more questions, more anwers
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 9:34 pm
Subject: more questions, more anwers
Hi Daniel, you wrote:
[in
thread "Reading and Falsehoods"]
If you lived in 1910, you had no concepts
such as immunology. You lacked the scientific fact of genetic
similarity and immune response. You had only the fact that many
more Native Americans died than would have if it were Europe
exposed to the same diseases. How do you explain this in 1910?
If you're Rudolf Steiner, you explain it by reference to the
ostensible racial character of Native Americans themselves and
by claiming that they had to die out. That's what a lot of people
consider racist nonsense. How about you?
[Daniel in thread "Questions for you, Peter and
suggestion to the list 1":]
Peter, I was asking for explication of the
overbroad claims thrown carelessly about in the paragraph below.
Yes, I
can see that this is what you were asking for. The reason you
asked for this is that you misconstrued the paragraph in the
first place. It says absolutely nothing about "the majority
of anthroposophists" or about anybody "marching to
Hitler's orders". Those notions are figments of your imagination;
they do not appear in the paragraph at all. It is neither careless
nor overbroad to say that too many anthroposophists and anthroposophically
influenced figures had dismal records during the Third Reich.
If you would like to disagree with that assessment, as applied
to any of the figures I named, feel free to do so.
[Daniel
in thread "Questions for you, Peter and suggestion to the
list 1":]
Why are you throwing Otto Ohlendorf back
in the mix. I thought you told us he was not an anthroposophist.
Indeed.
He was an anthroposophically influenced figure.
[Daniel in thread
"questions and answers":]
You offered about half a dozen different
standards, and every time I questioned you to determine your
exact position, you changed it again.
I offered more than half a dozen standards for determining antisemitism,
and explained how Steiner fares under each of them. I didn't
change my position, you simply misunderstood my position. I'd
be happy to explain it again if you'd like.
[Daniel in thread "Reading
and Running":]
if you have
any questions you feel I have failed to answer, please repost
them and I promise I will go into detail. Otherwise I resent
the implication that I do not answer your points
You are having remarkable trouble with the notion of "implication".
I did not imply that you failed to answer five of my posts, I
said so outright. That is the difference between implicit and
explicit.
[Daniel
in thread "Races Disappearing - Steiner on Racial Evolution":]
I have read
Rittelmeyer, and did not find the claims you make.
Aye, there's the rub. You've also read Steiner, and did not find
the claims I make. For a nice cross-section of Rittelmeyer's
views on Jews, I recommend Friedrich Rittelmeyer, Rudolf Steiner
als Führer zu neuem Christentum (Stuttgart 1933), pp. 83-89;
and Rittelmeyer, "Judentum und Christentum", Die Christengemeinschaft,
January 1934, pp. 291-298.
I find it tiresome that you continually imply that I don't
know what you know
I don't imply this Daniel. I say it very explicitly. You do know
the difference, don't you?
[Daniel
in thread "Mind Gambling for Beginners":]
Hypocritical for a self-professed historian
and soon-to-be doctoral candidate is to fixate on a faulty English
translation when you have the original German.
The only problem is that I don't agree with you that the translation
is faulty. It would thus quite obviously be hypocritical of me
to pretend otherwise merely in order to mollify you. I must admit
that it is difficult for me to understand how that could possibly
be unclear.
If the only way you can make you point is by relying on a
bad translation over and against the original, then you don't
have much of a case.
It sounds
like you think that the German edition you've read is "the
original". It is not. I have a copy of the original German
edition of the text, published during Steiner's lifetime. It
is not identical to the 1962 edition you are relying on, particularly
as far as Steiner's theosophical vocabulary goes. The significance
of this divergence in terminology seems not to have dawned upon
you.
You once assured me that the key to understanding Stiner's
racism lay in the formative Jupiter forces.
No, I didn't.
You misunderstood that entire exchange. You could excise every
reference to Jupiter forces in the Gesamtausgabe and the racist
components of Steiner's teachings would be unchanged.
but when asked for details, then it gets all fuzzy, complicated,
confusing.
I can see that this gets confusing for you. I have no idea why
you hold me responsible for it.
Nor have you ever publicly admitted to a single error in anything
you ever wrote.
That's not true. I make mistakes all the time, and happily acknowledge
them in public. I do so in my published work on Steiner. For
example, in an early version of the second article I wrote about
anthroposophy, I mistakenly reported that Steiner's friend Jacobowski
worked for the Vienna branch of the Verein zur Abwehr des Antisemitismus.
In fact, he worked for the Berlin branch. I noted the error in
my third article, and corrected it in the revised version of
the second article. You can read all of it for yourself online
if you'd like.
[Daniel
in thread "questions and answers":]
I don't have any
set expectations for public discussion.
Sorry to hear that. I do have expectations for public discussion.
I recommend them to you.
Everything I know about this I learned from you. I have been
quite consciously mimicing your tone and manner for the last
four weeks. Prior to that I was deferential to a fault.
That's preposterous. You were snide and condescending long before
I joined the list, particularly in your exchanges with Diana,
where you misunderstood virtually every second sentence and then
projected your misunderstanding onto her.
You have
never conceeded a point no matter how I put it, or how many times
I reiterated it.
That's true. You haven't made any successful arguments yet, in
my view. Don't worry, I'm a patient fellow.
Thanks for your thoughts,
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 6:32 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] more questions, more anwers
Daniel wrote:
You offered about half a dozen different
standards, and every time I questioned you to determine your
exact position, you changed it again.
Peter Staudenmaier:
I offered more than half a dozen standards
for determining antisemitism, and explained how Steiner fares
under each of them. I didn't change my position, you simply misunderstood
my position. I'd be happy to explain it again if you'd like.
Daniel:
As I pointed out earlier: you may misrepresent
things all you want, this does not cause reality to automatically
conform to your claims. Anyone can go back over our exchange
in February and March and determine whether my claims of your
inconsistancy or your version of unwavering constancy are correct.
Daniel wrote:
I find it tiresome that you continually
imply that I don't know what you know
Peter Staudenmaier:
I don't imply this Daniel. I say it very
explicitly. You do know the difference, don't you?
Daniel:
Sometimes it is explicit, sometimes merely
implicit. Either way it is rather arrogant.
Daniel wrote:
Hypocritical for a self-professed historian
and soon-to-be doctoral candidate is to fixate on a faulty English
translation when you have the original German.
Peter Staudenmaier:
The only problem is that I don't agree
with you that the translation is faulty. It would thus quite
obviously be hypocritical of me to pretend otherwise merely in
order to mollify you. I must admit that it is difficult for me
to understand how that could possibly be unclear.
Daniel:
Yes. That is the problem. Your version, not
matter how preposterous, is always right. And since there are
so few of us who read German, it is difficult for most of our
listmates to form their own opinions on this. However, if you
performance with "nichts weniger als" issue is anyway
indicitive of your abilities, most probably conclude that you
consistently mistranslate things.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 7:04 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] more questions, more anwers
Daniel wrote:
Nor have you ever publicly admitted to
a single error in anything you ever wrote.
Peter Staudenmaier:
That's not true. I make mistakes all the
time, and happily acknowledge them in public. I do so in my published
work on Steiner. For example, in an early version of the second
article I wrote about anthroposophy, I mistakenly reported that
Steiner's friend Jacobowski worked for the Vienna branch of the
Verein zur Abwehr des Antisemitismus. In fact, he worked for
the Berlin branch. I noted the error in my third article, and
corrected it in the revised version of the second article. You
can read all of it for yourself online if you'd like.
Daniel:
Well, how about publicly acknowledging your
effors in the first version of "Anthroposophy and Ecofascism"?
Or do you prefer that your changes pass unnoted? Not that it
matters much, as most people are still reading the first version.
Daniel wrote:
You have never conceeded a point no matter
how I put it, or how many times I reiterated it.
Peter Staudenmaier:
That's true. You haven't made any successful
arguments yet, in my view. Don't worry, I'm a patient fellow.
Daniel:
Patient or stubborn. It is true that none
of my arguments have appeared successful to you. If no one at
all thought my arguments were successful, I might really doubt
my work. However, I have heard from a number of people that they
felt my arguments were successful. You are a holdout, it is true.
Whether the fault lies with my argument or your stubbornness
I will leave open.
Daniel Hindes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
