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

Search this site powered by FreeFind