Reading and Running

 

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 6:09 pm
Subject: reading and running

After being away for a while, Daniel comes running back, and writes:

Indeed, no hatemongering at all.

Quite so. Did you think we were discussing hatemongering? I thought we were discussing racism.

Though not explicitly mentioned in this context, this weakness was immunological, as research from the last 40 years has indicated.

Sadly, this text was written more than forty years ago, thus your interpretation makes no sense. Steiner says nothing at all about immunology or about disease in the passage you quoted. He says that Native Americans died out because of their racial character and because they were destined to do so.

[Mind Gambling for Beginners April 23:]

Peter, you have told us previosly that the lectures do not actually have titles in the original (and this is correct). [...] I would expect someone of your impeccable scholarship to be clear on a point like this, especially since you brought it up yourself.

If I told this to you previously, why wasn't it clear to you? Did you forget your first sentence above while writing the following one?

you seem to be running away from every discussion we were having.

I do? Maybe you've also forgotten all of my replies to your earlier posts. For example, the one about Steiner's statements about black people in Europe. Or the one about how the term "antisemite" refers to people whose arguments are antisemitic. Or the one about the difference between doctrines and intentions. Or the one about how lots of people use the word "race" in non-racist ways every single day. Or the one about how translators do not base their choices on either your theories or my theories. In all of those cases, I did reply to you, but you didn't respond. Then there are several other posts of yours that I did not reply to, because I still don't know whether you prefer that I condescend to you or that I refrain from replying (another question of mine that you never answered). Since I will indeed need to run away from this list eventually, maybe you could summarize what you consider important and worthy of discussion regarding Steiner's racial and ethnic theories, and I will be glad to reply.

Peter

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

From: at
Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 7:09 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] reading and running

Daniel wrote:

you seem to be running away from every discussion we were having.

Peter Staudenmaier:

I do? Maybe you've also forgotten all of my replies to your earlier posts.

Daniel:

I thought you were lamenting about how no one ever engages in a discussion of the issues you have selected. I am simply pointing out that when someone tries, you drop the discussion on your end, which belies your whining about how no one will talk with you on the subjects you choose.

Peter Staudenmaier:

In all of those cases, I did reply to you, but you didn't respond.

Daniel:

Trying to turn the accusation, I see. If you have any questions for me, repost them, and I will respond. I have a number of questions - in fact I reposted several of them for the third time last week, but you continue to ignore them all. Like the issue of Jupiter forces. Or Rittlemayer's alleged anti-Semitism. For your sake, I'll repost them agian.

Peter Staudenmaier:

Then there are several other posts of yours that I did not reply to, because I still don't know whether you prefer that I condescend to you or that I refrain from replying (another question of mine that you never answered).

Daniel:

Pulling the same tired trick out of the bag "should I condescend to you?" I see. I think it is possible for two intelligent people to have a discussion without one of them feeling the need to condescend. So no, you don't have my permission to pull your attitude out and spew it all over. I'd prefer you remain civil. Nor can I believe that someone of your intelligence can be unable to answer an honest question without resorting to condescension. So I respond, like last time, that I select neither of your false choices. I'd like you to respond intelligently and without attitued. And as I said previously, if I ask an honest question, I can take an honest answer, so don't try to use the pathetic excuse that answering my posts would embarass me.

Daniel Hindes

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

From: at
Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 2:24 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] reading and running

Peter,

Again, 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, as you are now loudly claiming to conver for the fact that you yourself run away from discussions of your errors.

Daniel Hindes

----- Original Message -----
From: at
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] reading and running

Daniel wrote:

you seem to be running away from every discussion we were having.

Peter Staudenmaier:

I do? Maybe you've also forgotten all of my replies to your earlier posts.

Daniel:

I thought you were lamenting about how no one ever engages in a discussion of the issues you have selected. I am simply pointing out that when someone tries, you drop the discussion on your end, which belies your whining about how no one will talk with you on the subjects you choose.

Peter Staudenmaier:

In all of those cases, I did reply to you, but you didn't respond.

Daniel:

Trying to turn the accusation, I see. If you have any questions for me, repost them, and I will respond. I have a number of questions - in fact I reposted several of them for the third time last week, but you continue to ignore them all. Like the issue of Jupiter forces. Or Rittlemayer's alleged anti-Semitism. For your sake, I'll repost them agian.

Peter Staudenmaier:

Then there are several other posts of yours that I did not reply to, because I still don't know whether you prefer that I condescend to you or that I refrain from replying (another question of mine that you never answered).

Daniel:

Pulling the same tired trick out of the bag "should I condescend to you?" I see. I think it is possible for two intelligent people to have a discussion without one of them feeling the need to condescend. So no, you don't have my permission to pull your attitude out and spew it all over. I'd prefer you remain civil. Nor can I believe that someone of your intelligence can be unable to answer an honest question without resorting to condescension. So I respond, like last time, that I select neither of your false choices. I'd like you to respond intelligently and without attitued. And as I said previously, if I ask an honest question, I can take an honest answer, so don't try to use the pathetic excuse that answering my posts would embarass me.

Daniel Hindes

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

From: at
Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 6:14 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] reading and running

Daniel wrote:

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

Peter Staudenmaier:

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:

First, you are dodging the request. Either put up or shut up: What have I not answered that you would like answered?

Second, your snide attitude about implication is unwarranted. You seem to imagine that the world is so narrow that implication never exists (to which I predict you will jump in and say that you never actually said such a thing). But you have repeatedly denied that anyone could ever understand anything from your writing beyond what you would like to see there (another way of saying that the implication that others claim is there is not actually there). Elsewhere you have claimed that every reader, yourself included, brings their own background and influences to their interpretation of a text. Thus you appear confused. Either things can be read from texts or texts are like math equations with only one "right" answer. Doubtless you will continue to try to have it both ways.

Daniel Hindes

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

From: at
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 5:24 PM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] reading and running

Peter,

Again, 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, as you are now loudly claiming to conver for the fact that you yourself run away from discussions of your errors.

Daniel Hindes

----- Original Message -----
From: at
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] reading and running

Daniel wrote:

you seem to be running away from every discussion we were having.

Peter Staudenmaier:

I do? Maybe you've also forgotten all of my replies to your earlier posts.

Daniel:

I thought you were lamenting about how no one ever engages in a discussion of the issues you have selected. I am simply pointing out that when someone tries, you drop the discussion on your end, which belies your whining about how no one will talk with you on the subjects you choose.

Peter Staudenmaier:

In all of those cases, I did reply to you, but you didn't respond.

Daniel:

Trying to turn the accusation, I see. If you have any questions for me, repost them, and I will respond. I have a number of questions - in fact I reposted several of them for the third time last week, but you continue to ignore them all. Like the issue of Jupiter forces. Or Rittlemayer's alleged anti-Semitism. For your sake, I'll repost them agian.

Peter Staudenmaier:

Then there are several other posts of yours that I did not reply to, because I still don't know whether you prefer that I condescend to you or that I refrain from replying (another question of mine that you never answered).

Daniel:

Pulling the same tired trick out of the bag "should I condescend to you?" I see. I think it is possible for two intelligent people to have a discussion without one of them feeling the need to condescend. So no, you don't have my permission to pull your attitude out and spew it all over. I'd prefer you remain civil. Nor can I believe that someone of your intelligence can be unable to answer an honest question without resorting to condescension. So I respond, like last time, that I select neither of your false choices. I'd like you to respond intelligently and without attitued. And as I said previously, if I ask an honest question, I can take an honest answer, so don't try to use the pathetic excuse that answering my posts would embarass me.

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

Search this site powered by FreeFind