Skull and Bones
Studying Steiner for Years
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Mar 31, 2004 10:29 pm
Subject: studying Steiner for years
Hi again Dottie, you
wrote to Diana:
Diana, it can not be helped that most of
your group aligns itself with atheism, humanism and so forth.
It seems to be the running theme over there. For me it is a so
what until it becomes that you folks think you know better than
those who have been studying this man for years.
You've made this same argument before, and I've never understood
it. Why would it be the least bit surprising that some atheists
or humanists know Steiner's work better than some anthroposophists
do, including anthroposophists who have studied Steiner for years?
It sounds like you believe that people who feel a strong affinity
for a given body of ideas and therefore study this body of ideas
intensively will automatically have a better grasp of the ideas
than people who are basically critical of the same body of ideas.
According to this reasoning, Stalinists would have a better understanding
of Stalin's work than critics of Stalinism would. (Side note
to Tarjei, who finds analogies a little too logically challenging:
this is not a comparison of anthroposophy and Stalinism.) If
that is indeed what you believe, could you explain why you believe
it? If that's not what you believe, could you explain what you
mean? Thanks,
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Wed Mar 31, 2004 10:38 pm
Subject: Re: studying Steiner for years
Peter:
If that is indeed what you believe, could
you explain why you believe it? If that's not what you believe,
could you explain what you mean?
Again Peter, I am waiting and have been waiting
for at least two weeks if not more for your response to Mr. Farells
points on honesty?
Thanks,
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Thu Apr 1, 2004 10:13 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: studying Steiner for
years
Hi Dottie,
I've been ignoring your questions about Steiner's honesty because
I've already addressed them very thoroughly, both on this list
(in the exchange with you, Tarjei, and others about atheism)
and on the waldorf critics list (particularly in my extensive
replies to you). As I explained in those contexts, I do not think
that Steiner was for the most part deliberately dishonest in
his public writings and lectures. I think that Peter Farrell
makes a very good point about Steiner's obligations to his audience,
and to extent that I was able to follow the physics examples
(which is a very limited extent) I think Peter F's concerns are
valid. But I'm not persuaded that these examples indicate dishonesty
in the standard sense. I think that Steiner believed what he
was saying, and that he therefore was not dishonest.
I once again encourage you to explain your position on the relative
comprehension of Steiner's doctrines by anthroposophists and
by critics of anthroposophy.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Mon Apr 5, 2004 8:28 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] studying Steiner for years
Peter Staudenmaier to Dottie:
Why would it be the least bit surprising
that some atheists or humanists know Steiner's work better than
some anthroposophists do, including anthroposophists who have
studied Steiner for years?
Daniel:
I am not at all surprised that some people
(yourself included) seem to think that they understand Steiner
better than the people who are flat out telling you what you
have missed. What I find difficult to grasp is how someone like
yourself, who has heard for years that your grasp of Steiner
is incomplete, continue to posture as if you had nothing more
to learn on the subject. Just because you believe and posture
like you know a lot about Steiner does not make your knowledge
either deep or comprehensive, or even correct. Further, I find
it curious that you always run away whenever the discussion gets
to the weak points of your argument. You can get some mileage
out of claiming that you are here to test your understanding
and improve your comprehension, but your actual behavior belies
this claim.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 3:21 am
Subject: Re: studying Steiner for years
Peter: [Daniel:]
Peter Staudenmaier to Dottie:
Why would it be the least bit surprising
that some atheists or humanists know Steiner's work better than
some anthroposophists do, including anthroposophists who have
studied Steiner for years?
Wow, missed this one. You must be joking Peter.
Please. You and Dugan experts on Anthroposophy. I like you think
big Peter but unfortunately you have to put a little work into
the concepts which seems outright impossible for you and for
Dan. You'd get an F is this was a class on understanding the
basic works of Dr. Steiner.
Red Pill or Blue Pill... which one Peter?
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 10:03 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] studying Steiner for years
Hi agin Daniel, you wrote:
I am not at all surprised that some people (yourself included)
seem to think that they understand Steiner better than the people
who are flat out telling you what you have missed.
If this really doesn't surprise you, then how come you sound
so indignant about it much of the time? I do know quite a bit
more about Steiner's racial and ethnic doctrines than you do.
That has become painfully obvious in the course of our exchanges.
I am confident that you know quite a bit more than I do about
all sorts of other interesting aspects of anthroposophy. Surely
that can't be too hard to recognize. It is a very common feature
of public discussion.
What I find difficult to grasp is how someone like yourself,
who has heard for years that your grasp of Steiner is incomplete,
continue to posture as if you had nothing more to learn on the
subject.
That isn't the posture I adopt. There are large swaths of anthroposophy
that I know relatively little about. I've noted that several
times before.
Further, I find it curious that you always run away whenever
the discussion gets to the weak points of your argument.
I don't run away from arguments. In fact some of you seem to
hold this against me; in your eyes it has something or other
to do with wanting to have the last word.
You can get some mileage out of claiming that you are here
to test your understanding and improve your comprehension, but
your actual behavior belies this claim.
You mean because I'm not shy about telling people who have been
reading Steiner for thirty years that they missed some important
chunks, and that their grasp of several historical concepts is
rather shaky? I don't see how that sort of behavior would belie
my claim about improving comprehension. Nobody's comprehension
is improved by ignoring errors. Do you disagree?
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 4:19 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] studying Steiner for years
Hi agin Daniel, you wrote:
I am not at all surprised that some people
(yourself included) seem to think that they understand Steiner
better than the people who are flat out telling you what you
have missed.
Peter Staudenmaier:
If this really doesn't surprise you, then
how come you sound so indignant about it much of the time?
Daniel:
If I sound indignant, it is because people
like yourself refuse to learn anything you don't want to know,
and refuse to attempt to understand even basic things that are
presented to you.
Peter Staudenmaier:
I do know quite a bit more about Steiner's
racial and ethnic doctrines than you do. That has become painfully
obvious in the course of our exchanges.
Daniel:
Really? You haven't shown me a quote yet that
I haven't seen. I haven't the time to go through and show you
exactly how each of your quotes are out of context, and by all
accounts this would be a thoroughly useless exercise, and you
simply reject every idea you dislike, often rather contemptuously.
Daniel wrote:
What I find difficult to grasp is how someone
like yourself, who has heard for years that your grasp of Steiner
is incomplete, continue to posture as if you had nothing more
to learn on the subject.
Peter Staudenmaier:
That isn't the posture I adopt. There are
large swaths of anthroposophy that I know relatively little about.
I've noted that several times before.
Daniel:
And I have repeatedly pointed out how this
hinders your understanding of the quotes that you rather arbitrarily
bandy about. But you have shown no interest in learning anything
on this subject. You mind is already made up, empty gestures
to the contrary notwithstanding.
Daniel wrote:
Further, I find it curious that you always
run away whenever the discussion gets to the weak points of your
argument.
Peter Staudenmaier:
I don't run away from arguments. In fact
some of you seem to hold this against me; in your eyes it has
something or other to do with wanting to have the last word.
Daniel:
Sure you run away from arguments. You still
have not explained how the formative forces of Jupiter are superior
to the other planets, despite telling me with all confidence
that this was the key to understanding Steiner's racist ideology
as expressed in GA 121. You run away from all discussion on this.
For years.
Daniel wrote:
You can get some mileage out of claiming
that you are here to test your understanding and improve your
comprehension, but your actual behavior belies this claim.
Peter Staudenmaier:
You mean because I'm not shy about telling
people who have been reading Steiner for thirty years that they
missed some important chunks, and that their grasp of several
historical concepts is rather shaky? I don't see how that sort
of behavior would belie my claim about improving comprehension.
Nobody's comprehension is improved by ignoring errors. Do you
disagree?
Daniel:
No, it is not that your "educational
efforts" directed at Anthroposophists are worthless. Rather,
the exchange runs entirely in one direction. You lecture from
your high horse about things you barely know a thing about, and
then refuse to listen to anything that comes in response. Your
small mind is entirely closed on the issue, despite frequent
statements that mimic the words of serious scholars seeking to
learn.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 8:34 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] studying Steiner for years
Hi Daniel, you wrote:
You haven't shown me a quote yet that I haven't seen.
Well, except for that little Wagner incident a couple days ago.....
You mind is already made up
It's true that my mind is made up that talking about higher races
and lower races is racist. I'd still like to hear why your mind
is not made up on this.
the exchange runs entirely in one direction.
That is indeed often the case here. I'm not sure what I might
do to rectify that situation, however.
then refuse to listen to anything that comes in response.
I listen to pretty much everything that comes in response. It's
a fascinating view of contemporary anthroposophist beliefs about
race.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 1:28 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] studying Steiner for years
Hi Daniel, you wrote:
You haven't shown me a quote yet that I
haven't seen.
Peter Staudenmaier:
Well, except for that little Wagner incident
a couple days ago.....
Daniel:
I read the 1930's printing in 1996, before
GA92 was published. As I explained, those are not Steiner's words,
and I don't take it to be definitive of his position.
Daniel wrote:
You mind is already made up
Peter Staudenmaier:
It's true that my mind is made up that
talking about higher races and lower races is racist. I'd still
like to hear why your mind is not made up on this.
Daniel:
That is not the only thing your mind is made
up on.
Daniel Hindes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
March/April
2004
The Uncle
Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files
Anthroposophy & Anarchism
Anthroposophy & Scientology
Anthroposophical
Morsels
Anthroposophy,
Critics, and Controversy
