the 30's I think. It has a chapter
in it entitled "to wives" that by today's standards
can be seen as sexist. Especially if the person reading it really
dislikes sexual discrimination. (I'm not a member of AAYou can
call it sexist, or you can say that it was a reflection of the
cultural norm for that time period, depending on your likes and
dislikes. But we should (I think) be responsible and view the
bigger picture and ask if it was meant to be sexist. In doing
so we might ask: "what has this phenomena contributed to
the world? Does the utilization of these doctrines by modern
day people, exemplify an attitude of discrimination toward women?
A few people might say yes, if they have no regard for what this
organization has brought to the world.
The doctrines, as written, have elements that can certainly be
seen as sexist. However the practical, uniquely individual, hands
on heart felt utilization of what these doctrines convey
is absolutely anything but.
Same goes for Anthroposophy, "in my view."
M:
And your standards do just the opposite.
P:
Uh, yeah, that's the point. My standards
of proof are meaningless to people who have already decided ahead
of time that Steiner's teachings cannot possibly contain any
racist elements. That's why I don't normally write for such people
M:
I never decided "ahead of time"
that Steiner's teachings cannot possibly contain racist elements.
I tried, from our very first exchange, to keep an open mind about
it.
But as strange as it may sound to you, your work has been very
influential in helping me come to know the truth as I see it
today.
Thanks
Mike
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 10:08 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] how to misread Steiner
Hi Mike, you wrote:
All this inevitably plays a role in your analysis of
the material.
Yes, of course it does. Are you trying to say that you think
it would be better if people who study the history of racism
liked racism rather than disliking it?
The AA big book was written in the 30's I think. It has a
chapter in it entitled "to wives" that by today's standards
can be seen as sexist.
But not by the standards of the 1930s?
Especially if the person reading it really dislikes sexual
discrimination.
Or if they really like sexual discrimination and are trying to
find evidence of its ubiquitous and benign nature.
But we should (I think) be responsible and view the bigger
picture and ask if it was meant to be sexist. In doing so we
might ask: "what has this phenomena contributed to the world?
Those are two fundamentally different questions, Mike. You keep
getting them mixed up. Whether something was "meant to be
sexist" does not determine whether it is sexist, much less
whether its actual consequences in the world are sexist.
A few people might say yes, if they have no regard for what
this organization has brought to the world.
But it is entirely possible for people who do have high
regard for what the organization has brought to the world to
recognize that it also has some flaws.
The doctrines, as written, have elements that can certainly
be seen as sexist. However the practical, uniquely individual,
hands on heart felt utilization of what these doctrines
convey is absolutely anything but.
How could you possibly know that one way or the other? You only
know what a small segment of these utilizations is like.
Same goes for Anthroposophy, "in my view."
Mine too. That's why I address anthroposophy as a doctrine, rather
than speculating about what all utilizations of it in today's
world are like. My focus is on what Steiner taught and on the
reception of his teachings among the first generation of his
followers.
Peter
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
April/May
2004
The Uncle
Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files
Anthroposophy & Anarchism
Anthroposophy & Scientology
Anthroposophical
Morsels
Anthroposophy,
Critics, and Controversy
