nichts weniger als günstig
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 12:18 pm
Subject: nichts weniger als günstig
Thanks to a tip from a reader of this list,
I just spent a couple of very interesting minutes at google,
and discovered something I hadn't even thought of looking for
before. But before I share my discovery, perhaps a brief re-tracing
of our steps is called for to put this all into perspective --
and maybe this instance will help my detractors on this list
understand why I am often very confident about the claims I have
put forward here, to the point that many of you consider me insufferably
arrogant.
Back in February we had a lively debate about how to read, and
hence how to translate, a sentence from Steiner's 1888 article
announcing that Jewry as such had no more reason to exist. Several
members of the list angrily insisted that I had mistranslated
Steiner's phrase "nichts weniger als günstig",
which they took to mean "nothing less than favorable",
while I took it to mean "anything but favorable".
In my typically haughty manner, I thought this was a more than
usually interesting case of anthroposophical ignorance and incomprehension,
because Steiner's sentence really does display syntactic ambiguity
(although that was itself apparently contentious, as several
of my detractors seemed to think it was a much simpler matter
of lexical ambiguity, a very different kettle of fish), and because
I had myself previously read the phrase to mean "nothing
less than favorable", before eventually realizing my mistake
by paying attention to the context. I was thus quite confident
in my reading, having already subjected it to considerable scrutiny
and self-doubt, and none of the counter-arguments brought forth
by various Steiner fans made much sense.
One of those counter-arguments, advanced in particular by Detlef,
was that numerous other occurences of the words "nichts
weniger" supposedly confirmed his preferred reading of the
Steiner passage. To this end, he provided a number of links to
other texts in which those words appeared, in the belief that
this was somehow relevant to our dispute. Since it was not in
fact relevant, I ignored those other texts, and patiently explained
this to a series of increasingly agitated anthroposophists. This
behavior on my part struck a number of listmates as "running
away" from the issue. But the real issue was not whether
the two words "nichts weniger" in unrelated contexts
could mean what Detlef et al wished them to mean in Steiner's
case; the issue, as I explained repeatedly, was how those words
operated as a phrase in the specific context at hand.
Which brings us to my google discovery. I just went to www.google.com
and typed in the full phrase "nichts weniger als günstig"
in quotation marks. This brought up a total of eleven distinct
texts, not including repeats, on various webpages containing
the phrase. Four of these texts were either re-prints of or quotations
from Steiner's 1888 article. Of the seven remaining occurences
of "nichts weniger als günstig", every single
one of them, without exception, is used to mean "anything
but favorable". Not one of them is used to mean "nothing
less than favorable". For the sake of completeness, I will
give the passages (including several from Friedrich Schiller
and Ludwig Tieck) and the web links below.
I strongly encourage Detlef, Daniel, Frank, and anyone else who
cares to re-visit the matter to read each of these examples,
and tell us whether this has any effect on their reading of Steiner's
use of the phrase.
Peter
"Ein besonders hervorzuhebender
Grund für das Erreichen des heutigen Leistungsniveaus ist
ein hohes Maß an professioneller Einstellung zum Sport,
obwohl die Rahmenbedingungen in der Regel nichts weniger als
günstig sind."
http://www.orientierungslauf.de/content.php?m=0&s=2&id=230
"Wir sahen uns gezwungen,
alle Gespräche mit Hilfe von Dolmetschern zu führen,
eine Methode, die einem tiefen Verständnis der Gedanken
anderer nichts weniger als günstig ist."
http://mitglied.lycos.de/horstweyrich/meister-hausbau.htm
"Ob nun gleich der Tell
einer dramatischen Behandlung nichts weniger als günstig
scheint, da die Handlung dem Ort und der Zeit nach ganz zerstreut
auseinander liegt, da sie großentheils eine Staatsaktion
ist und (das Märchen mit dem Hut und Apfel ausgenommen)
der Darstellung widerstrebt, so habe ich doch bis jetzt so viel
poetische Operation damit vorgenommen, daß sie aus dem
historischen Haus heraus und ins poetische eingetreten ist."
http://www.schulseiten.de/ams-8b/referate/7bwenzel.doc
"Das Interesse der Einbildungskraft
aber ist: sich frei von Gesetzen im Spiele zu erhalten. Diesem
Hange zur Ungebundenheit ist die sittliche Verbindlichkeit des
Willens, durch welche ihm sein Objekt auf das strengste bestimmt
wird, nichts weniger als günstig; und da die sittliche Verbindlichkeit
des Willens der Gegenstand des moralischen Urtheils ist, so sieht
man leicht, daß bei dieser Art zu urtheilen die Einbildungskraft
ihre Rechnung nicht finden könne."
http://gutenberg.spiegel.de/schiller/pathos/pathos.htm
"Zum Unglück wollte
es der Zufall, daß gerade damals Graf Johann von Beilstein
mit den hessischen Münchhäusern erbitterte Kämpfe
um die Wahrung seiner Waldrechte im Königswieser Holz ausfocht.
Die entschiedene Stellungnahme der Hessen für ihre Untertanen
auf dem linken Ufer des Ulmbachs war der Beilegung des Konflikts
nichts weniger als günstig. Sie schuf eine Atmosphäre,
in der auf beiden Seiten wenig Neigung zu Verhandlungen bestand."
http://www.aryanand.at/Geschichte/Graf/graf.html
"Unsere raschlebige Zeit
mit ihrem weitverzweigten Wirtschaftsleben ist der Erhaltung
alter Sitten und Bräuche nichts weniger als günstig.
Wo sie in oft kümmerlichen und stark veränderten Formen
bis heute lebendig blieben, überwiegt die dem Volkstum günstige
Landwirtschaft. Faßt die Industrie in einer Landschaft
festen Fuß, dann gleicht sie aus und vernichtet- sehr zum
Schaden von Volkstum und Volkskunde- die in jahrhundertelanger
Übung bewahrten Sitten."
http://www.aryanand.at/Geschichte/Hochzeit/hochzeit.html
"Der alte Lovell, den
ich itzt mehrmals besucht habe, gehört zu den schätzbarsten
Leuten, die ich je habe kennen lernen. Ohne die Prätension,
die bei vielen Gelehrten von Profession ebenso lästig als
lächerlich ist, verbindet er eine große Menge von
Kenntnissen mit ebenso vielen Erfahrungen und einem sehr ausgebildeten
Verstande. Er empfindet ebenso fein als tief und steht von den
kalten Menschen ebenso weit als von denen mit glühenden
Gefühlen entfernt! aber vorzüglich wert ist er mir
durch diese innige Menschenliebe geworden, mit der er jedem Unglücklichen
entgegenkommt, durch diese Bereitwilligkeit, mit der sein Mitleid
so schnell als seine Hülfe dem Elenden zugesichert wird.
Für sich selbst empfindet er weniger, als für andre,
denn er verbirgt gänzlich den Gram, den ihm der Prozeß
mit Burton notwendig machen muß, besonders da die Umstände
für ihn nichts weniger als günstig sein sollen. Ich
nehme, seit ich ihn mehr kenne, den wärmsten Anteil an allem,
was ihn betrifft: so wie ich, sind alle seine Bekannte seine
Freunde."
http://gutenberg.spiegel.de/tieck/lovell/Druckversion_lovell31.htm
...................................................................................................................................
From: zapdingo
Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 3:51 pm
Subject: Re: nichts weniger als günstig
Mr. Staudenmaier wrote:
In my typically haughty manner, I thought this was a more
than usually interesting case of anthroposophical ignorance and
incomprehension,
Quousque tandem, Peterlina...
Bryan
...................................................................................................................................
From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 6:55 am
Subject: Re: nichts weniger als günstig
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
(snip)
Back in February we had a lively debate
about how to read, and hence how to translate, a sentence from
Steiner's 1888 article announcing that Jewry as such had no more
reason to exist. Several members of the list angrily insisted
that I had mistranslated Steiner's phrase "nichts weniger
als günstig", which they took to mean "nothing
less than favorable", while I took it to mean "anything
but favorable".
(snip)
I strongly encourage Detlef, Daniel, Frank,
and anyone else who cares to re-visit the matter to read each
of these examples, and tell us whether this has any effect on
their reading of Steiner's use of the phrase.
Actually, it doesn't. What I do agree about
is that the phrase itself and Steiner's use of it is ambiguous
and can be interpreted either way. Therefore, it is necessary
to determine what Steiner meant. If I remember correctly, the
word, "aber" (but) in the following phrase or sentence
defines his meaning in this particluar context. At least that's
the way I still see it. Am I absolutely, totally certain? No.
And I assume you are not either, Peter, else you wouldn't be
searching Google after all this time. Why not let it R.I.P.?
Frank
...................................................................................................................................
From: Deborah
Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 5:52 am
Subject: Re: nichts weniger als günstig
Why not let it R.I.P.?
Frank
My guess as to why Peter doesn't want to let
go? Because the pool of Rudolf Steiner quotes that can be construed
as anti-semitic is very small and he doesn't want to lose one.
Deborah
...................................................................................................................................
From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 6:58 am
Subject: Peter Staundnmaier's trip to AT was:R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow]
Re: nichts weniger als günstig
Hi Brian and all,
this gives me the chance of trying a recapitulation of Mr PS's
trip to AT. As a basic fact we all know that inside the 80-85
thousands of pages that are the written memory of RS there is
some line that, to a deeply "politically correct" orienteed
mind, could vaguely resounds "racist". This in spite
of the fact that not only the whole but also the single "daughters"
of Mother Antropos-Sophia are deeply rooted in Spiritual wisdom,Cosmopolitism
and anti racist and anti-nationalistic issues. Well this guy,
Peter Staudenmaier, has been trying since 1999 to perform the
task to demonstrate that the above few lines are the evidence
of a "core racist" attitude of Steiner and, off course,
of Anthroposophists too.
In order to perform this impossible task he
followed some steps.
1) He took a very small portion of a lecture of a lectures' cycle
,namely the "Folk Souls" one , faking translation and
contents in order to "demonstrate" the identical racist
core of Anthroposophy and Protonazi Ariosophy's insights. ( Sune
for the first unmasked the lie)
2) He took out of context a small number of Steiner's statement
in order to "demonstrate" his racism and "floating"
antisemitism ( He argues that Steiner was "in the same time"
Anti and Philo-Semite )
3) He "studied" Anthromovement's story during Hitler's
years emphasizing pro-nazi issues of somebody and minimizing
anti-nazi issues of someone else in order to demonstrate the
"closesness" between Anthropops and Nazism.
4) Jumping in the list he had only one way to support this sum
of falsehoods: playing mindgambling and dialectic acrobatics,trying
to prove that black is white and white is black, running away
instead of responding when he had nothing to say and he did so
tks to a certain ability in playing with words.
5) Doing so he has in the meantime demonstrated :
a) big lack of knowledge about basic Anthroposophical matters
despite the fact to present himself like one able to "correct"
the "mistakes" of those poor Anthropops.
b) lack of credentials and also of knowledge in basic historical
and cultural matters.
Well, listmates can be such an evidently poor
defamation's trip can be somehow harmful for the Anthro-movement
?
In my opinion It can be dangerous only for
some beginner of for occasional surfers with no basic knowledge
about the matter as it always happen in every slander's campaign
- Neverthless I believe also that, tks to the work of Dottie,
Pauline, Christine, Deborah, Tarjej, Sune, Bradford, Daniel,
Detlef, Patrick, Bryan, Mike, Harvey, Frank (excuse me if I forget
someone) and having unmasked the trick, we will be of good help
for every goodwill seeker.
In other words: jumping into the list Peter
Staudenmaier made, to speak in a soccer-like way, an actual own
-goal
Andrea
----- Original Message -----
Wednesday, April 28, 2004 12:51 AM
Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: nichts weniger als günstig
Mr. Staudenmaier wrote:
In my typically haughty manner, I thought this was a more
than usually interesting case of anthroposophical ignorance and
incomprehension,
Quousque tandem, Peterlina...
Bryan
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 8:53 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: nichts weniger als
günstig
At 14:52 29.04.2004, Deborah wrote:
My guess as to why Peter doesn't want to
let go? Because the pool of Rudolf Steiner quotes that can be
construed as anti-semitic is very small and he doesn't want to
lose one.
Peter's obsession with everything racial in
Anthroposophy and Lightsearcher's obsession with everything liberal
in politics could be made interesting if we had a shrink on the
list who could offer some insight.
Tarjei
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 9:20 am
Subject: Re: nichts weniger als günstig
Deborah:
My guess as to why Peter doesn't want to
let go? Because the pool of Rudolf Steiner quotes that can be
construed as anti-semitic is very small and he doesn't want to
lose one.
Except that the quote was anti-Semitic whether
it said "anything but favorable" or "nothing less
than favorable."
Tarjei:
Peter's obsession with everything racial
in Anthroposophy and Lightsearcher's obsession with everything
liberal in politics could be made interesting if we had a shrink
on the list who could offer some insight.
Just curious, Tarjei, is anyone who studies
racism in a particular setting in depth, or at length, "obsessed"
and in need of a shrink? This would include thousands of historians,
anthropologists, sociologists, journalists, psychologists, activists,
politicians, travel and biography writers, literary critics,
poets and songwriters and performers. People devote entire careers
to the study of racism in smaller niches than a movement like
anthroposophy.
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 9:55 am
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: nichts weniger als günstig
----- Original Message -----
From: winters_diana
[Deborah:]
to let go? Because the pool of Rudolf Steiner
quotes that can be construed as anti-semitic is very small and
he doesn't want to lose one.
[Diana:]
Except that the quote was anti-Semitic
whether it said "anything but favorable" or "nothing
less than favorable."
Tarjei:
Peter's obsession with everything racial
in Anthroposophy and Lightsearcher's obsession with everything
liberal in politics could be made interesting if we had a shrink
on the list who could offer some insight.
[Diana:]
Just curious, Tarjei, is anyone who studies
racism
Exccuse me Diana and Tarjej.
Diana's claim is true but.... but there is
a problem. Racism is to be studied where it is. For instance
I like to study Appenino's wolves or bears' life and I go, when
it is possible, where the wolves and the bears live namely the
Appenino's ranges. Staudenmaier "studies" racism where
there is no racism at all, namely Steiner's Spiritual Science.
Here lies the need of a medical help.
Andrea
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 10:03 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: nichts weniger als
günstig
I wrote:
Peter's obsession with everything racial
in Anthroposophy and Lightsearcher's obsession with everything
liberal in politics could be made interesting if we had a shrink
on the list who could offer some insight.
Diana wrote:
Just curious, Tarjei, is anyone who studies
racism in a particular setting in depth, or at length, "obsessed"
and in need of a shrink?
Each separate case would be up to the shrink
to decide upon. I won't offer any amateur opinions when it comes
to diagnoses and such. We're talking about a one track mind syndrome.
Same thing with Lightsearcher and his liberals.
This would include thousands of historians,
anthropologists, sociologists, journalists, psychologists, activists,
politicians, travel and biography writers, literary critics,
poets and songwriters and performers.
Absolute nonsense without rhyme or reason.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Mike Helsher
Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 10:44 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: nichts weniger als
günstig
At 14:52 29.04.2004, Deborah wrote:
My guess as to why Peter doesn't want to
let go? Because the pool of Rudolf Steiner quotes that can be
construed as anti-semitic is very small and he doesn't want to
lose one.
Peter's obsession with everything racial
in Anthroposophy and Lightsearcher's obsession with everything
liberal in politics could be made interesting if we had a shrink
on the list who could offer some insight.
Tarjei
My diagnosis: Ideology Addiction.
Addiction can be defined as "an obsessive
compulsive destructive behavior" that is derived from an
individual's lack of ability to "believe" in anything
other than their own narrowly focused world-view. In street terms
this is called "believing in your own bullshit," which
is a good definition of "denial." This in turn is exemplified
by an extreme "us and them" attitude toward any person,
or group of people that seemingly opposes the "bullshit"
that is being believed. Other symptoms often include a strong
intellectual bend, especially when it comes to writing and reading
words (word smithing), and a general lack of compassion.
Mike Helsher - Psychologist
...................................................................................................................................
From: holderlin66
Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 11:50 am
Subject: Re: nichts weniger als günstig
wrote
Mike Helsher - Psychologist
Finally a resident psychologist on call. Now
I don't have to go to Italy. I think I need to make several appointments.
My office will contact your office.
Mr. Bradord Riley
Department Of Michael School Affairs
adjunct to his holiness
Sirguy Prokofiev
Outpost Delta 1
lower Devachan
...................................................................................................................................
From: Deborah
Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 1:28 pm
Subject: Re: nichts weniger als günstig
Dear Diana,
you wrote:
Except that the quote was anti-Semitic
whether it said "anything but favorable" or "nothing
less than favorable."
Deborah:
This gets to the core of the problem. I'm
not sure whether the remark is or is not anti-Semitic. I haven't
read the entire article and do not have the context, but as a
"stand alone" it certainly can be read, fairly, as
an anti-Semitic statement.
So, does one anti-Semitic statement make an
anti-Semite out of Steiner? No, probably not. How many does it
take? Do the remarks have to be taken within the entire context
of his work or can they be analyzed in isolation? And so on.
I'd like to offer an example that gets us
away from Steiner and racism. Imagine a feminist scholar who
dislikes Ralph Waldo Emerson. She feels strongly that there is
a sexist strand in his work which has gone unrecognized. What
sort of case would she have to build to convince the world that
she is right?
First she would need to find examples of sexist
statements in his work. Then she would have to demonstrate that
the context does not invalidate the sexist content. That is,
if he is telling a story, making a joke, quoting someone else
as a negative example and so forth, the circumstances do not
support her point very strongly. Finally, she would have to find
a way to explain away the various circumstances in his life that
do not support the charge of sexism. If he made positive remarks,
for example, about women's suffrage, this would have to be invalidated.
If he was happily married, kind to his sisters and had many strong,
educated women friends it would also weaken her case.
Once she published her work, she would expect
that Emerson scholars would descend upon it, angry and upset.
Every quote would be scrutinized, every weak point in her argument
torn apart, etc., etc. She would need to be prepared to defend
every sentence against attack.
I am sure that there are feminist scholars
who dislike Emerson. I am sure that there are isolated remarks
in his entire body of work that would support a charge of sexism
(he was a 19th century male, come on). But could a coherent,
defendable charge of sexism be built? I doubt it.
I see the same problem with building a charge
of racism and anti- Semitism in the case of Steiner. Smearing,
as we have seen, is certainly possible. A scholarly, well-thought
out, defendable case. Nah.
Deborah
Note: All my remarks on Emerson are purely
speculative and are not based on any sort of research. This is
simply an example.
So, my remark below should be amended to:
Because the pool of Rudolf Steiner quotes that can be construed
as anti-Semitic is very small and he doesn't want the impact
of this one to be reduced in any way.
Deborah:
My guess as to why Peter doesn't want to
let go? Because the pool of Rudolf Steiner quotes that can be
construed as anti-semitic is very small and he doesn't want to
lose one.
Except that the quote was anti-Semitic
whether it said "anything but favorable" or "nothing
less than favorable."
Tarjei:
Peter's obsession with everything racial
in Anthroposophy and Lightsearcher's obsession with everything
liberal in politics could be made interesting if we had a shrink
on the list who could offer some insight.
Just curious, Tarjei, is anyone who studies
racism in a particular setting in depth, or at length, "obsessed"
and in need of a shrink? This would include thousands of historians,
anthropologists, sociologists, journalists, psychologists, activists,
politicians, travel and biography writers, literary critics,
poets and songwriters and performers. People devote entire careers
to the study of racism in smaller niches than a movement like
anthroposophy.
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 4:50 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re:_nichts_weniger_als_günstig
Diana, Staudenmaier is so off base that his
work is suspect. His work should be seen through his world view
prism of the extreme rational left. It would appear true in that
context of that particular mind set it seems. His work is a fallacy
and he should have stuck with ARIOSOPHY when he found it. He
did not. He went and found a word that sounds similar and just
brought the two groups together. It is clear for anyone with
an understanding of ARIOSOPHY.
He does not need a shrink any more than the
rest of us. We are all a product of our environment as long as
we stay tuned into the matrix of what we are supposed to be according
to what we have encountered in the physical life.
He is wrong that Dr. Steiner was a racist
and a nazi forerunner in the ideology. You have seen him twist
himself into a pretzel to prove his point with word acrobats
that defy the mind. Any mind.
I am sure in your life you have made comments
as have the rest of us that can be construed as racist, president
of PLANS did so innocently a few years back without realizing
how one could have understood her point. Does that make her a
racist? No it does not. Well, I am assuming she is not. Just
like the crossing guard you pointed out earlier. Is she a racist
for her comment or a product of her surrounding society. When
things are brought to their attention sometimes people can see
how 'wow I did not mean it that way', and others might say 'what
the hell are you talking about, that doesn't mean I am a racist',
yada yada ya...
It's one thing to say a thing sounds racist
and another to say one is a racist and has formulated a racist
ideology that tries to put one group of people over another.
Staudenmaier went even further to say that the Doctor helped
to formulate the nazi ideology through his teachings and that
the nazis were influenced by this. He is wrong. And the Doctors
work speaks to this time and time again.
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 6:11 pm
Subject: agreement and disagreement: a recap
Hello anthroposophy tomorrow list,
as promised, I am getting out of your hair as of today. Since
I began my sojourn on this list with a summary of agreements
and disagreements, I thought it might be appropriate to part
on that note as well. I think that Deborah's comparative example
of a hypothetical feminist critique of Emerson is an excellent
way to frame the issues that brought me here, so at the risk
of annoying and irritating some of you one last time, I thought
I'd leave you with a few of my reflections on the matter.
I brought up the "nichts weniger als günstig"
issue again not in order to shore up the case about Steiner's
early antisemitism (the 1888 article, in my judgement, is obviously
antisemitic regardless of how one reads that one phrase), but
simply because the new evidence was surprisingly unequivocal
on a question that several listmates previously considered very
important indeed. To my mind it wasn't a matter of either "running
away", as Daniel would have it, or of letting it rest, as
Frank prefers, but of showing that the notion of deliberate mistranslation
never made any sense from the beginning. I highly recommend a
re-reading of Detlef's posts on the topic in light of the passages
I posted a couple days ago.
In any case, the real dispute all along was about how to make
sense of Steiner's contradictory public statements about Jews
and Jewishness from various points in his career. My thesis is
not, as Andrea surmises, that Steiner's stance was both antisemitic
and philosemitic at the same time. My thesis is that Steiner's
attitude toward Jews, Judaism, and Jewishness was basically antisemitic
in the 1880s and early 1890s, basically philosemitic around the
turn of the century, and basically antisemitic from his theosophical
turn onward. I offered well over a dozen textual references as
examples, many of which never got discussed here. I certainly
agree that Steiner's antisemitic statements take up a relatively
small portion of his work, and are dwarfed by his broader statements
on race. But his arguments about Jews and Jewishness are the
proper object of inquiry if we want to get a fuller sense of
his views on that specific theme.
I think that the comparison to Emerson brings a number of these
issues into focus. Deborah wrote:
I'd like to offer an example that gets
us away from Steiner and racism. Imagine a feminist scholar who
dislikes Ralph Waldo Emerson. She feels strongly that there is
a sexist strand in his work which has gone unrecognized. What
sort of case would she have to build to convince the world that
she is right?
First she would need to find examples of
sexist statements in his work. Then she would have to demonstrate
that the context does not invalidate the sexist content. That
is, if he is telling a story, making a joke, quoting someone
else as a negative example and so forth, the circumstances do
not support her point very strongly.
This, at last, is a reasonable description of some of the contextual
factors that need to be taken into account in assessing a particular
text. In the 1888 article, Steiner vigorously defends a crude
antisemitic parody, namely the eigth canto of Robert Hamerling's
book Homunculus, against various criticisms of its antisemitic
content.
Finally, she would have to find a way to
explain away the various circumstances in his life that do not
support the charge of sexism. If he made positive remarks, for
example, about women's suffrage, this would have to be invalidated.
If he was happily married, kind to his sisters and had many strong,
educated women friends it would also weaken her case.
That is completely mistaken. The presence of non-sexist and anti-sexist
strands in an author's overall work does not weaken the argument
for sexist strands. Innumerable authors, male as well as female,
combine sexist and non-sexist elements in their works. Our hypothetical
feminist critic would by no means need to explain away or invalidate
the non-sexist or anti-sexist strands in Emerson's writings,
she would instead need to relate the two competing strands to
one another and offer an interpretive framework that tries to
account for both of them. In the case of Steiner, the task at
hand is to acknowledge both the antisemitic and the philosemitic
components in his thinking, and see how they fit into his general
outlook as it developed over time.
Once she published her work, she would
expect that Emerson scholars would descend upon it, angry and
upset.
That certainly has been known to happen among scholars, but it
isn't necessarily to be expected; people who get upset by rival
interpretations quite simply lack sufficient critical distance
from their object of study. Far from getting angry, thoughtful
Emerson scholars would welcome a new approach to the topic and
explain which parts of it they found compelling and which unpersuasive.
Every quote would be scrutinized, every weak point in her
argument torn apart, etc., etc. She would need to be prepared
to defend every sentence against attack.
Or change her interpretation when encountering meaningful counter-arguments
and new evidence. This is not a bad description of my correspondence
with Ralf Sonnenberg on philosemitism and antisemitism in Steiner's
works, by the way.
I am sure that there are feminist scholars
who dislike Emerson. I am sure that there are isolated remarks
in his entire body of work that would support a charge of sexism
(he was a 19th century male, come on). But could a coherent,
defendable charge of sexism be built? I doubt it.
Why would anybody doubt this before looking into the matter?
That sort of attitude makes no sense at all to me. Why would
it be in any way surprising to find sexist elements in Emerson's
work on gender, or antisemitic elements in Steiner's work on
Jews, alongside anti-sexist and philosemitic ones?
I see the same problem with building a
charge of racism and anti- Semitism in the case of Steiner. Smearing,
as we have seen, is certainly possible. A scholarly, well-thought
out, defendable case. Nah.
Smearing is only successful with incompetent readers. If Steiner's
work really were completely free of antisemitic elements, then
Steiner's fans would have nothing to worry about, for the very
same reason that I have nothing to worry about when silly accusations
of forgery are made. As for a scholarly, well-thought out, defensible
case that encompasses both the philosemitic and antisemitic strands
within Steiner's work, that is what my latest article attempts
to provide. The journal submission process takes some time, and
the manuscript is currently under consideration for next year,
so it will be a while -- assuming they accept it at all -- before
it is published. Once that happens, I encourage anybody who considers
themselves a Steiner scholar to descend upon it, angry and upset,
to your hearts' content.
Until then, I recommend taking a second look at the arguments
I have put forth on this list over the past two months.
And now I must truly run away, fast as I can, before my lying,
forging, mistranslating, misquoting, professor-impersonating,
card-catalogue-and-dust-jacket-reading past catches up with me
at last and dooms me to reincarnate in a lower racial form. Anybody
who would like to can reach me at pstauden@yahoo.de.
Thanks for hosting me,
Peter Staudenmaier
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 7:30 pm
Subject: Re: nichts weniger als günstig
I wrote:
Diana wrote:
Just curious, Tarjei, is anyone who studies
racism in a particular setting in depth, or at length, "obsessed"
and in need of a shrink? This would
include thousands of historians, anthropologists, sociologists,
journalists, psychologists, activists, politicians, travel and
biography writers, literary critics, poets and songwriters and
performers.
Tarjei replied:
Absolute nonsense without rhyme or reason.
What is absolute nonsense? My claim that a
lot of people study racism, that it is a common theme in art
and literature, that many people have spent their lives obsessed
with racism - you don't think that's true? Perhaps I did not
explain this well. Do you disagree that many people study racism?
Or do you mean it is absolute nonsense for these people to do
this? A sociologist who studies race for instance is wasting
their time? Just clarify what you meant - please? and don't blow
me off like Deborah.
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: Mike Helsher
Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 9:17 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: nichts weniger als
günstig
[Bradford:]
wrote
Mike Helsher - Psychologist
Finally a resident psychologist on call.
Now I don't have to go to Italy. I think I need to make several
appointments. My office will contact your office.
Mr. Bradord Riley
Department Of Michael School Affairs
adjunct to his holiness
Sirguy Prokofiev
Outpost Delta 1
lower Devachan
Ok, I'll have my people call your people.
We'll have lunch.
A good prerequisite for our meeting would
be http://www.steinerbooks.org/detail.html?id=0880104961
We wouldn't want to get our animus and Sophia's
mixed up.
Hey, who knows, we might end up with a new
paradigm: "archetypes of the collected clairvoyant conscious
experience."
:^)
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:07 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: nichts weniger als
günstig
At 04:30 30.04.2004, Diana wrote:
What is absolute nonsense? My claim that
a lot of people study racism, that it is a common theme in art
and literature, that many people have spent their lives obsessed
with racism - you don't think that's true?
There is no use trying to make PS' allegations
against anthroposophy legitimate by suggesting similarities with
normal authors and researchers. Forget it.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with "studying
racism in a particular". It has to do with redefining words
like "racism" and projecting it where there is none,
for years and years. That's what's obsessive and perhaps pathological.
It is hopeless trying to suggest that PS is
in big company here. Face it: he isn't.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 7:02 am
Subject: Re: agreement and disagreement: a recap
Peter:
And now I must truly run away, fast as I can,
before my lying, forging, mistranslating, misquoting, professor-impersonating,
card-catalogue-and-dust-jacket-reading past catches up with me
at last and dooms me to reincarnate in a lower racial form.
What a last scoop to show how truly Peter
has no idea of what he speaks when discoursing on the Doctor:
reicarnating into a lower racial form because he disagrees with
the Doctors students. What a flabbergabber.
We all serve the end goal of evolution, every
single last one of us. What looks like it might be against what
others say many times is the catalyst towards the place we need
to be going. And that is the Doctors teachings as well. That
however doesn't mean we lie down and take it rather it requires
that all those involve take part. We are all a part of a bigger
brotherhood than we could possibly imagine. Mr. Staudenmaier
stands right there with us. May the differences fall away and
we realize in this time our true brotherhood where the ties that
bind cannot be broken in any which way or loose.
In regards to the Doctors's students reading
and ranting over his future writings as Peters hopes, I say lets
not give him the devils due. We all reap what we sow whether
we think we are fighting the good fight or the bad fight. Best
we be about the Fathers business than to be caught up with Screwtapes
Uncle. And on all sides.
Sincerely,
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: Deborah
Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 7:02 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: nichts weniger als
günstig
Please see the example I proffered of what
actual scholarly work on such a topic would involve. Has anyone
at PLANS, including Peter Staudenmeier, engaged in such work?
Sloppy smearing is not equal to scholarship. Demanding respect
for doing sloppy smearing is silly.
Deborah
At 04:30 30.04.2004, Diana wrote:
What is absolute nonsense? My claim that
a lot of people study racism, that it is a common theme in art
and literature, that many people have spent their lives obsessed
with racism - you don't think that's true?
There is no use trying to make PS' allegations
against anthroposophy legitimate by suggesting similarities with
normal authors and researchers. Forget it.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with "studying
racism in a particular". It has to do with redefining words
like "racism" and projecting it where there is none,
for years and years. That's what's obsessive and perhaps pathological.
It is hopeless trying to suggest that PS
is in big company here. Face it: he isn't.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
