how to misread Steiner

PS IS A LIAR



From: "VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 12:14 am
Subject: PS IS A LIAR was R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] how to misread Steiner

----- Original Message -----

[PS:]

necessary first step. If you ignore Steiner's words, you won't understand them.

[Mike:]

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."

[PS:]

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.

<snip>

[Mike:]

did he?

Andrea adds:

P.S. lacks of any knowledge about the studies and development on Anthroposphical Medicine. BTW the topic "immunology" is at the core of several of those studies (see f.i. Evans & Rodger "Anthroposophical Medicine" London 1987)

So while Daniel did not invent anything PS shows, one more time, what is his "level" of correctness about the matter!!

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.

[Mike:]

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?

Oh well, I've got a "true esegete " of my thoughts, the one powerful Being able to detect what i was "trying to say".!!

Peter as you did since the first time you were on AT you are twisting and misquoting facts and statements,

Let's summarize: Diana was sarcastic about the fact that Steiner, as a clairvoyant, never talked of "immunology". I answered remembering about some basic facts on Anthro-medicine studies, immunology included. Diana faded away ("I've got no time to discuss") after posting a quite strange statement about karma that I criticized. So I made also a picture of Anthropos-Sophia like a symphony, that is something that hurted very much the Ctuhulhu brains.

Well, listmates, if you confront those facts with PS's statements you'll get only one answer:

PETER STAUDENMAIER IS A LIAR

Andrea

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: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 11:57 am
Subject: Re: PS IS A LIAR was R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] how to misread Steiner

Hi Andrea, you wrote:

the topic "immunology" is at the core of several of those studies

But not at the core of the Steiner passage that Daniel was talking about. That passage says nothing about medicine, anthroposophical or otherwise.

Oh well, I've got a "true esegete " of my thoughts, the one powerful Being able to detect what i was "trying to say".!!

That's exegesis, Andrea. The opposite of eisegesis. But exegesis is frequently mistaken, and if you think I was mistaken in this case, you are very well positioned to clarify what you were, in fact, trying to say. Did you not mean that Steiner's critics lack "true knowledge" of his doctrines?

Peter as you did since the first time you were on AT you are twisting and misquoting facts and statements

I didn't misquote you. Misquoting and misunderstanding are very different things. (And lying is something else entirely, by the way.)

Let's summarize: Diana was sarcastic about the fact that Steiner ,asa clairvoyant, never talked of "immunology". I answered remembering about some basic facts on Anthro-medicine studies ,immunology included . Diana faded away ("I've got no time to discuss") after posting a quite strange statement about karma that I criticized. So I made also a picture of Anthropos-Sophia like a symphony , that is something that hurted very much the Ctuhulhu brains.

Except for hurting brains part, that sounds accurate enough so far. What does this have to do with misquoting, or with lying for that matter?

Well, listmates, if you confront those facts with PS's statements you'll get only one answer: PETER STAUDENMAIER IS A LIAR

What is it you think I lied about? I said that you think it is impossible to discuss particular aspects of anthroposophy without a "true knowledge" of the whole symphony of anthroposophy. I replied that I think this is obviously flawed reasoning, since it presumes beforehand that anthroposophy does indeed form a harmonious whole and that particular aspects of it ought to be read in light of this supposed whole, rather than the other way around. I encourage you to disagree with my assessment of this sort of reasoning, but I don't see why you think I am lying, or why you think I misconstrued your position. Here, as a handy reminder, is the statement of yours that I quoted:

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!!

If you think I misunderstood you, I invite you to re-state what you meant. Thanks,

Peter

...................................................................................................................................

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 1:15 pm
Subject: R: PS IS A LIAR was R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] how to misread Steiner

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2004 8:57 PM
Subject: Re: PS IS A LIAR was R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] how to misread Steiner

Hi Andrea, you wrote:

the topic "immunology" is at the core of several of those studies

P:

But not at the core

A:

Wrong. The core of the thread was precisely "Indians' Genocide" BTW caused also by immunological problems.

P:

of the Steiner passage that Daniel

A:

Daniel? I was answering to Diana's sarcasm.

P.

hat passage says nothing about medicine, anthroposophical or otherwise.

A:

See above

Oh well, I've got a "true esegete " of my thoughts, the one powerful Being able to detect what i was "trying to say".!!

P.

That's exegesis, Andrea.

A:

No it's lying LYING about words that i did not post.

Peter as you did since the first time you were on AT you are twisting and misquoting facts and statements

P:

I didn't misquote you. Misquoting and misunderstanding are very different things. (And lying is something else entirely, by the way.)

A:

What's the problem ? You DID misquote, misunderstand and lie in the same time.

Let's summarize: Diana was sarcastic about the fact that Steiner ,asa clairvoyant, never talked of "immunology". I answered remembering about some basic facts on Anthro-medicine studies ,immunology included . Diana faded away ("I've got no time to discuss") after posting a quite strange statement about karma that I criticized. So I made also a picture of Anthropos-Sophia like a symphony , that is something that hurted very much the Ctuhulhu brains.

P:

Except for hurting brains part, that sounds accurate enough so far. What does this have to do with misquoting, or with lying for that matter?

A:

Can't you see it ? Your problem, sir. I believe that the listmates understood everything.

Well, listmates, if you confront those facts with PS's statements you'll get only one answer: PETER STAUDENMAIER IS A LIAR

P:

What is it you think I lied about?

A:

See above, pls. (Apart more or less other 235 topics on this list and elsewhere)

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!!

P:

If you think I misunderstood you, I invite you to re-state what you meant. Thanks,

A:

OK! ANTHROPOSOPHY IS ASYMPHONY AND ......BLA BLA.

OK?

(If it's not ok for you, your problem again, Mr LIAR)

Good nite (In Rome it's time for bed, Piotr)

A.

Peter

...................................................................................................................................

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 1:39 pm
Subject: Re: R: PS IS A LIAR was R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] how to misread Steiner

Hi again Andrea, you wrote:

Wrong. The core of the thread was precisely "Indians' Genocide" BTW caused also by immunological problems.

Yes, that was Daniel's inventive reading of Steiner's sentence about American Indians dying out. But even Daniel's reading had nothing to do with anthroposophical medicine. Instead he invoked mainstream conceptions of "genetic similarity and immune response", in Daniel's words, and referred us additionally to the work of Charles Mann and Henry Dobyns, neither of them anthroposophists.

Daniel? I was answering to Diana's sarcasm.

Yes, and I was answering to Daniel's reading of Steiner's sentence.

See above

I did see above. Steiner's sentence says nothing about medicine. Really. Take a look at it again. No mention of medicine anywhere, much less anthroposophical medicine.

No it's lying LYING about words that i did not post.

You did post these words, Andrea: "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!!" I am not lying when I say that you posted these words. If you think I misunderstood your words, you just need to say so, and perhaps clarify what you meant.

You DID misquote, misunderstand and lie in the same time.

No, I didn't misquote you. The quote above is exactly what you wrote.

Your problem, sir. I believe that the listmates understood everything.

Well, maybe one of them can explain it to me. You wrote the following words, in a post from 4/23/04: "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!!" That is exactly what I quoted in my post from later the same day. You can find your original post here:


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/4726

And my original post here:


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/4732

I invite you and any other listmates to explain why you think I misquoted you.

Peter

...................................................................................................................................

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 12:06 am
Subject: R: R: PS IS A LIAR was R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] how to misread Steiner

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Staudenmaier

Hi again Andrea, you wrote:

Wrong. The core of the thread was precisely "Indians' Genocide" BTW caused also by immunological problems.

Yes, that was Daniel's inventive reading of Steiner's sentence about American Indians dying out. But even Daniel's reading had nothing to do with anthroposophical medicine. Instead he invoked mainstream conceptions of "genetic similarity and immune response", in Daniel's words, and referred us additionally to the work of Charles Mann and Henry Dobyns, neither of them anthroposophists.

Daniel, again? With whom are you talking Peter ? BTW Daniel too grasped the link between the "whole" (the Anthro-things including medicine) and the single statement.

Daniel? I was answering to Diana's sarcasm.

Yes, and I was answering to Daniel's reading of Steiner's sentence.

Are you kidding?

See above

I did see above. Steiner's sentence says nothing about medicine. Really.

Really? The only reality is your lack of knowledge in Anthroposophy, boy.

Take a look at it again. No mention of medicine anywhere, much less anthroposophical medicine.

See above again

You did post these words, Andrea: "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!!" I am not lying when I say that you posted these words. If you think I misunderstood your words, you just need to say so, and perhaps clarify what you meant.

Uhu!! THE MOUSE IS IN THE TRAP!

What a feeble memory you have !! You posted that "I think to be the conductor of the Symphony" and the one able to decide what "true knowldge" is. Can you please tell the list where did I post these words? You made also poor attempts to demonstrate that this is "eisegesis", So your are in a TRAP, stronzo So I claim on and on _

YOU ARE A LIAR.MR STAUDENMAIER!!

You DID misquote, misunderstand and lie in the same time.

No, I didn't misquote you. The quote above is exactly what you wrote.

See above, LIAR:

Well, maybe one of them can explain it to me. You wrote the following words, in a post from 4/23/04: "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!!" That is exactly what I quoted in my post from later the same day. You can find your original post here:

Again? what a broken record! See above, Topolino.

YOU ARE A LIAR, MR Staudenmaier .

Well, Peter, since I believe that this could be the last time that I discuss something with you, (don't believe that you got something to say about the other open thread between us) I have the duty to tell you something. When I picture you and others from WC-PLANS as a "Lovecraftian" image (Ctuhulhu, Nyarlatothep and so on) I'm actually NOT joking. From a certain imaginative standpoint that is the way your personality and, most of all, your ill-minded dialectic gambling looks like ! You will laugh about it (I'm really sorry for you) but since this is an "Anthro" list I believe that most of the mates will be able to grasp perfectly what I am saying.

Bye

A.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/4726

And my original post here:


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/4732

I invite you and any other listmates to explain why you think I misquoted you.

Peter

...................................................................................................................................

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 11:30 am
Subject: Re: R: R: PS IS A LIAR was R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] how to misread Steiner

Hi Andrea, you wrote:

Daniel, again?

Yes, Daniel again. I'm not sure how you missed this, but my original post quoted both Diana and you, the quote from Diana referring to Daniel's inventive reading of Steiner's sentence. Is this why you think I misquoted you? Did you think I attributed Diana's words to you? Or maybe Daniel's?

BTW Daniel too grasped the link between the "whole" (the Anthro-things including medicine) and the single statement.

Yep, that's why I addressed both of you. In my view, you both made the same mistake of imagining some "whole" that magically links various concepts together, even when those concepts do not appear in the text in question.

Are you kidding?

No, I'm not kidding. Could you maybe try reading my post again? It starts with a quote from Diana about Daniel, and then moves on to a quote from you. Both quotes are entirely accurate and unaltered, and each of them is clearly attributed to the proper author. My post, once again, is right here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/4732

I invite you once more to explain why you think I misquoted you.

Really? The only reality is your lack of knowledge in Anthroposophy, boy.

Yes, this is exactly the claim that I ascribed to you, and criticized, previously. Why are you upset about supposed misunderstandings, since you keep repeating the very same claim?

You posted that "I think to be the conductor of the Symphony"

Yes, that is more or less what I posted. Not what you posted, but what I posted. Get it? That isn't a quote from you, it's (sort of) a quote from me. Let's try going over my words and your words one more time, shall we? I wrote: "Because Andrea mistakes himself for the conductor of the symphony, he thinks that his own perception of "the whole" determines what "true knowledge" is." I did not attribute this claim to you, but to myself. It is my criticism of your claim that "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!!" That latter claim is exactly what you wrote, and exactly what I quoted. I did not misquote you. I quoted you accurately, and then criticized your claim.

What a feeble memory you have !! You posted that "I think to be the conductor of the Symphony" and the one able to decide what "true knowldge" is. Can you please tell the list where did I post these words?

You didn't post those words. You posted the words ""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!!" And I posted the words "Because Andrea mistakes himself for the conductor of the symphony, he thinks that his own perception of "the whole" determines what "true knowledge" is." The first quote is you, the second one is me. There is no misquotation here.

When I picture you and others from WC-PLANS as a "Lovecraftian" image (Ctuhulhu, Nyarlatothep and so on) I'm actually NOT joking.

Yes, I got that. A number of you seem to live in a fantasy world populated by demonic forces who are always trying to trip you up with devious misquotations. I think this helps to explain why you have such a hard time dealing with external criticism.

Yours for critique,

Peter

...................................................................................................................................

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 12:19 pm
Subject: R: R: R: PS IS A LIAR was R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] how to misread Steiner

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2004 8:30 PM
Subject: Re: R: R: PS IS A LIAR was R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] how to misread Steiner

You posted that "I think to be the conductor of the Symphony"

P:

Yes,

A:

Oh well. you admit the truth, at last!

that is more or less what I posted. Not what you posted, but what I posted. Get it? That isn't a quote from you, it's (sort of) a quote from me

A:

Hi listmates!!

listen to this bright exercise of Jesuitic intellectual dishonsesty! The Ctuhulhu-head posted a sentence in which he shows to have "investigated" the "hidden intention" of a statement of mine and tries to esacpe from his responsibility playing one of his favourite games.

But let's go on

Ctuhulhu-head adds

Let's try going over my words and your words one more time, shall we? I wrote: "Because Andrea mistakes himself for the conductor of the symphony, he thinks that his own perception of "the whole" determines what "true knowledge" is." I did not attribute this claim to you, but to myself. It is my criticism of your claim that "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!!" That latter claim is exactly what you wrote, and exactly what I quoted. I did not misquote you. I quoted you accurately, and then criticized your claim.

My answer

No liar, You did not "criticize" You made a different joke. You made an "esisegis" of my own thinking, trying to demonstrate that you catched the "hidden meaning" aka my wish to be a "conductor" of Anthromatters,

I posted a whie ago

What a feeble memory you have !! You posted that "I think to be the conductor of the Symphony" and the one able to decide what "true knowldge" is. Can you please tell the list where did I post these words?

P:

You didn't post those words.

Oh the truth, AT LAST!!

P:

You posted the words ""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!!" And I posted the words "Because Andrea mistakes himself for the conductor of the symphony, he thinks that his own perception of "the whole" determines what "true knowledge" is." The first quote is you, the second one is me. There is no misquotation here.

A:

No, there is only a guy who pretend to " know" what another guy "thinks"......

When I picture you and others from WC-PLANS as a "Lovecraftian" image (Ctuhulhu, Nyarlatothep and so on) I'm actually NOT joking.

Yes, I got that. A number of you seem to live in a fantasy world populated by demonic forces who are always trying to trip you up with devious misquotations. I think this helps to explain why you have such a hard time dealing with external criticism.

A Fantasy World?? Respectable opinion, but the Reality has very little to do with such "opinions".

...................................................................................................................................

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 12:17 pm
Subject: how to misread each other

Hi again Andrea,

I wrote:

There is no misquotation here.

And you replied:

No, there is only a guy who pretend to " know" what another guy "thinks"......

Yes, that is exactly right. This is what people do in public discussions: they try to figure out what other people are thinking and saying, and then respond with their own thoughts. Since you can't seem to make up your mind on whether I misquoted you or not, maybe we can return to the somewhat simpler question of whether I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that anthroposophy constitutes a harmonious whole, and that people who lack what you consider to be true knowledge of this whole cannot make sense of particular texts by Rudolf Steiner. (I did not, for what it's worth, think you were saying that you are the conductor of the anthroposophical movement.) If you do not, in fact, believe that anthroposophy constitutes a harmonious whole, and that people who lack what you consider to be true knowledge of this whole cannot make sense of particular texts by Rudolf Steiner, then I once again encourage you to tell me what you were trying to say in the first place. Thanks,

Peter

...................................................................................................................................

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 10:31 pm
Subject: Encore was:R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] how to misread each other

Peter Staudenmaier

There is no misquotation here.

Hi Peter,

as I wrote our concert is over. But looking back at the threads I noticed that there's a need of an encore

You wrote:

Yes, that is exactly right. This is what people do in public discussions: they try to figure out what other people are thinking and saying, and then respond with their own thoughts.

I write:

Indeed. But there is the basic necessity to mantain some credibility avoiding to cross the border of the pure invention. That is exactly what you have done: pure invention of a non existing "background thinking" There's also a matter of "how to say"-as a"master of dialectis" should have to know,,,-

If you had been writing "It's also possible to imagine that A. thinks somehow to be the conductor of the Symphony" it should also have been more difficult to counter, doesn't it ?

Last Curtain

A.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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

Search this site powered by FreeFind