agreement and disagreement 2

mindgames


From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Fri Feb 27, 2004 11:11 am
Subject: mindgames

Andrea wrote:

I'm sure that all listmates have understood.

Peter S wrote:

But they all seem to disagree about me. Some of them apparently think I'm Catholic, while others think I'm an atheist (though according to some evidently popular conceptions of atheism, I'm not even an atheist), some think I'm an anarchist, while others think I'm a marxist, and so forth. All this attention is flattering, I suppose, but it's still hard to see what any of it might have to do with Rudolf Steiner's views on Jews.

The apparent reason for this guesswork is that you keep your deeper convictions, views and opinions about religion and philosophy and politics hidden. That's unusual for someone who posts as voluminously and writes as prolifically as you do. You give the impression that you're only here for the game, for the fun of it, for a hobby that won't bore you. It looks as if people are trying to discover a grain of sincerity in all this, which is why they're trying to guess where you're coming from. You should consider that a compliment, and you probably do, but instead of amusing yourself with what others try to guess, why not play with open cards?

Incidentally, when I "think" you're an anarchist, it's based upon your own words on the WC Jan 24, 2004:

"In any case, I think that what this theme points to is that movements and worldviews that are relatively far from the mainstream often get extremely protective when outside analysts decide to study their doctrines and traditions. This certainly happens among anarchists, a far-from-the-mainstream tendency that I belong to, and it seems likely to me that something similar is the case with anthroposophists."

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Fri Feb 27, 2004 11:29 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] mindgames

Hi Tarjei, you wrote:

The apparent reason for this guesswork is that you keep your deeper convictions, views and opinions about religion and philosophy and politics hidden.

That's silly. I am an anarchist, I don't believe in god, my politics are far to the left, and so forth. I've said all those things right here on this list several times. I don't like capitalism, monogamy, the state, or asparagus. Philosophically I'm a social ecologist, a dialectician, and a consequentialist in ethics. What exactly is it that you think I am keeping hidden?

That's unusual for someone who posts as voluminously and writes as prolifically as you do.

But I do write prolifically about those topics, except for god and asparagus. What are you talking about?

Peter

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Fri Feb 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] mindgames

Peter:

That's silly. I am an anarchist, I don't believe in god, my politics are far to the left, and so forth. I've said all those things right here on this list several times. I don't like capitalism, monogamy, the state, or asparagus. Philosophically I'm a social ecologist, a dialectician, and a consequentialist in ethics.

Dottie

Well that's a start. And it's actually not silly of Tarjei to comment as people are trying to understand a bit where you are coming from and trying to find a bit of sincerity in the ongoing discussions.

These things above have not been stated by you rather they seemed to have been picked out by others as they try to come to understand the man they are debating. I like to see why it is that I find your views so entrenched in an uncomprimising word war fare that defies logic to such an extent that you are unaware of how easily one with an open mind can see through.

I am also trying to hold onto the idea that you actually truly do not understand your chosen subject, versus are lying about it, but it gets harder each day that you remain immovable even when shown a different perspective of the man by the students that study his work whether it be one year, ten years or thirty. You think you know better and you do not. And your work in the end portraying Dr. Steiner is going to be just a lie and not a legacy. And that will be what you leave to the world: a lie. But it is as you wish Peter, only you can live your own life and only you will be held accountable for it. So, if you don't mind continuing in this ill concieved notion of yours, against all odds, so be it. And that kind of makes me sad for you but that's just the way it is.

Dottie

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Fri Feb 27, 2004 3:30 pm
Subject: Peter Staudenmaier's mindgames

Hi Peter,

I [Tarjei] wrote:

The apparent reason for this guesswork is that you keep your deeper convictions, views and opinions about religion and philosophy and politics hidden.

You [Peter] wrote:

That's silly. I am an anarchist, I don't believe in god, my politics are far to the left, and so forth. I've said all those things right here on this list several times. I don't like capitalism, monogamy, the state, or asparagus. Philosophically I'm a social ecologist, a dialectician, and a consequentialist in ethics. What exactly is it that you think I am keeping hidden?

Tarjei:

You debate in a manner that is evasive in many ways, sidetracking the issue raised by someone else by finding ways to revert to your old worn-out repetitive polemical arguments about racism and anti-Semitism. You ask for views and perspectives by others, and then you ignore what is being said and respond only to the letter of the select words that contradict your own, and if the going gets tough, you argue syntax and grammar and definitions as if to avoid a recognition of the other person's central grasp of the issue at hand.

This is clever, but it's also dishonest and insincere. You never compare Steiner's views on racial evolution with your own views, offering your explanations as to how we have evolved into what we have become. You say you don't believe in God, but you don't say whether or not you believe that biological life originates from chemical processes, if the universe is the result of blind chance in a primordial soup. You appear to have no interest whatsoever in Rudolf Steiner's cosmology or epistemology, and although you may throw off some remarks about your position, it's all generic labels, such as "anarchist", "ecologist", "atheist-agnostic" and so on - labels that tell us absolutely nothing about your real self. Not a single conviction about the origin or meaning of existence; not one reflection, wonder, feeling is expressed in any of your long texts.

So who knows what you're hiding and why?

Tarjei:

That's unusual for someone who posts as voluminously and writes as prolifically as you do.

Peter:

But I do write prolifically about those topics, except for god and asparagus.

Tarjei:

The topics you choose are peripheral and superficial in relation to the central theme. Always. The main topic in anthroposophy is origin of life, meaning of existence, the mission of love, the mystery of the Christ. And related to the mystery of the Christ is the mystery of the Jews. You write about "the Jewish question" and how it was discussed in the 1880's and 1890's and the early years of the 20th century, and you write about what Steiner said or wrote about this "Jewish question", but you would never consider that to Steiner, this topic may not just have been what is contained in the expression "the Jewish question", but something much much deeper, namely: The Jewish Mystery. From the mind-blowing wealth of insight concerning the history of the Jews that Steiner expressed throughout his 25 years of lecturing, it is obvious that to him, the Jewish question was something much more profound than the socio-political ideas among Jews and non-Jews in Europe at that time. I did try to approach this Jewish Mystery in my recent post entitled "Hebrews". (By the term "Hebrews" I mean the Jews of Biblical times, not of modern times, although the Hebrew language is still in use.) But you seem incapable or unwilling to try to apprehend any concepts involved in such mysteries, so instead, you revert to your old rhetoric about anti-Semitism as though this perspective had never been suggested at all. And you do write prolifically on your old track which sounds like a broken record, but which is a very boring pursuit in addition to being a dead end, intellectually and spiritually. The latter seems to be something you call "god and aspargus" which seems to reflect your take on spirituality.

Perhaps "god and aspargus" has something to do with your dialectics, and perhaps your incessant insistence that Steiner was an anti-Semite has something to do with your ethical consequentialism, but I find it difficult to consider these indications address any of the unanswered questions touched upon in this message.

Peter:

What are you talking about?

Tarjei:

I'm talking about the absence of clear concepts from you that can grapple with or relate to those realities we are trying to describe when we answer your requests to explain why we defend Rudolf Steiner's views.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: winters_diana
Date: Fri Feb 27, 2004 12:57 pm
Subject: Re: mindgames

Tarjei wrote, astoundingly, to Peter S.:

The apparent reason for this guesswork is that you keep your deeper convictions, views and opinions about religion and philosophy and politics hidden.

I'd be laughing except that I guess you're not joking. Peter keeps his politics hidden?! I thought I had trouble keeping up, Tarjei, are you a few hundred posts behind or something? Sorry for the sarcasm, but do you know how to use google?

Incidentally, when I "think" you're an anarchist, it's based upon your own words on the WC Jan 24, 2004:

Brilliant detective work. Yesterday Peter wrote on this list that he is an anarchist.

What is this, total paranoia? This makes no sense. Open up google, Tarjei and type in his name, Peter's writings are easy to find.

Diana

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

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Fri Feb 27, 2004 1:34 pm
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: mindgames

----- Original Message -----
From: winters_diana
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 9:57 PM
Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: mindgames

Yesterday Peter wrote on this list that he is an anarchist.

Sure, people and his anarchic guru is surely Mario Merlino founder of "22 Marzo" club. (Italy 1969).

A.

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Fri Feb 27, 2004 2:14 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: mindgames

At 21:57 27.02.2004, Diana wrote:

I'd be laughing except that I guess you're not joking.

If that's all it takes to amuse you, Diana, I'll be happy to oblige.

Peter keeps his politics hidden?! I thought I had trouble keeping up, Tarjei, are you a few hundred posts behind or something? Sorry for the sarcasm, but do you know how to use google?

Yes.

Brilliant detective work.

It wasn't detective work, Diana. It was something I happened to read on the web soon after the post was made.

Yesterday Peter wrote on this list that he is an anarchist.

Was there anything wrong with the reference I quoted? If so, what was wrong with it? In one of his latest posts, PS wrote that "anarchist" was one of those things some people thought he was (as if such notions about him were wild).

What is this, total paranoia?

Who is paranoid of what, and for what reason?

This makes no sense.

What does make sense to you, Diana? Your obsessive interest in a philosophy that obviously repels you, does that make sense?

Open up google, Tarjei and type in his name, Peter's writings are easy to find.

An ironic suggestion. Google's top listing under his name is

http://www.social-ecology.org/staticpages/index.php?page=speakersbios/staudenmaier.html

"Access Denied - Access to this page is denied. Either the page has been moved/removed or you do not have sufficient permissions."

Who is being paranoid here? And what is your point?

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: winters_diana
Date: Fri Feb 27, 2004 2:32 pm
Subject: Re: mindgames

Who is paranoid of what, and for what reason?

You guys, acting like Peter's views are a secret, or he is hiding them, when he is a published author whose articles are easy to access, and he answers all such questions patiently, no matter how many times the same person has asked the same question, and even when the questions are infantile.

Google's top listing under his name is

http://www.social-ecology.org/staticpages/index.php?page=speakersbios/staudenmaier.html

"Access Denied - Access to this page is denied. Either the page has been moved/removed or you do not have sufficient permissions."

You know, I really did give you more credit than this. Try it again. I got "Access denied" to that page also. Could it be that the page really was removed for some mundane reason, or do you think it's a conspiracy to prevent A_T list members from learning the secrets of Peter Staudenmaier.

Try it again, then click on the "Home" button at the Institute of Social Ecology, or type "Staudenmaier" into their search box. You will get a list of Peter's articles that are found on the site, as well as replies to them. I clicked a couple of those too, to see if the links were working. They are. Or at least they worked for me. Maybe there's some fearful reason you personally are denied access. <a joke> I will send it to you if you have trouble.

Diana

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Fri Feb 27, 2004 3:32 pm
Subject: Diana Winter's mindgames

Hi Diana,

I wrote:

Who is paranoid of what, and for what reason?

Diana, you wrote:

You guys, acting like Peter's views are a secret, or he is hiding them, when he is a published author whose articles are easy to access,

None of those articles reveal anything at all about the author's philosophical worldview. But even if they had revealed this, which psychological theory are you using when you claim that failing to discover them is evidence of paranoia? Can you explain this?

and he answers all such questions patiently, no matter how many times the same person has asked the same question, and even when the questions are infantile.

Can you please quote an infintile question by me and explain why you would characterize it as such?

You know, I really did give you more credit than this. Try it again.

You're dodging the issue, here, Diana. The point is not what PS writes; it's what he does not write. Half of the articles listed on this site (which I have visited before btw) are based upon the false notion that Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy belong in the same basket as Adolf Hitler and his cronies. That does not speak well for the credibility and honesty of his writings. And frankly, Diana, I'm completely indifferent to how much or how little credit you give me for anything. I couldn't care less.

Maybe there's some fearful reason you personally are denied access.

"Some fearful reason you personally...." - What is that supposed to mean? What do you mean by "fearful"?

Incidentally, I've been to this site before, and the articles are not new to me. I've published four of the rebuttals and completed the English translations of three of these. Searching on his name on Google does not provide answers to the questions at hand, which you will find in my other message posted simultaneously with this one.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Fri Feb 27, 2004 6:52 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: mindgames

Diana:

What is this, total paranoia? This makes no sense. Open up google, Tarjei and type in his name, Peter's writings are easy to find.

Diana

Hey Diana,

It's not paranoia rather it is a decent question to ask of a man writing on a subject he has no understanding of. And Peter hasn't offered anything up willingly when asked, it's just a merry go round and that's about it. Yesterday was the first day he actually fessed up a little about his background that he keeps saying is irrelevant. And that is because our wonderful Paulina made it plain to everyone with a little writing of Peters where his sympathies lie. And boy do they lie:) sorry.

This man has no understanding of the very subject he writes about which I find absolutely assinine. What stupidity to claim the things he does. Truly ridiculous. Wanna keep following a lie go ahead be our guest but don't expect thinking people who do not adhere to his non spiritual world view to cop to his version of the story. Not even a learned Rabbi will.

Peter wants to try and separate a thing and he can not. The essoteric learnings of the Hebrews are not to fault for the Nazi regime are they? And what I find mostly Steiner shares are these same mysteries the ancient Hebrew sages found and they would recognize that in an instant. The seeking spirit will find this in the spiritual worlds, well at least one of Dr. Steiners caliber anyway.

Blaming Steiner's world view, based on his spiritual findings, is like blaming the Hebrews for the Nazi regime. Why do you think the Jews have not come out and outrightly blamed Madame Blatvaski? Because they have a very similar cosmology. The only difference is that they do not share it out loud in the way that Madame Blatvaski or even Dr. Steiner did. The Hebrews keep it in the synogogue for the most part and that is where it will stay, other than in the teachings of the Zohar. And one day according to my very, what I call ultra conservative, Jewish friend Mathew, they will return to the Priestly aspect in order to share God with the world.

Ridiculous, how the knowledge Peter is twisting to make his story work, is the mirror image of what Dr. Steiner taught. If you are going to blame Steiner for initiating the ideals that formed the Nazi regime you would have to look further back in history to find the occult beginnings of his work: the Hebrews. And then where do you go Diana? Where?

Intuitive Thinking As A Spiritual Path, formerly known as Philosophy of Freedom, is a good place to begin realizing whether you are the master of your own thoughts or if your thoughts are the master of you, and if so where do they come from and what? Are you riding the horse or the horse is riding you

Dottie

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

From: Mike Helsher
Date: Fri Feb 27, 2004 10:18 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] mindgames

Tarjei wrote:

<snip>It looks as if people are trying to discover a grain of sincerity in all this, which is why they're trying to guess where you're coming from. You should consider that a compliment, and you probably do, but instead of amusing yourself with what others try to guess, why not play with open cards?

mike:

Exactly.

I do like the idea of living in the question, so to speak, which is what "living thinking" is to me, but Peter's mode of questioning is all to often derisive or diversionary.

And thanks Tarjei for using the word "sincerity." This is a character trait that I have come to admire in many people over the years. I've heard so many bullshit stories, and told a few too. But a few years of going into jails and state penetenteries, to talk to drug-addicts about a possible spiritual solution to the problem of addiction, has givin me the opportunity to experience what I would call sincerity, or humility. Plunking my ass down to speak to a group of 300 convicts, all dressed in numbered jonnies can be quite a soul stirring experience; and if your not sincere, they know it, and you can see it in their eyes, and on their faces.

A while back I picked up on Peter stating that he uses empathy in his historical research and posted this to open-waldorf:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter:
Good historiography requires the capacity for empathy and putting oneself inside the mental world of one's subject,"

Mike:

Empathy - 1 : the imaginative projection of a subjective state into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it.

This sounds to me more like the kind of empathy that you are talking about in your articles on Steiner's Racism, your own "imaginative projection" of your own "subjective state". If you don't think so, please elucidate.

Empathy - 2 : the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner;

I'm sorry, but I don't see in your writings this kind of empathy toward RS. You state that "putting oneself inside the mental world of one's subject" is a requirement for such empathy. That seems like only part of the picture to me (thoughts). I can't help but wonder if you have ever vicariously experienced what Steiner might have been feeling on occasion, say like during the talk he once gave on "Love, and it's meaning in the world".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Of course, it seems somewhat oxymoronical to argue as to weather or not someone truly expresses empathy . Kind of like desiring serenity I guess.

And hey, I love to play mind games too, sometimes - it's kinda like intellectual masturbation. And you know what I found? That if I do it to much, I'll go blind.

All the best

Mike

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

From: winters_diana
Date: Sat Feb 28, 2004 5:48 am
Subject: Re: Diana Winter's mindgames

Here's some more. I don't know about you, but I don't have much trouble getting a sense of the guy's "philosophical worldview" from even briefly skimming some of this.

http://www.anarchist-studies.org/article/author/view/16

http://www.zmag.org/worldenvision.htm

How `bout this! A bibliography!

http://www.communalism.org/Personal/PS_bib.html

This took me about 5 minutes, Tarjei. Yes, I think it's paranoid to act as if he's trying to "hide" his views from you. What do you want from him? Some sort of Bradford-esque stream-of-consciousness religiopsychopoliticobiographical ruminating confessional piece? It's not a genre we're all comfortable with :)

Diana

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:03 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Diana Winter's mindgames

At 14:48 28.02.2004, Diana wrote:

Here's some more. I don't know about you, but I don't have much trouble getting a sense of the guy's "philosophical worldview" from even briefly skimming some of this.

http://www.anarchist-studies.org/article/author/view/16

http://www.zmag.org/worldenvision.htm

How `bout this! A bibliography!

http://www.communalism.org/Personal/PS_bib.html

This took me about 5 minutes, Tarjei. Yes, I think it's paranoid to act as if he's trying to "hide" his views from you. What do you want from him? Some sort of Bradford-esque stream-of-consciousness religiopsychopoliticobiographical ruminating confessional piece? It's not a genre we're all comfortable with :)

(Sigh) You just don't get it, do you, Diana?

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: eyecueco
Date: Sat Feb 28, 2004 11:58 am
Subject: Re: mindgames

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, winters_diana wrote:

Tarjei wrote, astoundingly, to Peter S.:

The apparent reason for this guesswork is that you keep your deeper convictions, views and opinions about religion and philosophy and politics hidden.

I'd be laughing except that I guess you're not joking. Peter keeps his politics hidden?! I thought I had trouble keeping up, Tarjei, are you a few hundred posts behind or something? Sorry for the sarcasm, but do you know how to use google?

Wait a minute.

Diana, are you saying that Peter has been up front in his WC postings about being a communist, even of the so called little "c" variety?

I started reading about Peter after he first came on WC and have done a lot of searches on his writings, affiliations and activities off and on over the past couple of years. It was only this year I was able to satify myself that I was being fair and reasonable in considering him to be a communist.

He finally confirmed this for me when I quoted directly from Maxist philosophy and he responsed "That sounds plausible enough."

Mindgames, wordgames, what is the difference? PLANS is all about Waldorf being up front and having full disclosure, so how about pormoting this most excellent policy all the way around?

Paulina

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

From: winters_diana
Date: Mon Mar 1, 2004 7:10 pm
Subject: Re: mindgames

Paulina wrote:

Diana, are you saying that Peter has been up front in his WC postings about being a communist, even of the so called little "c" variety?

Paulina, sorry if I sound impatient, but what do you think people are supposed to do to be "upfront" on a particular mailing list? Stating all one's political affiliations and opinions is not required before joining the discussion on the WC list. Politics are sometimes discussed when relevant to the topic. Excuse me for finding all this supposed mystery silly, but Peter's politics are, um, hard to miss. If in doubt a few mouse clicks will take you to some of his writings and asking him questions seems to work pretty well too. Why did you spend 2 years wondering about the scary "C" word – asking him cleared it up in about 5 minutes, didn't it? He tolerates a lot of crap and remains polite. (Which I suppose is very suspicious behavior, given the culture of this list.)

Anyone found his "varietism" article yet? :)

There is no way to satisfy most people here out for a pound of flesh of Peter Staudenmaier, or for that matter anyone, since people aren't treated as people, but as reincarnations of various other people, or pawns in weird occult plots, which is ultimately a way to dismiss them spiritually. You all know the explanation for everything that's ever happened in Western civilization anyway, right? Can't Bradford just go into a trance and divine who Peter was in all his former incarnations?

Sorry for the rant, Paulina, I don't really mean you; you and a few others are unfailingly polite and generally sensible but that certainly isn't the case with some people here.

Diana

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Mon Mar 1, 2004 7:29 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Peter Staudenmaier's mindgames

Hi Tarjei, you wrote:

You debate in a manner that is evasive in many ways, sidetracking the issue raised by someone else by finding ways to revert to your old worn-out repetitive polemical arguments about racism and anti-Semitism.

That's what I came here to talk about. This is not sidetracking the issue, it is sticking to the issue.

You appear to have no interest whatsoever in Rudolf Steiner's cosmology or epistemology

I am interested in both topics, but they're not why I'm on this list.

You write about "the Jewish question" and how it was discussed in the 1880's and 1890's and the early years of the 20th century, and you write about what Steiner said or wrote about this "Jewish question", but you would never consider that to Steiner, this topic may not just have been what is contained in the expression "the Jewish question", but something much much deeper, namely: The Jewish Mystery.

On the contrary, that is very much how I think Steiner viewed the "Jewish question". In fact the most thorough explication of Steiner's views on this topic is Ludwig Thieben's book The Mystery of Jewry.

By the term "Hebrews" I mean the Jews of Biblical times, not of modern times

Yes, that's why I have little to say about your posts on that theme.

Peter

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 10:12 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Peter Staudenmaier's mindgames

Hi Peter,

I wrote:

You debate in a manner that is evasive in many ways, sidetracking the issue raised by someone else by finding ways to revert to your old worn-out repetitive polemical arguments about racism and anti-Semitism.

Peter S:

That's what I came here to talk about. This is not sidetracking the issue, it is sticking to the issue.

Tarjei:

I'm talking about issues raised by others on this list, not the issue raised by yourself, which you seem to consider the only one in focus. What I'm getting at is that is seems as if your obsession with racism, anti-Semitism, and Nazism and your tireless endeavor to smear anthroposophy with it may have a deeper cause, namely that the anthroposophical epistemology and world conception is offensive to dialectical materialists.

Tarjei:

You appear to have no interest whatsoever in Rudolf Steiner's cosmology or epistemology

Peter S:

I am interested in both topics, but they're not why I'm on this list.

Tarjei:

If you have expressed an interest in those topics, I must have missed the relevant posts. So why are you on this list? Is it to see how many racists, self-proclaimed or not, you can find here?

Tarjei:

You write about "the Jewish question" and how it was discussed in the 1880's and 1890's and the early years of the 20th century, and you write about what Steiner said or wrote about this "Jewish question", but you would never consider that to Steiner, this topic may not just have been what is contained in the expression "the Jewish question", but something much much deeper, namely: The Jewish Mystery.

Peter S:

On the contrary, that is very much how I think Steiner viewed the "Jewish question". In fact the most thorough explication of Steiner's views on this topic is Ludwig Thieben's book The Mystery of Jewry.

Tarjei:

http://www.perseus.ch/MF_E_AboutUs.htm

Quote:

"Several Perseus publications have given rise to controversial debate by the public in general as well as among anthroposophically oriented readers. For example, when we published the book Das Rätsel des Judentums (The Enigma of the Jewish People) by Ludwig Thieben, an anthroposophist of Jewish descent, the absurd charge was levelled at us that we were anti-Semitically oriented. This superficial accusation could not only be unmasked by anyone with ordinary common sense; its emptiness was also confirmed by the result of an investigation by the Basle Attorney General . (In the meantime, the book has been sold out)."

Tarjei:

I assume that you agree wholeheartedly with those who stood behind the absurd charge in question here. If that is the case, it is obvious that you not only seem to have an obsession with stapling anthroposophists as anti-Semite, but that you have stretched the very definition of "anti-Semitism" far beyond the limits of common sense and common usage.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: eyecueco
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 10:44 am
Subject: Re: mindgames

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, winters_diana wrote:

Paulina wrote:

Diana, are you saying that Peter has been up front in his WC postings about being a communist, even of the so called little "c" variety?

Paulina, sorry if I sound impatient, but what do you think people are supposed to do to be "upfront" on a particular mailing list? Stating all one's political affiliations and opinions is not required before joining the discussion on the WC list. Politics are sometimes discussed when relevant to the topic. Excuse me for finding all this supposed mystery silly, but Peter's politics are, um, hard to miss. If in doubt a few mouse clicks will take you to some of his writings and asking him questions seems to work pretty well too. Why did you spend 2 years wondering about the scary "C" word – asking him cleared it up in about 5 minutes, didn't it? He tolerates a lot of crap and remains polite. (Which I suppose is very suspicious behavior, given the culture of this list.)

Diana,

You do sound impatient, but, not my problem. I'm only responsible for controlling my own impatience.

If you believe that PS has been up front about his communist ideology since first coming on to WC, perhaps you will be good enough to show where you find this indicated in any of his WC post?

As for why it took me two years before labeling him a communist?

The answer is that I did not want to fall into the same catagory of Peter and others at WC who slander and smear by careless association and manipuation of distorted facts. I consider to call someone a communist to be a really serious matter. I wanted to be very certain I was not looking and seeing something that was not really there.

Anyone found his "varietism" article yet? :)

There is no way to satisfy most people here out for a pound of flesh of Peter Staudenmaier, or for that matter anyone, since people aren't treated as people, but as reincarnations of various other people, or pawns in weird occult plots, which is ultimately a way to dismiss them spiritually. You all know the explanation for everything that's ever happened in Western civilization anyway, right? Can't Bradford just go into a trance and divine who Peter was in all his former incarnations?

Diana, I believe the problem with the failed correspondences here and elsewhere has to do with what another posted said on another list, as being a problem without resolution, arising from different paradigms: "When even the basic concepts used in a discussion can mean different things, it is hard to come to some reasonable conclusion".
Additionally, thre are psychological issues on the part of ex-WE parents at WC. It is not easy when feeling one has been deceived or had a child hurt to continue to remain objective about a world philosophical view one feels to be the reason for the deception and or harm experienced. I am very sympathetic to what you and others have expereinced of an unhappy nature via Waldorf, and although firmly committed to an Anthro-paradigm, will not defend what is not defensible. I personally feel that Steiner would be incredibly disappointed with much that has been etched into stone in Waldorf (and misunderstood) causing so many of the problems.
But, I won't discuss spiritual realities with a communist, and to misrepresent oneself as being interested in Waldorf rather than being up front about their ideological agenda is something with which am totally unsympathetic. I was actually having what I thought was a very positive exchange with Dan on the issues of the Nazis and Aryan racial views until Peter showed up. I do, indeed believe that people should be up front and forthcoming, and the games played by Peter S. about Steiner, Aryan supremacy, racism and anti-Semitism to be dishonest and based on untruthfullness.

As for being in a group who thinks that we "know everything that happened in Western civilization", I'm unsure what you mean? My own life journey has been one of questioning and doubt. In Steiner's worldview I have found the most satisfactory answers for myself and answers that have stayed me through some very very difficult, even tragic life expriences. Even so, I continue to question everything and strive to stay firmly planted on terra firma.

I cannot speak for Bradford or his trances. :-),

I do not find myself in agreement with many of the things said by others on a number of topics and threads. I'm on my own journey and can not be held accountable for what others say, nor is it fair or reasonable to try and attatch by way of association what I might believe from what others post here.

Kind regards, as always,
Paulina

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 7:16 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Peter Staudenmaier's mindgames

Hi Tarjei, you wrote:

I'm talking about issues raised by others on this list, not the issue raised by yourself, which you seem to consider the only one in focus.

It's the one I focus on. Is there something that puzzles you about that?

What I'm getting at is that is seems as if your obsession with racism, anti-Semitism, and Nazism and your tireless endeavor to smear anthroposophy with it may have a deeper cause, namely that the anthroposophical epistemology and world conception is offensive to dialectical materialists.

That doesn't make sense. I'm not a dialectical materialist, and the parts of the anthroposophical world conception that are "offensive" to me are precisely those parts that I focus on here. I have lots of critical things to say about anthroposophical epistemology (which, by the way, has some significant dialectical elements), but I don't think they have anything to do with Steiner's racial or ethnic doctrines, thus I haven't addressed them here.

If you have expressed an interest in those topics, I must have missed the relevant posts.

Joel and I have discussed Steiner's epistemology at some length on the waldorf critics list.

So why are you on this list? Is it to see how many racists, self-proclaimed or not, you can find here?

No, I think a couple of you do a fine job of that yourselves, and don't seem to need much help from me. I'm here to discuss Steiner's teachings about Jews, as well as his teachings about race, if we get around to those.

I assume that you agree wholeheartedly with those who stood behind the absurd charge in question here.

No, I don't think it makes sense to claim that the publisher is antisemitic (though I do think that a number of Thomas Meyer's expressed views on Jews are moronic) simply for printing the book. But Thieben's book itself is antisemitic. If you think otherwise, let's discuss it.

Peter

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

From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 10:24 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: mindgames

Is Diana for real, Peter, or is she only your alter ego? I appreciate the outworn tactic: bad cop, good cop, but I can't tell which is which! When does Robocop D.D. make his entrance? Wait, let me guess: at the climax (double entendre intended).

Frank

Paulina, sorry if I sound impatient, but what do you think people are supposed to do to be "upfront" on a particular mailing list? Stating all one's political affiliations and opinions is not required before joining the discussion on the WC list. Politics are sometimes discussed when relevant to the topic. Excuse me for finding all this supposed mystery silly, but Peter's politics are, um, hard to miss. If in doubt a few mouse clicks will take you to some of his writings and asking him questions seems to work pretty well too. Why did you spend 2 years wondering about the scary "C" word – asking him cleared it up in about 5 minutes, didn't it? He tolerates a lot of crap and remains polite. (Which I suppose is very suspicious behavior, given the culture of this list.)

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

From: winters_diana
Date: Wed Mar 3, 2004 9:35 am
Subject: Re: mindgames

Frank:

Is Diana for real, Peter, or is she only your alter ego?

Diana <bangs head against the wall>

Anyway you're mixing us up with Tarjei and his friend "Sophia."

I appreciate the outworn tactic: bad cop, good cop, but I can't tell which is which!

I'm sort of puzzling over which you mean is which, too, you mean you don't even know?

When does Robocop D.D. make his entrance? Wait, let me guess: at the climax (double entendre intended).

Frank, your boyish charm and flirtatious wit never cease to amaze me.

Diana

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

From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Wed Mar 3, 2004 1:24 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: mindgames

Diana:

Frank:

Is Diana for real, Peter, or is she only your alter ego?

Diana <bangs head against the wall>

Anyway you're mixing us up with Tarjei and his friend "Sophia."

Really? Wow, maybe you've got something there.

I appreciate the outworn tactic: bad cop, good cop, but I can't tell which is which!

I'm sort of puzzling over which you mean is which, too, you mean you don't even know?

No, because I couldn't find the good one.

When does Robocop D.D. make his entrance? Wait, let me guess: at the climax (double entendre intended).

Frank, your boyish charm and flirtatious wit never cease to amaze me.

Diana

Who's flirting now? Seriously, Diana, that's why I was worried about the possibility that you're not real. Now I see that you are, because you have a sense of humor, which Tin-Man-Peter couldn't coax out even of his alter ego. But now I'm really getting interested. How about you hopping on a plane for a short visit? Er..I hope you don't mind sending a recent photo first, not too many bytes, please, I have a slow dial-up erection.

Anticipatingly,

Frank

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Thu Mar 4, 2004 3:22 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Peter Staudenmaier's mindgames

Hi Peter,

I wrote:

I'm talking about issues raised by others on this list, not the issue raised by yourself, which you seem to consider the only one in focus.

You wrote:

It's the one I focus on. Is there something that puzzles you about that?

Tarjei:

Yes. What puzzles me is that your apparent extensive study of Steiner's works through a number of years has kept you spellbound on one topic only that you abuse in order to misrepresent Anthroposophy and its founder. I am not less puzzled when you subscribe to an anthroposophical email list where all kinds of anthroposophically related topics are discussed, only to insist upon this obsession of yours that is not even a part of Anthroposophy.

Peter S:

I have lots of critical things to say about anthroposophical epistemology (which, by the way, has some significant dialectical elements), but I don't think they have anything to do with Steiner's racial or ethnic doctrines, thus I haven't addressed them here.

Tarjei:

But those are the topics most of us here are interested in. Anthroposophy is a worldview and cosmology, and it rests upon the epistemology outlined in the PoF. For this reason, we are interested in Christian theology, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, folklore, mythology, atheism, agnosticism, Marxism, Platonism, the New Age Movement, etc. We are interested in how various worldviews compare to Anthroposophy, what they have in common and how they differ. We are curious about how different members stand in relation to the many spiritual and philosophical paths and views that are available to us all. But you're not interested in any of this because you don't think it has anything to do with "Steiner's racial or ethnic doctrines", which might have been interesting if they could be discussed in a normal manner. You discuss this only topic in a manner that is not normal because your approach is not intellectually honest, and for this reason, the result is blind alleys and endless boredom.

Peter S:

Joel and I have discussed Steiner's epistemology at some length on the waldorf critics list.

Tarjei:

I wish he was back. He bores me too, but you guys would probably have a ball together.

Tarjei:

So why are you on this list? Is it to see how many racists, self-proclaimed or not, you can find here?

Peter S:

No, I think a couple of you do a fine job of that yourselves, and don't seem to need much help from me.

Tarjei:

Interesting. Who among us have done such a fine job of proclaiming ourselves as racists? If you have some quotes to illustrate your point, feel free to share them with us and explain why they represent racism.

Peter S:

I'm here to discuss Steiner's teachings about Jews, as well as his teachings about race, if we get around to those.

Tarjei:

We haven't gotten around to it? I believe I've contributed my ample 2c about RS and the Jews.

Peter S:

No, I don't think it makes sense to claim that the publisher is antisemitic (though I do think that a number of Thomas Meyer's expressed views on Jews are moronic) simply for printing the book. But Thieben's book itself is antisemitic. If you think otherwise, let's discuss it.

Tarjei:

I have not read that book, but i find it curious that you label a Jewish Anthroposophist an anti-Semite, especially when the allegation looks spurious. From the looks of it, the attack against the author is being referred to as absurd, not just the publisher.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: zapdingo
Date: Thu Mar 4, 2004 2:49 am
Subject: Re: mindgames

Diana wrote:

Anyway you're mixing us up with Tarjei and his friend "Sophia."

Ah! My thoughts exactly! Or at least what they used to be until our lovely moderator exchanged some words with me privately. However, this is only an irrelevant detail. The important thing is, you and I Diana, have something in common in our way of thinking. Or had at some point, which is enough for me. Moreover: Unlike Frank, I still believe you and PS are the same person, him being the Dr. Jekyll for your adorable Ms. Hyderina, and both of you holding a strong dislike towards monogamy and looking like a young Jane Mansfield. And also unlike Frank, I would pay for a plane ticket instead of insinuating you have to come by yourself to meet me. No need for photos, either. My anthropowers are more evolved than his and I can see your beauty all the way through the cyberspace. Easy choice, eh?

Bryan

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

From: winters_diana
Date: Thu Mar 4, 2004 5:45 am
Subject: Re: mindgames

Moreover: Unlike Frank, I still believe you and PS are the same person, him being the Dr. Jekyll for your adorable Ms. Hyderina, and both of you holding a strong dislike towards monogamy and looking like a young Jane Mansfield. And also unlike Frank, I would pay for a plane ticket instead of insinuating you have to come by yourself to meet me. No need for photos, either. My anthropowers are more evolved than his and I can see your beauty all the way through the cyberspace. Easy choice, eh?

Bryan

Your anthro-powers need some work, Bryan, on several of these points. And if you think Peter and I are the same person, which of us are you propositioning? :)

Diana

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

From: holderlin66
Date: Thu Mar 4, 2004 8:00 am
Subject: Re: mindgames

winters_diana wrote:

Your anthro-powers need some work, Bryan, on several of these points. And if you think Peter and I are the same person, which of us are you propositioning? :)

Diana

Bradford;

Now that was warm, funny, lovely and a good gottcha! It is the wide span of being human that gives everything back to the heart. By the way, I still admire Philospophical Drag Queens who dress up and speak like 19th century Victorians and make coquettish little squeals of pleasure when they think they are getting deep.

My complaint is you have little understanding of how wonderfully deep and profound the heart of the world and the reality of the I AM is. Massive vaults, full of humor, joy, humanity, compassion, but of course there is the "narrow room".. a broom closet where witches party. They sometimes are afraid to come out into the Great Hall of human spiritual history and take in the view, enjoy the company. Rather they form little clubs in the janitors closet, and whine that nothing is every cleaned up and how little respect anyone gives the clean up crew.

Most of us are in jeans and would rather be mopping floors than sniping at bluejays and cats. Bluejays and Cats have always done what they do. They fundamentally disagree. We call this air patrol with their feathery Prussian helmets the sky police...and those snarling little misfits with whiskers, pussies.

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

From: zapdingo
Date: Thu Mar 4, 2004 9:25 am
Subject: Re: mindgames

winters_diana wrote:

Your anthro-powers need some work, Bryan, on several of these points. And if you think Peter and I are the same person, which of us are you propositioning? :)

Diana

You and him being the same person and sharing the same Mansfieldesque features, it wouldn't make a difference for me who I am propositioning to. However, I would like to call you Diana, if you don't mind. "Peter" just wouldn't work for me under romantic circumstances.

:) for you too.

Bryan

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

From: winters_diana
Date: Thu Mar 4, 2004 5:38 am
Subject: Re: mindgames

But now I'm really getting interested. How about you hopping on a plane for a short visit? Er..I hope you don't mind sending a recent photo first, not too many bytes, please, I have a slow dial-up erection.

Anticipatingly,

Frank

Frank, you're a shameless sweet-talker, aren't you? but you're too old for me, I'm afraid :)

Diana

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

From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Thu Mar 4, 2004 12:14 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: mindgames

But now I'm really getting interested. How about you hopping on a plane for a short visit? Er..I hope you don't mind sending a recent photo first, not too many bytes, please, I have a slow dial-up erection.

Anticipatingly,

Frank

Frank, you're a shameless sweet-talker, aren't you? but you're too old for me, I'm afraid :)

Diana

Too old? TOO OLD, did you say? Didn't you see Sean Connery and Clint Eastwood (my idols next to Rudy) at the Academy Awards? Do they look too old for what you have in mind? Did you ever hear of Charlie Chaplin or Abraham or Methuselah, not to mention Woody Allen and Cary Grant? It's experience that counts, my dear, and there is more than one way to skin a pussy - and without viagra. Can you imagine your dream-stud Peter S. whispering sweet nothings into your ear? Nothings yes, but hardly sweet. He advocates free love, his idea of which being hanging out in the WC with his enormous dick in his hand singing that old staple from the Threepenny Opera: "play-rewind-play-rewind", ad infinitum. If that's what you prefer..well, you don't know what you're missing.

Disappointed in you,

Frank

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Thu Mar 4, 2004 2:27 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: mindgames

Bradford:

If that's what you prefer..well, you don't know what you're missing.

Disappointed in you,

Frank

I am going to have to sign off this list if this kind of thing keeps happening. That may make quite a few people happy and that would be fine with me. I didn't like it the first time it came up and just let it go but now it is too much. Please consider there are others on the list that do not like reading these kinds of things.

Dottie

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Thu Mar 4, 2004 2:40 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: mindgames Apology

Bradford:

If that's what you prefer..well, you don't know what you're missing.

Disappointed in you,

Frank

Apologies to Bradford for putting his name at the top of this note which was from Frank.

Dottie

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Thu Mar 4, 2004 3:42 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: mindgames

Frank wrote:

If that's what you prefer..well, you don't know what you're missing.

Disappointed in you,

Frank

Dottie wrote:

I am going to have to sign off this list if this kind of thing keeps happening.

Frank is trying to use a language the critics understand.

Tarjei

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

From: winters_diana
Date: Thu Mar 4, 2004 7:35 pm
Subject: Re: mindgames

Dottie wrote:

I am going to have to sign off this list if this kind of thing keeps happening. That may make quite a few people happy and that would be fine with me. I didn't like it the first time it came up and just let it go but now it is too much. Please consider there are others on the list that do not like reading these kinds of things.

I don't blame you, Dottie, and I apologize for my part in it.

Diana

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

From: golden3000997
Date: Thu Mar 4, 2004 4:24 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: mindgames

Honey, if you look like Sean Connery, I'll be on the next plane to Buenos Aires!!

Christine

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

From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Thu Mar 4, 2004 6:22 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: mindgames

Frank wrote:

If that's what you prefer..well, you don't know what you're missing.

Disappointed in you,

Frank

Dottie wrote:

I am going to have to sign off this list if this kind of thing keeps happening.

Tarjei wrote:

Frank is trying to use a language the critics understand.

Wrong. It's a language I understand. If the critics, Diana at least, also do, then I'm grateful.

Frank

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

From: Mike Helsher
Date: Thu Mar 4, 2004 10:00 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: mindgames

Dottie:

I am going to have to sign off this list if this kind of thing keeps happening.

Hey Dottie,

I'm not a women, but my wife tells me that testosterone orientated activities are annoying, to say the least. I use to try the "I can't help it" excuse, but she doesn't buy it anymore :^(

I'm glad that you spoke your mind.

I'd be really sad if you did leave; I think you are a great asset to this list.

Much Love

Mike

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

From: winters_diana
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004
Subject: Re: mindgames

Bradford wrote:

My complaint is you have little understanding of how wonderfully deep and profound the heart of the world and the reality of the I AM is.

Who? Are you talking to me? I think this was in reply to me. Or Peter? Are you, also, under the impression Peter and I are the same person, or . . . something. You guys are really funny. There are two critics here at the same time, and you have all spun such interesting fantasies about this, alter egos, drag queens, Jane Mansfield, etc. It's sure been interesting.

Now Bradford, how would you have the slightest idea what understanding I have of the heart or of the world or anything else for that matter?

Diana

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Fri Mar 5, 2004 10:24 am
Subject: Re: mindgames

Diana:

I don't blame you, Dottie, and I apologize for my part in it.

Diana, to be fair I do not think flirting is something to apologize for. It was the words that followed I felt were uncalled for on a list like this. But that's just my opinion and I totally respect if it is going to be a regular thing that happens here and then I have my choice.

Dottie

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

From: Sophia
Date: Sat Mar 6, 2004 8:24 am
Subject: Free speech on the AT

Dottie wrote to Frank:

I am going to have to sign off this list if this kind of thing keeps happening. That may make quite a few people happy and that would be fine with me. I didn't like it the first time it came up and just let it go but now it is too much. Please consider there are others on the list that do not like reading these kinds of things.

The AT is a free speech forum. If your sensibilities are offended by Frank's posts, don't read them in the future.

Faithfully,

Sophia (moderator)
http://www.geocities.com/anarchosophia/

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Sat Mar 6, 2004 8:42 am
Subject: Re: Free speech on the AT

Sophia:

The AT is a free speech forum. If your sensibilities are offended by Frank's posts, don't read them in the future.

Well, Sophia, I thought about that and then I thought I would just mention it in case Frank was unaware that these things might be found offensive by some who are on the list.

And thanks for the advice but I think I would rather sign off the list than worry if I am going to open my mail and find sexually explicit and offensive words in my mail box.

Thanks again for you wonderful, caring, thoughtful and insightful concern once again,

Dottie

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sat Mar 6, 2004 10:52 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Free speech on the AT

At 17:42 06.03.2004, Dottie wrote to Sophia:

And thanks for the advice but I think I would rather sign off the list than worry if I am going to open my mail and find sexually explicit and offensive words in my mail box.

Use Eudora, and it's a piece of cake, Dottie:

http://eudora.com/

You can get it for Mac, Windows, Unix/Linux, and Palm.

After downloading the AT messages, just mark all the posts from Frank with a red label, so you know which ones you shouldn't open. If curiosity tends to get the better of you, you can enable MoodWatch:

MoodWatch
-Enable MoodWatch

Warn when queuing/sending
* Message seems it might be offensive
** Message is probably offensive
***Message is on fire
Never

Delay when queuing/sending
* Message seems it might be offensive
** Message is probably offensive
***Message is on fire
Never

Scan incoming mail
Scan new mail as it arrives
Scan stored mail in the background

Cheers,

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Sun Mar 7, 2004 7:19 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Free speech on the AT

After downloading the AT messages, just mark all the posts from Frank with a red label, so you know which ones you shouldn't open. If curiosity tends to get the better of you, you can enable MoodWatch:

How about marking all the other posts with a red label, thereby only allowing Frank's? That's what I do.

Frank

Tarjei and mindgames

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


Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
 

February/March 2004

The Uncle Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files

Anthroposophy & Anarchism

Anthroposophy & Scientology

Anthroposophical Morsels

Anthroposophy, Critics, and Controversy

Search this site powered by FreeFind