Re: To Peter 1
From: bryanmillermail
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 5:11 am
Subject: SV: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: To Peter
Hi Bryan, you asked:
What is your ultimate goal
in pursuing this criticism?
Peter:
To have my opinion changed.
That's why we put arguments out into the public realm, no?
Bryan:
Not really. Most criticism aims to change
the object being critized or at least the perception/opinion
that others have of this object. However, if you want to have
your opinion changed, may I ask why?
Bryan
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 11:20 am
Subject: Re: SV: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: To Peter
Hi Bryan, you asked:
However, if you want to have your opinion
changed, may I ask why?
Because that's how you get more well-founded opinions. The wonderful
thing about critique is that it frequently strengthens the object
of criticism. It also helps you determine which opinions don't
hold up to scrutiny and need to be abandoned. I figured that
a group of very talkative anthroposophists who have an evident
interest in my work might be able to provide some rigorous critiques
of that work. I'm enjoying doing that with several list members,
though the silly imprecations are a bit of a distraction sometimes.
Thanks for asking,
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: bryanmillermail
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 1:55 pm
Subject: SV: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: To Peter
I had the understanding, when talking of object
of criticism, that we were both referring to Anthroposophy/Rudolf
Steiner (the object of your criticism), but it seems you were
thinking about your own work - as in, you're in this list to
enrich your work by listening to criticism (of your criticism
of Anthroposophy). For a minute reading your e-mail I thought
you wanted to strengthen Anthroposophy, the object of your criticism
- which would be quite interesting if true, wouldn't it! To clarify
things: my first question to you was, what is your ultimate goal
in your work as a critic of Anthroposophy? Is there a practical
goal you want to achieve?
Bryan
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 9:21 pm
Subject: Re: SV: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: To Peter
Hi Bryan,
To clarify things: my first question to you was, what is your
ultimate goal in your work as a critic of Anthroposophy? Is there
a practical goal you want to achieve?
No, not in the way that I think of 'practical goals'. I didn't
seek out the topic, I sort of stumbled onto it. When I was asked
to write my first article on anthroposophy, I thought I'd just
do the one piece and then move on. That article did include several
'practical goals', and was explicitly formulated along political
lines. The outraged responses it generated made me go back to
the materials, and the more I dug up the more I was drawn into
a long term research project. At this point I'm trying to write
a book on Steiner's racial theories and their reception among
the first generation of anthroposophists, but it's coming along
slowly. I do have a lot of the primary research done, but it's
looking like I may have to hold off on the writing for a couple
years.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: bryanmillermail
Date: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:04 am
Subject: SV: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: To Peter
Peter:
At this point I'm trying to write a book
on Steiner's racial theories and their reception among the first
generation of anthroposophists, but it's coming along slowly.
I do have a lot of the primary research done, but it's looking
like I may have to hold off on the writing for a couple years.
Bryan:
Thanks for answering my questions. I hadn't
met you before and it was interesting to know more about your
perspective. More than ever, it seems clear to me that there
will never be agreement between us when it comes to issues such
as Steiner's alleged racism and I can't say I'm looking forward
to your book. You view Anthroposophy from a socio-political-materialistic
perspective only, while I see it from a cosmologic spiritual
standpoint in which I believe. Just as a parallel, one can think
of the caste system in Hinduism: The fact that an individual
is forced to die in the caste he is born may seem socially unjust
to those who don't believe he'll eventually come back in another
caste, a fact that would make the whole system socially just
after all. In order to fully understand Anthroposophy, or the
caste system, you would have to believe in, or at least accept
the possibility of, a spiritual realm such as each of them describes,
and include it in your observations, instead of foccusing only
on the material manifestations of it to draw your conclusions.
For me, your work on Steiner becomes irrelevant due to your denial
of the foundations on which all the ideas he put forward make
sense and where it is even more crystal clear there's nothing
racist about them. I see you as a blind man holding the elephant's
ear and describing it as the elephant itself because you can't
see the rest of it. You probably see me as imagining an elephant
where there's nothing, just a palm leaf. That's why there's no
sense, for me, in discussing such issues - we are coming from
different places and will never actually meet in the middle.
But, it takes all kinds to make a world and I appreciate you
exposing your ideas in this forum. Now I'll go back to lighter
fare, if you don't mind. Have a nice stay here.
Bryan
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
Hi Bryan,
To clarify things: my first question to
you was, what is your ultimate goal in your work as a critic
of Anthroposophy? Is there a practical goal you want to achieve?
No, not in the way that I think of 'practical
goals'. I didn't seek out the topic, I sort of stumbled onto
it. When I was asked to write my first article on anthroposophy,
I thought I'd just do the one piece and then move on. That article
did include several 'practical goals', and was explicitly formulated
along political lines. The outraged responses it generated made
me go back to the materials, and the more I dug up the more I
was drawn into a long term research project. At this point I'm
trying to write a book on Steiner's racial theories and their
reception among the first generation of anthroposophists, but
it's coming along slowly. I do have a lot of the primary research
done, but it's looking like I may have to hold off on the writing
for a couple years.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: Mike Helsher
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 10:44 pm
Subject: Re: SV: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: To Peter
Hello Peter, you wrote to Bryan, in reference
to your goals:
No, not in the way that I think of 'practical
goals'.
That seems like a common answer for you Peter. You often tell
us about the way you think, but you never really tell us why
(before you go off on a tangent about this, see below).
I didn't seek out the topic, I sort of stumbled onto it.
And you are still stumbling, without any clear goal or stated
motive that isn't emersed in a soup of finely articulated socratic
method.
When I was asked to write my first article on anthroposophy,
I thought I'd just do the one piece and then move on. That article
did include several 'practical goals', and was explicitly formulated
along political lines.
I can't help but feel that you have a hidden political agenda
working in that raging intellect of yours. Anthropops have communities,
schools, farms, training centers, ideas for a more humane society,
and so on. I can see how someone involved with a group that might
adhear to a marxist ideology (or something like it) would see
anthro's and there endevors as a threat to there own ideas about
"the knew world order."
Sorry but since you don't state your goals clearly, and you keep
skirting my questions about your Motive and intent (which I think
Bradford nailed to the wall), I'm left to speculate.
The outraged responses it generated made me go back to the
materials, and the more I dug up the more I was drawn into a
long term research project.
Yes, but you only seem to dig up whats relevant to your "long
term research project". And I find it hard to understand
why personal motive or intent or long term goals are not all
that important, when writing a book about Steiners Racial theories.
Unless of course you just like the attention. Or if Like DD you
like to play "philosophy wars" as a kind of "hobby."
Clear question:
What do you see as your motives and intent, for involving yourself
in a "long term research project" that will culminate
with you writing a book about Rudolf Steiner's racial theories?
I am hoping for a clear and direct answer to the question.
Thanks
Mike
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 11:02 pm
Subject: Re: SV: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: To Peter
Hi Mike, you wrote:
I can't help but feel that you have a hidden
political agenda working in that raging intellect of yours.
Yes, I've noticed that you feel this way. This is puzzling to
me, since my political agenda is very, very open. (By the way,
my political agenda is anarchist, not marxist.) I don't believe
in a new world order, as far as I know.
Yes, but you only seem to dig up whats relevant to your "long
term research project".
I think what you're saying is that I only discuss what is relevant
to my research, which is largely true.
And I find it hard to understand why personal motive or intent
or long term goals are not all that important, when writing a
book about Steiners Racial theories..
Yes, I know that this is hard for you to understand. I don't
see what we can do about that, since you and I simply disagree
about the relevance of motives and intentions to the finished
product.
What do you see as your motives and intent, for involving
yourself in a "long term research project" that will
culminate with you writing a book about Rudolf Steiner's racial
theories?
I consider Steiner's racial theories and their reception among
early anthroposophists a prime example of several of the broader
phenomena I study, namely the propensity toward left-right crossover,
esoteric politics, and the profusion of racial-ethnic discourse
in early 20th century German-speaking Europe.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Feb 25, 2004 7:05 pm
Subject: Re: SV: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: To Peter
Hi Bryan, thanks for your post. You wrote:
You view Anthroposophy from a socio-political-materialistic
perspective only, while I see it from a cosmologic spiritual
standpoint in which I believe.
I think that hits the nail on the head, and captures well why
the discussions I've gotten involved in on this list are so often
fraught with misunderstanding and suspicion. Although I don't
call my own viewpoint "materialistic", I probably do
qualify as such according to standard anthroposophical conceptions
of materialism. And my perspective is definitely heavily socio-political.
I do not view anthroposophy primarily as a cosmological spiritual
standpoint (and I obviously don't believe in it in that sense);
I view it essentially as a set of doctrines entwined with a movement,
that is, as a historical phenomenon. I know that this makes me
a hard person to talk to, for people who see anthroposophy very
differently, and I appreciate the effort that several people
here have put into it.
In order to fully understand Anthroposophy,
or the caste system, you would have to believe in, or at least
accept the possibility of, a spiritual realm such as each of
them describes, and include it in your observations, instead
of foccusing only on the material manifestations of it to draw
your conclusions.
I don't think that's true from a historical perspective; the
material manifestations (texts, documents, records, and so forth)
are precisely what I look at, and are what my conclusions need
to be based on.
For me, your work on Steiner becomes irrelevant due to your
denial of the foundations on which all the ideas he put forward
make sense and where it is even more crystal clear there's nothing
racist about them.
I think that the foundations on which his ideas make sense is
not nearly as straightforward as you seem to suggest here. A
number of early anthroposophists (Karutz, Thieben, Uehli, and
others) explicated Steiner's racial and ethnic teachings and
came up with results that I consider clearly racist.
I see you as a blind man holding the elephant's ear and describing
it as the elephant itself because you can't see the rest of it.
If the rest of it includes the higher worlds and so forth, that's
true. That isn't the aspect of anthroposophy that I study.
You probably see me as imagining an elephant where there's
nothing, just a palm leaf.
No, not necessarily. I don't know whether it's there or not,
much less whether you or other anthroposophists have access to
truths about it. I do not categorically deny that this is possible.
I don't really have much to say on the matter one way or another,
to be honest.
Have a nice stay here.
Thanks. I enjoyed our exchange.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Wed Feb 25, 2004 9:12 pm
Subject: SV: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: To Peter
Peter:
At this point I'm trying to write a book
on Steiner's racial theories and their reception among the first
generation of anthroposophists, but it's coming along slowly.
I do have a lot of the primary research done, but it's looking
like I may have to hold off on the writing for a couple years.
Dear Bryan,
I think you hit the nail on the head in an
early post about the reason Peter has come here: to strengthen
his case against Dr. Steiner by polling it first amongst his
students. And this is what I feel he is doing.
By debating this site he gets to see, for
this is truly his one weakness, what the argument is going to
be about once his book is out. He gets to frame his rhetoric
around what he has learned here on AT would be the strongest
opposition to his works. In this way he can hedge his bets and
make it so twisted that there would be no way around it and one
who knows the truth would just leave the article with a twisted
sense of just being screwed. And royally.
I think it is time to let this ugly fish move
on unless we really want to continue aiding his twisted mentallity
one day longer. He must really be enjoying this.
Time to way move on and let Peter get caught
in his web of lies if he so wishes. It's only his own self respect
that is on the line. And he doesn't seem to mind losing it.
Again, we are just helping him to see what
the argument is going to be about and how to defend against it
in another twisted ideologue polemical paper.
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: Mike Helsher
Date: Wed Feb 25, 2004 7:48 pm
Subject: Re: SV: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: To Peter
Hi Peter, you wrote
I consider Steiner's racial theories and
their reception among early anthroposophists a prime example
of several of the broader phenomena I study, namely the propensity
toward left-right crossover, esoteric politics, and the profusion
of racial-ethnic discourse in early 20th century German-speaking
Europe.
Mike:
So, Steiners racial theories and their reception
are an example of the broader phenomena that you study. OK, so
why do you study this phenomena?
Thanks
Mike
...................................................................................................................................
From: Mike Helsher
Date: Thu Feb 26, 2004 6:25 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: To Peter
Hi Dottie, you wrote:
<snip>
I think it is time to let this ugly fish
move on unless we really want to continue aiding his twisted
mentallity one day longer. He must really be enjoying this.
Time to way move on and let Peter get caught
in his web of lies if he so wishes. It's only his own self respect
that is on the line. And he doesn't seem to mind losing it.
Again, we are just helping him to see what
the argument is going to be about and how to defend against it
in another twisted ideologue polemical paper.
Dottie
I think your right Dottie. I think he does
enjoy it. Like DD and his "Philosophy wars" being his
stated "Hobby."
Hey, we all have our personal hobbies, and
I'm sure that he would find mine as "boring" (quoting
Tarjei) as I find his.
I haven't read through all the posts yet,
so I'm still wondering if he has had to balls to answer my pretty
clear questions about his personal motive and intent.
Unless he's like his own rendition of RS and
he just cant realize them.
Funny how those who shout the loudest, are
almost always shouting about themselves.
All the best Dottie
Mike
...................................................................................................................................
From: bryanmillermail
Date: Thu Feb 26, 2004 7:27 am
Subject: Re: To Peter
Dottie, Mike,
Considering the help he's getting from us,
the least we can do is to demand a share of the book's profits.
Heaven knows I could do with some extra income.
Bryan
mhelsher wrote:
Hi Dottie, you wrote:
<snip>
I think it is time to let this ugly fish
move on unless we really want to continue aiding his twisted
mentallity one day longer. He must really be enjoying this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re:
To Peter 2
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
