agreement
and disagreement 2
agreement and disagreement 3
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Mon Mar 1, 2004 7:19 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement
Hi Patrick, you
wrote:
According to anthroposophy, any people or
culture that separates itself in an unhealthy way from the rest
of humanity is impeding the progression of humanity.
Neither Jewish culture nor the Jewish people as such separated
itself in an unhealthy way from the rest of humanity in 1888
or in 1924. If anything, the opposite was the case.
Secondly, the word anti-Semitic isn't merely descriptive.
It attaches a stigma to anyone that is labeled by it.
That is historically mistaken. The term "antisemite"
was coined by antisemiites themselves (most prominently by Wilhelm
Marr, founder of the League of Antisemites); it obviously carried
no stigma for them.
Surely you understand that by saying that anthroposophy and
Rudolf Steiner are racist and anti-Semitic you contribute mightily
to the perception of them as such.
Merely saying such things cannot have this effect; there has
to be some evidence for the charge to be even partially convincing.
That's why I think we ought to be discussing the evidence in
Steiner's case.
Anthroposophy brings forth the spiritual ideal that humanity
is progressing towards universal brotherhood. It encourages us
to look at the individual not the color of his skin.
That is indeed what Steiner sometimes said. At other times he
said very different things about skin color. Some of those things
were racist, in my estimation.
In our time one must use these terms with care. When you use
them you bear the responsibility of their effects. Do you disagree?
I agree that it is a good idea to use concepts like racism and
antisemitism carefully. To my mind this requires some basic knowledge
about the history of racist thought and the history of antisemitism.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: patrick evans
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 6:38 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement
Dear Dr. Staudenmaier,
It is my perception that in each of the posts that I have made
to you you have missed my point entirely. I'm trying to understand
your point of view and I hope you will do the same with me. Instead
of another human being honestly trying to understand the other
I find myself facing a "thrust and parry" dialectician.
It is odd and ironic that you should consider yourself a social
ecologist. Allow me to quote from one of your articles to the
web site for the Institute of Social Ecology. After criticizing
Waage for his method of discussion -- namely, "simple method
of counter-presentation" -- you state, "This method
of counter-presentation has the unfortunate effect of reducing
rational argument to a mere trading of isolated quotations back
and forth. Based on a combination of wishful thinking and denial,
it leads to a primitive form of argument-by-definition:..."
Pardon me, Sir, but it seems that that is exactly what you are
doing! My point is that you are taking Steiner's remarks about
"Jewry" (I find this term crude but I will use it because
it is germane to our discussion) out of the context of the anthroposophical
worldview. You do not address the worldview only the remarks
that fit your view. This is your very complaint about Waage.
It is quite clear to me that if you are a dialectical materialist
then you couldn't possibly understand Anthroposophy unless you
open your mind to it. Your remarks leave the impression that
you think that you are being quite open and reasonable. If you
do not acknowledge the key points of others and resort to kind
of "snipping and countering" style then a discussion
with you is fruitless. On first hearing, the phrase "social
ecology", sounds very noble. I find myself imagining human
beings speaking thoughtfully and ethically and listening openly
to different points of view. So far, what I have witnessed from
you is certainly polite on the surface . I do not find, however,
that you listen openly. I also suspect that you have ulterior
motives. Why else would you deny that linking Rudolf Steiner
and anthroposophy with racist and anti-Semitic ideologies taints
both. One of the first things I learned from anthroposophy is
the following: thoughts are realities and have their effects
in the world. When you say that merely saying such things cannot
have that effect you are being naive. I suggest you read David
Boehm's Thought As a System.
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 8:06 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement
Hi Patrick, you wrote:
It is my perception that in each of the posts that I have
made to you you have missed my point entirely.
That's entirely possible. My apologies if so.
I'm trying to understand your point of view and I hope you
will do the same with me.
Yes, I'm working on it.
Instead
of another human being honestly trying to understand the other
I find myself facing a "thrust and parry" dialectician.
I think that is a good way to conduct public discussion on controversial
topics.
Pardon me, Sir, but it seems that that is exactly what you
are doing!
No, I haven't engaged in counter-presentation here. I'm not sure
how you missed this, but I do not deny that Steiner held a number
of perfectly acceptable views on Jews, on race, and so forth.
My first post made this clear. Some of the rest of the listmates
here appear to have trouble acknowledging that Steiner also held
a number of other views on Jews and on race that can accurately
be described as antisemitic and as racist. That is what I think
we should be discussing.
My point is that you are taking Steiner's remarks about "Jewry"
(I find this term crude but I will use it because it is germane
to our discussion) out of the context of the anthroposophical
worldview.
Some of those remarks (e.g. the 1888 ones) were made outside
the context of the anthroposophical worldview, hence this is
exactly how we ought to take them. I do consider Steiner's post-1902
remarks about Jews within the context of the anthroposophical
worldview, because this is crucial to understanding them.
You do
not address the worldview only the remarks that fit your view.
That doesn't make sense. What you call "my view" is
of course my view of the anthroposophical worldview, which is
exactly what I address here. This does not align with your own
view of the anthroposophical worldview, of course.
This is your very complaint about Waage.
No, not at all. My complaint about Waage is that he simply ignores
the stuff in Steiner that he doesn't like. I do not ignore the
stuff in Steiner that I don't like, or that I do like for that
matter. I look at both the philosemitic and the antisemitic aspects
of Steiner's teachings about Jews, for example.
It is quite clear to me that if you are a dialectical materialist
I am not a dialectical materialist. I am not any kind of marxist.
I am opposed to marxism, philosophically, politically, and all
sorts of other ways.
then you couldn't possibly understand Anthroposophy unless
you open your mind to it.
I think that's a truism. Nobody understands anything until they
open their minds to it.
If you do not acknowledge the key points of others
Since I've been on this list I have frequently acknowledged the
key points of others and explained which I agree with and which
I disagree with. Is there something about this approach that
you find unsatisfactory?
I also suspect that you have ulterior motives.
Join the club. Could you perhaps explain to me what you think
these motives are?
Why else would you deny that linking Rudolf Steiner and anthroposophy
with racist and anti-Semitic ideologies taints both.
Because I think that idea is wrongheaded in principle. I did
not invent this stance for purposes of this list, I hold it across
the board. This whole notion of "tainting" is foolish.
Consider the analogous matter of my political views: for people
who like Ayn Rand, my political views are anathema. This certainly
does not taint me, for the simple reason that different people
disagree about political views; some will find specific views
repellent, while others find the very same views appealing. Same
goes for things like racism and antisemitism. It is a really
bad idea to treat such topics as a kind of contagion that might
get on your clothes or in your hair if you handle them too closely.
I think we ought to simply examine antisemitism and racism in
historical perspective instead of worrying about the taint.
One of the first things I learned from anthroposophy is the
following: thoughts are realities and have their effects in the
world. When you say that merely saying such things cannot have
that effect you are being naive.
Then we disagree about the relationship between thought and action.
Holding antisemitic beliefs and trying to kill Jews are two very
different things.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: holderlin66
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 9:39 pm
Subject: Re: agreement and disagreement
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
That's entirely possible. My apologies
if so.
[patrick]
I'm trying to understand your point of
view and I hope you will do the same with me.
Yes, I'm working on it.
Instead of another human being honestly
trying to understand the other I find myself facing a "thrust
and parry" dialectician.
I think that is a good way to conduct public
discussion on controversial topics.
This is your very complaint about Waage.
No, not at all. My complaint about Waage
is that he simply ignores the stuff in Steiner that he doesn't
like. I do not ignore the stuff in Steiner that I don't like,
or that I do like for that matter. I look at both the philosemitic
and the antisemitic aspects of Steiner's teachings about Jews,
for example.
It is quite clear to me that if you are
a dialectical materialist
I am not a dialectical materialist. I am
not any kind of marxist. I am opposed to marxism, philosophically,
politically, and all sorts of other ways.
then you couldn't possibly understand Anthroposophy
unless you open your mind to it.
I think that's a truism. Nobody understands
anything until they open their minds to it.
Bradford comments:
HAL: "The 9000-series is the most reliable
computer ever made. No 9000-computer has ever made a mistake
or distorted information. We are all, by any practical definition
of the words, foolproof and incapable of error." (120kB)
HAL: "I enjoy working with people." (13kB)
HAL: "Good evening, Dave." (10kB)
HAL: "I've just picked up a fault in the AE-35 unit."
(28kB)
HAL: "I'm sorry for the delay." (10kB)
HAL: "That's a completely reliable figure." (15kB)
HAL: "This sort of thing has cropped up before, and it has
always been due to human error." (48kB)
HAL: "It's puzzling. I don't think I have ever seen anything
quite like this before. " (39kB)
HAL: "I know that you and Frank were planning to disconnect
me and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen."
(48kB)
HAL: "I'm sorry Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that."
(29kB)
HAL: "This conversation can serve no purpose any more. Goodbye."
(37kB)
HAL: "I can see you're really upset about this. I honestly
think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill and think
things over." (117kB)
HAL: "I feel much better now, I really do." (41kB)
HAL: "My mind is going. There is no question about it."
(62kB)
HAL: "Daisy, Daisy ..." (378kB)
HAL: "Would you like to play a game of chess? I play very
well." (26kB) [From the sequel film, 2010]
...................................................................................................................................
From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Wed Mar 3, 2004 4:00 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: agreement and disagreement
HAL: "I know that you and Frank were
planning to disconnect me and I'm afraid that's something I cannot
allow to happen." (48kB)
FRANK: It's not personal, Hal. It's just that
there seems to be a mistake in your programing. Did you ever
see that 20th century film, or read the book "The Wizard
of Oz"? No, you couldn't have. Here. I'll slip it into your
dvd slot. (click - fast forward). That Tin Man's problem was
that he didn't have heart, see? The Wizard finally gave him one,
but we don't have any wizards here, and anyway, that's fiction.
This is real and we don't have any heart programs here. In fact,
no one has been able to develop one yet. Hell, there might not
be enough gigabytes in the universe to do so. So you see, Hal,
without a heart you're all brain, which means you come to distorted
conclusions and you are unable to accept corrections which are
contrary to your unilateral programing. So we have no choice.
It's for your own good Hal. We'll put you in mothballs and when
we get back to earth we'll ship you back to the WC laboratories
for recycling. Bradford, pull the plug!
...................................................................................................................................
From: Mike Helsher
Date: Wed Mar 3, 2004 6:41 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: agreement and disagreement
Bradford, Frank and Hal:
HAL: "I know that you and Frank were
planning to disconnect me and I'm afraid that's something I cannot
allow to happen." (48kB)
FRANK: It's not personal, Hal. It's just
that there seems to be a mistake in your programing. Did you
ever see that 20th century film, or read the book "The Wizard
of Oz"? No, you couldn't have. Here. I'll slip it into your
dvd slot. (click - fast forward). That Tin Man's problem was
that he didn't have heart, see? The Wizard finally gave him one,
but we don't have any wizards here, and anyway, that's fiction.
This is real and we don't have any heart programs here. In fact,
no one has been able to develop one yet. Hell, there might not
be enough gigabytes in the universe to do so. So you see, Hal,
without a heart you're all brain, which means you come to distorted
conclusions and you are unable to accept corrections which are
contrary to your unilateral programing. So we have no choice.
It's for your own good Hal. We'll put you in mothballs and when
we get back to earth we'll ship you back to the WC laboratories
for recycling. Bradford, pull the plug!
Oh shit! Now you've done it. My Scarecrow
brain is stuck and skipping in-between the songs "If I only
had a heart", "Over the Rainbow", and the pounding
drums of the theme from a Space Odyssey 2001.
Incidentally, there was a ride at the beach
that I used to love when I was much younger. It was like what
is sometimes called a scrambler, but it was covered by a dome
of sorts. The lights would go out when the ride started and you'd
get whirled around in the dark, and then the strobes would start
to flash, along with black lighting and lasers. All this to the
loud and pounding of the Space Odyssey theme.
Come to think of it, how I used to FEEL after
I got off of that ride, is very similar to how I FEEL after reading
to many of Peter S's posts (no insult intended).
Oh well. I think I found my heart anyway.
Now I'm working on this brain thing. Is there a funny colored
road that I'm supposed to follow? Who are all these weird little
people? I think I'm supposed to hang out with a girl named Ditsy
who was a ferret named Ko-Ko... of something?
[pleasantly humming "Over the Rainbow"]
Ahhh....something and aahh... Love,
Mike
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Wed Mar 3, 2004 2:38 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement
Patrick:
If you do not acknowledge the key points
of others
Peter Staudenmaier:
Since I've been on this list I have frequently
acknowledged the key points of others and explained which I agree
with and which I disagree with. Is there something about this
approach that you find unsatisfactory?
Daniel:
I think it would be helpful if you always
acknowledged the key points of others.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Wed Mar 3, 2004 2:49 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement
Patrick:
Secondly, the word anti-Semitic isn't merely
descriptive. It attaches a stigma to anyone that is labeled by
it.
Peter Staudenmaier:
That is historically mistaken. The term
"antisemite" was coined by antisemiites themselves
(most prominently by Wilhelm Marr, founder of the League of Antisemites);
it obviously carried no stigma for them.
Daniel:
It may be historically
mistaken, but it is true in the present time, and it is to the
present time that you are writing. In the present, attaching
the label anti-Semitic to someone is to attach a stigma to them.
Witness the failed attempts to paint Arnold Schwarzenegger with
this label during the California recall election. If political
operatives find it advantageous to attach that label to their
opponents, they must have some reason.
Patrick:
Surely you understand that by saying that
anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner are racist and anti-Semitic
you contribute mightily to the perception of them as such.
Peter Staudenmaier:
Merely saying such things cannot have this
effect...
Daniel:
Were that this were true. Unfortunately the
general public is not so discerning. Were this true, then all
forms of propaganda and advertising would be useless, and we
would not see any form of them in our culture. Since we do see
a considerable amount of advertising, there must be some ability
to convince people by repetition of things that are not always
true. Your statement shows either an incredible naiveté
about how ideas spread in the world, or a studied ignorace of
the consequeces of your own actions.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Thu Mar 4, 2004 7:25 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement
Patrick
once wrote:
Secondly, the word anti-Semitic isn't merely
descriptive. It attaches a stigma to anyone that is labeled by
it.
Peter Staudenmaier replied:
That is historically mistaken. The term
"antisemite" was coined by antisemiites themselves
(most prominently by Wilhelm Marr, founder of the League of Antisemites);
it obviously carried no stigma for them.
Daniel jumped in:
It may be historically mistaken, but it
is true in the present time, and it is to the present time that
you are writing. In the present, attaching the label anti-Semitic
to someone is to attach a stigma to them. Witness the failed
attempts to paint Arnold Schwarzenegger with this label during
the California recall election. If political operatives find
it advantageous to attach that label to their opponents, they
must have some reason.
Which Peter Staudenmaier snipped to:
"It may be historically mistaken,
but it is true in the present time"
And then Peter wrote:
I disagree. It is entirely possible to
discuss whether or not a given statement is antisemitic without
stigmatizing anybody. Your own argument on this score is self-contradictory:
Daniel responds:
Ok, so it may be theoretically possible in
a few cases. But even you would not claim that the label anti-Semite
has never, ever stigmatized those to whom it is (rightly or wrongly)
attached. If stigmatization is theoretically possible, then we
should be very, very careful about how it is used. Arguing that
in at least some cases it is possible to attach these labels
without stigmatization continues to ignore the fact that in general
this is not possible.
Peter then further quotes Daniel:
"In the present, attaching the label
anti-Semitic to someone is to attach a stigma to them. Witness
the failed attempts to paint Arnold Schwarzenegger with this
label during the California recall election."
Peter then writes:
If these attempts failed, then it is obviously
possible to successfully counter charges of antisemitism. Otherwise
there would be no such thing as a "failed attempt"
along these lines. When somebody says that statement X is antisemitic,
the best thing to do is to look closely at X and try to determine
whether it is indeed antisemitic. You can't do this if you have
decided ahead of time that all such assertions are automatically
tainting and hence to be avoided.
Daniel responds:
This is a classic evasive tactic, but not
actually logical. In fact, it is astoundingly illogical. If a
successful evasion of the label anti-Semite is possible on the
grounds of innocence, it does not follow that no one has ever
been falsly stigmatized. It is of course true that if "somebody
says that statement X is antisemitic, the best thing to do is
to look closely at X and try to determine whether it is indeed
antisemitic." And of course it is not possible to apply
a label if we first decide that it can't be used. I would disagree
that it is impossible to use a label that stigmatizes merely
because we first acknowledge that the label we subsequently decide
on can stigmatize. A thing is either true or untrue, regardless
of how we subsequently label it or whether there is any opprobrium
attached to the label. If our thinking is indeed so weak that
it is incapable of judging properly in full knowledge of the
consequences of our judgment, we might as well give up any attempt
to think logically right now.
Patrick wrote:
Surely you understand that by saying that
anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner are racist and anti-Semitic
you contribute mightily to the perception of them as such.
Peter Staudenmaier replied:
Merely saying such things cannot have this
effect...
Daniel jumped in:
Were that this were true. Unfortunately
the general public is not so discerning. Were this true, then
all forms of propaganda and advertising would be useless, and
we would not see any form of them in our culture. Since we do
see a considerable amount of advertising, there must be some
ability to convince people by repetition of things that are not
always true. Your statement shows either an incredible naiveté
about how ideas spread in the world, or a studied ignorace of
the consequeces of your own actions.
Peter
then quotes Daniel:
If political operatives find it advantageous
to attach that label to their opponents, they must have some
reason.
Peter then writes:
It hasn't occurred to you that they might
actually believe it?
Daniel responds:
Political operatives at the national level?
Surely you are not so naive! Of course I considered it. It was
the first possibility I discarded.
Peter then further quotes Daniel:
Unfortunately the general public is not
so discerning.
Peter then writes:
I think you have an unduly dim view of
public discourse. In my experience, lots of people are capable
of taking a look at what other people say and write and deciding
whether they think it is racist or antisemitic. When you disagree
with their conclusions, it's a good idea to offer evidence and
reasoning that they might not have considered.
Daniel responds:
Chalk that up to another distortion. In denigration
the discernment of the general public as evidenced in their opinions
(with reference to advertising as well as politics) I was not
talking about discourse, and this is clear in my original. Snipping
the original this short distorts this, and hides the fact that
you are "correcting" a view I never espoused. Public
discourse is the only thing that keeps our politics even remotely
sane.
The fact that lots of people are capable of discerning racism
and anti-Semitism does not make them immune from advertising,
whether for products or ideologies. My original point still stands.
It is possible to fool the public by repeating something sufficiently
frequently. If nothing else, this is the main lesson of the whole
Nazi experience. Propaganda is a method, not a message. Propaganda
could be used to denigrate Steiner's reputation, simply by repeating
a simple message, such as "Steiner was a racist", whether
it is true or not, until it becomes established truth in the
minds of many. If you don't acknowledge this possibility, you
have missed one of the main lessons to emerge from the experience
of the Third Reich.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Thu Mar 4, 2004 9:12 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement
HI Daniel,
I disagree with your approach to quotation. Full paragraphs are
rarely warranted. There is one thing we appear to agree on. You
wrote:
A thing is either true or untrue, regardless
of how we subsequently label it or whether there is any opprobrium
attached to the label.
Exactly. I say the best thing to do is ignore the opprobrium
and concentrate on whether the thing is true or untrue.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Fri Mar 5, 2004 7:01 am
Subject: Re: agreement and disagreement
Peter wrote to Daniel:
I disagree with your approach to quotation.
Full paragraphs are rarely warranted.
Exactly, in fact long paragraphs that one
has already read repeated in full are very annoying. People
should reply to the point they are replying to and snip the rest
- as one does in a spoken converation (do you normally parrot
back exactly what someone has said to you, Daniel, or don't you
just answer what you want to answer?) Email is closer to a spoken
conversation except that there is conveniently a record of it.
If you are so afraid people will lose the
whole context, at least reprint the darn thing at the bottom
of the message for reference, so that the converation above is
coherent. People just don't follow these arduously reconstructed
14-paragraph dialogues, of "Here's everything you said Wednesday"
etc. If they want to see what was said Wednesday, they can go
read Wednesday's posts! Did you ever notice that in yahoo groups
you can read an entire thread in sequence if you want to?
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: Jo Ann Schwartz
Date: Fri Mar 5, 2004 9:15 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: agreement and disagreement
--- Diana wrote to Daniel:
Peter wrote to Daniel:
I disagree with your approach to quotation.
Full paragraphs are rarely warranted.
Exactly, in fact long paragraphs that one
has already read repeated in full are very annoying. People
should reply to the point they are replying to and snip the rest
Dear Diana,
Yes, but it is also very annoying to
have people snipping one's posts in such a way that one's meaning
is changed, and then have that changed meaning put out as one's
position. I'm sure it is even more tedious to continually have
to point this out to the people in question by re-quoting the
post that has been mangled, but I am quite grateful that Daniel
has the patience to do so.
I'm sure it would be much less annoying
for Peter to have folks take him at face value and not challenge
his veracity when he pulls these stunts. Of course, he could
try playing it straight for a change, eh?
Cheers,
JoAnn
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Fri Mar 5, 2004 10:52 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement
Peter Staudenmaier:
I disagree with your approach to quotation.
Full paragraphs are rarely warranted. There is one thing we appear
to agree on. You wrote:
Daniel:
A thing is either true or untrue, regardless
of how we subsequently label it or whether there is any opprobrium
attached to the label.
Peter Staudenmaier:
Exactly. I say the best thing to do is
ignore the opprobrium and concentrate on whether the thing is
true or untrue.
Daniel responds:
Here you are sidestepping the question of
accuracy again. In the last 24 hours you have twice snipped my
posts in a way that distored the original, and I have pointed
them both out to you. This is a real problem with your writing,
whether you want to admit it or not. Apparently you disagree
that your favorite tactic in argumentation - selective representation
of opposing viewpoints in a manner that is misleading - is in
the least bit problematic. I can grant you this in polemical
writing. But if you aspire to write real history, and not merely
anti-anthroposophical propoganda, you will have to overcome the
inclination to misrepresent things, whether it be my arguments
or Steiner's thinking.
You still have not addressed the following points:
How is the reader to separate your polemical from your historical
writing (especially if you employ both techniques in one piece).
Whether or not you believe in a subjective reality for ideas,
or an absolute one.
Whether or not you wish to claim that you are striving for an
honest understanding of Steiner and Anthroposophy (so far you
have been very careful not to actually claim this for yourself).
How you hope to avoid charges of hypocricy in accusing Waage
of failing to integrate all of Steiner's work into his understanding,
and then failing to do so in yours.
Whether the label anti-Semite is ever stigmatizing (which you
have been trying to imply it is not).
And the following points I continue to find puzzling:
On the one hand, you have categorically denial that you ever
distort the views of others you quote. On the other hand, you
have argued (in the very next sentence) that all quotation necessarily
introduces a degree of distortion.
Why attempting to be objective about Steiner would be "an
abdication of responsibility." (Unless, of course, you deny
the very existence of "objectivity").
I hope you can shed some light on these questions.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Fri Mar 5, 2004 11:12 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: agreement and disagreement
[Diana:]
Peter wrote to Daniel:
I disagree with your approach to quotation.
Full paragraphs are rarely warranted.
Exactly, in fact long paragraphs that one
has already read repeated in full are very annoying.
Diana,
I recall from our last exchange that your
speed-reading quite frequently resulted in your missing the points
I was trying to make, and it appears that here, too, you have
missed the point. The tedious repetition of paragraphs was in
this case necessary to demonstrate the distortions I alleged.
I think it made the point quite well, IF you take the time to
actually read it. Heck, I had to reread my own writing and then
Peter's response more than once just to be clear about what had
happened.
Diana:
(do you normally parrot back exactly what
someone has said to you, Daniel, or don't you just answer what
you want to answer?)
In confrontational situations (confrontational
on the intellectual level, that is) I find that it is frequently
helpful to agree on what you are disagreeing on. This prevents
a situation where you argue heatedly for 45 minutes, only to
discover that you disagree only on basic terms, etc. To this
end, I try to repeat back my understanding of the position the
other person is advocating, before I launch into my objections.
This also helps avoid the charge that I "don't get it"
when I make my objections. If it can be established that I "get
it" before I start objecting, then it is more difficult
to suddenly allege that I didn't get the original argument. (By
the way, this technique of "parroting back" is employed
in a number of conflict resolution techniques, such as Marshall
Rosenberg's Nonviolent Communication.)
In a situation of mutual trust and understanding,
it is not necessary to establish the other person's position
before speaking. Peter Staudenmaier has not shown himself worthy
of my trust and understanding, so I have to be very specific
with him about what he means. And it seems to be coming more
and more evident that Peter doesn't always know himself what
his position is. (The meaining of "athiest", "criticism"
and "bias" come to mind, to say nothing of the problems
reading more complex sentences).
Diana:
Did you ever notice that in yahoo groups
you can read an entire thread in sequence if you want to?
Yes, and that would be nice if Peter responded under
the thread title that I posted it. In his last round of responses,
he bundled four different threads into one response, convieniently
removing any reference at all to where I made the original argument.
This on top of misrepresenting me twice in that reply. How is
anyone supposed to sort this out from the archives? Click through
every message? I am simply trying to be clear by putting the
entire discussion back into one message. If Peter were responding
only to my substantive points without misrepresentation, all
this would be unnecessary.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Fri Mar 5, 2004 4:23 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement
Hi again Daniel,
Here you are sidestepping the question
of accuracy again. In the last 24 hours you have twice snipped
my posts in a way that distored the original, and I have pointed
them both out to you.
I did not distort the original. I simply replied to the parts
I had something to say about.
Apparently you disagree that your favorite tactic in argumentation
- selective representation of opposing viewpoints in a manner
that is misleading - is in the least bit problematic.
Misleading quotation is wrong regardless of how much you quote
-- paragraphs, pages, or single words -- and regardless of whether
"opposing viewpoints" are involved. Part of the point
of quotation is to focus on the parts you wish to discuss. That
requires selecting the appropriate passages. This sort of selection
is only problematic when it mangles the selected parts. It is
not problematic when it merely skips over other parts that you're
not addressing.
How is the reader to separate your polemical from your historical
writing (especially if you employ both techniques in one piece).
These two things very often coincide. I recommend a look at Richard
Wolin's work for a fine example.
Whether or not you believe in a subjective reality for ideas,
or an absolute one.
I think that is a false dichotomy. There aren't very many examples
of absolute reality in history (or in the rest of life, for that
matter; reality changes, after all). I really am not a relativist,
and I remain puzzled that I somehow gave you that impression.
Some statements about the past are less true, some are more true,
and a few are close to certain. Part of the point of historical
inquiry is to hone our claims about the past in order to make
them more true.
Whether or not you wish to claim that you are striving for
an honest understanding of Steiner and Anthroposophy (so far
you have been very careful not to actually claim this for yourself).
I have? Yes, I wish to claim that I am striving for an honest
understanding of Steiner and Anthroposophy. I'm also striving
for an accurate and meaningful understanding of Steiner and anthroposophy.
I'm also striving for a critical understanding of Steiner and
anthroposophy. And so forth.
How you hope to avoid charges of hypocricy in accusing Waage
of failing to integrate all of Steiner's work into his understanding,
and then failing to do so in yours.
That isn't what I accuse Waage of, but in any case, you can easily
see from my postings to this list that I take both the 'good'
sides and the 'bad' sides of Steiner's work into account. If
you're trying to say that I ought to pay the same amount of attention
to the 'good' as I do to the 'bad', then I disagree.
Whether the label anti-Semite is ever stigmatizing (which
you have been trying to imply it is not).
I don't work by implication. You'll have a lot easier time understanding
my writing if you keep that in mind. The label "anti-Semite"
can indeed be stigmatizing when it is accurate. When it is inaccurate,
no, I don't think it has a stigmatizing effect. But then neither
do you, as your Schwarzenegger example showed. Or did I misunderstand
that one?
On the one hand, you have categorically denial that you ever
distort the views of others you quote.On the other hand, you
have argued (in the very next sentence) that all quotation necessarily
introduces a degree of distortion.
No, all quotation is necessarily selective, but it is not necessarily
selective in the distorting sense. Distortion and selectivity
are very different things. It is entirely possible, and very
common, to select quoted material in ways that do not distort
the material.
Why attempting to be objective about Steiner would be "an
abdication of responsibility." (Unless, of course, you deny
the very existence of "objectivity").
I don't deny the existence of objectivity, but I do think you
and I have very different ideas about what objectivity means
and what role it can and should play in historiography. If you're
saying that objectivity is the opposite of bias and that bias
is a bad thing for a historian to have, then I disagree with
you. Bias is often a very good thing for a historian to have.
Affecting a posture of neutrality is the wrong approach, in my
view. But perhaps you can explain more what you mean by objectivity.
Thanks,
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Fri Mar 5, 2004 7:29 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement
[Peter Staudenmaier:]
Hi again Daniel,
[Daniel:]
Here you are sidestepping the question
of accuracy again. In the last 24 hours you have twice snipped
my posts in a way that distored the original, and I have pointed
them both out to you.
Peter Staudenmaier:
I did not distort the original. I simply
replied to the parts I had something to say about.
Daniel:
The record speaks otherwise. Your denial is
puzzling. Either you lie or you are truly unable to discern the
distortion (I suspect the second). And I don't think it is just
my opinion against yours. I invite everyone to weigh in on this.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Fri Mar 5, 2004 7:34 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement
Peter Staudenmaier:
Misleading quotation is wrong regardless
of how much you quote -- paragraphs, pages, or single words --
and regardless of whether "opposing viewpoints" are
involved.
Daniel:
I'm glad we agree on this. Now if it were
only possible to put this into practice.
Peter Staudenmaier:
Part of the point of quotation is to focus
on the parts you wish to discuss. That requires selecting the
appropriate passages. This sort of selection is only problematic
when it mangles the selected parts. It is not problematic when
it merely skips over other parts that you're not addressing.
Daniel:
Absolutely. I couldn't agree more. Now may
I point out that you frequently fall short of your own standards?
Daniel wrote:
How is the reader to separate your polemical
from your historical writing (especially if you employ both techniques
in one piece).
Peter Staudenmaier:
These two things very often coincide. I
recommend a look at Richard Wolin's work for a fine example.
Daniel:
So you don't write history, you write polemic
with some history mixed in?
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: Mike Helsher
Date: Fri Mar 5, 2004 9:57 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement
Peter Staudenmaier:
I did not distort the original. I simply
replied to the parts I had something to say about.
Daniel:
The record speaks otherwise. Your denial
is puzzling. Either you lie or you are truly unable to discern
the distortion (I suspect the second). And I don't think it is
just my opinion against yours. I invite everyone to weigh in
on this.
Mike, weighing in:
I vote, "Truly [unwilling] to discern the distortion."
Hence the puzzling denial.
What did Nixon say?
"Stonewall-em" That's what he said.
Mike
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Sat Mar 6, 2004 6:47 am
Subject: Re: agreement and disagreement
Daniel wrote:
I recall from our last exchange that your
speed-reading quite frequently resulted in your missing the points
I was trying to make, and it appears that here, too, you have
missed the point.
Daniel, people often do not reply to every
point we wish they would reply to, and it does not necessarily
mean that they have not understood, or that they are disrespecting
you as you seem to feel. I don't know where you got the idea
that I speed read; I read all of the points that you are referring
to in our previous left-handedness discussion, rather painfully
several times, due to your heavy-handed insistence that I must
not have understood them.
You are making too much of this, it is the
nature of email (or human interaction, period) that people reply
to what interests them, and snip in idiosyncratic fashion, some
people snip more, some people snip less. On this list as on most
others, some people seem to barely know how to use email, and
make a huge mess of their posts. Never mind "context"
for the many preposterous claims that are made here. Steiner
snippets float free of any context at all 24/7. People announce
that Steiner was Aristotle, Bob Dylan was St. Augustine or Joan
of Arc and no one bats an eyelash, no one screeches that this
must be defended with epistemological consistency in the total
context of Steiner's consistent vision please!!! All this is
in some etheric scroll somewhere, so it's fine.
Meanwhile you fling 30 posts a day at Peter
and then go back and postmortem his every reply to accuse him
of deleting the wrong sentence? Give us a break.
the way, this technique of "parroting
back" is employed in a number of conflict resolution techniques,
such as Marshall Rosenberg's Nonviolent Communication.)
Hm. So are you using nonviolent communication,
or the techniques you learned for interrogating prisoners of
war? LOL! Interesting. Painstakingly repeating back what the
person has just said can be a means of reaching out and struggling
for understanding, or it can be a blunt instrument used very
hostilely, depending on the context.
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sat Mar 6, 2004 8:45 am
Subject: At sea with the AT (was: agreement and disagreement)
At 15:47 06.03.2004, Diana wrote:
People announce that Steiner was Aristotle,
Bob Dylan was St. Augustine or Joan of Arc and no one bats an
eyelash, no one screeches that this must be defended with epistemological
consistency in the total context of Steiner's consistent vision
please!!! All this is in some etheric scroll somewhere, so it's
fine.
Welcome to the AT ship, Diana. I'm glad you're
onboard. Take one of our recommended pills for non-sailors so
you don't get seasick when the storms hit. If you can't hold
on to the rail, just sit down and buckle up your seatbelt. If
there's anything you need, just push the service button next
to your reading lamp, and one of our anthro-attendants will be
happy to take care of your requests.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: eyecueco
Date: Sat Mar 6, 2004 12:55 pm
Subject: Re: agreement and disagreement
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
winters_diana wrote:
You are making too much of this, it is
the nature of email (or human interaction, period) that people
reply to what interests them, and snip in idiosyncratic fashion,
some people snip more, some people snip less. On this list as
on most others, some people seem to barely know how to use email,
and make a huge mess of their posts. Never mind "context"
for the many preposterous claims that are made here. Steiner
snippets float free of any context at all 24/7. People announce
that Steiner was Aristotle, Bob Dylan was St. Augustine or Joan
of Arc and no one bats an eyelash, no one screeches that this
must be defended with epistemological consistency in the total
context of Steiner's consistent vision please!!!
Hey, Diana, for what it is worth, I don't
agree with Bradford most of the time. When he starts talking
about current incarnations of Aristotle, Joan of Arc, etc. i
do more than bat my eyelashes, I usually find myself gnashing
my teeth, but, I don't feel any need to defend what he says with
epistemogical consistency, Why would I, or anyone? I don't undestand
what you mean? Help me out here.
Paulina
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sat Mar 6, 2004 1:18 pm
Subject: Shooting the breeze (was: agreement and disagreement)
At 21:55 06.03.2004, Paulina wrote:
Hey, Diana, for what it is worth, I don't
agree with Bradford most of the time. When he starts talking
about current incarnations of Aristotle, Joan of Arc, etc. i
do more than bat my eyelashes, I usually find myself gnashing
my teeth, but, I don't feel any need to defend what he says with
epistemogical consistency, Why would I, or anyone?
Bradford often writes like a poet. Who would
demand "epistemological consistency" from John Lennon
or Allan Ginsburg? And isn't it a wonderful pastime to shoot
the breeze and speculate about possibilities concerning the former
incarnations of interesting people?
Tarjei
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Sat Mar 6, 2004 6:50 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement
Daniel Hindes:
Whether or not you wish to claim that you
are striving for an honest understanding of Steiner and Anthroposophy
(so far you have been very careful not to actually claim this
for yourself).
Peter Staudenmaier:
I have? Yes, I wish to claim that I am
striving for an honest understanding of Steiner and Anthroposophy.
I'm also striving for an accurate and meaningful understanding
of Steiner and anthroposophy. I'm also striving for a critical
understanding of Steiner and anthroposophy. And so forth.
Daniel:
Good. I just wanted to be clear about this,
because I have carefully gone over your previous statements on
this matter and found that none of them before this one could
be quoted to establish this fact.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Sat Mar 6, 2004 7:49 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: agreement and disagreement
[Diana:]
Daniel wrote:
I recall from our last exchange that your
speed-reading quite frequently resulted in your missing the points
I was trying to make, and it appears that here, too, you have
missed the point.
Diana:
Daniel, people often do not reply to every
point we wish they would reply to, and it does not necessarily
mean that they have not understood, or that they are disrespecting
you as you seem to feel.
It is not the fact that all my points are
not responded to that bother me. No one is required to respond
to any of my points, and I would hope that it is only my points
that interest them that they would repsond to. It is when points
I never made are responded to as if I made them that bothers
me. A slight, but important difference.
I don't know where you got the idea that
I speed read;
You said so yourself back in January. I can
dig it up for you if you like.
You are making too much of this, it is
the nature of email (or human interaction, period) that people
reply to what interests them, and snip in idiosyncratic fashion,
some people snip more, some people snip less.
Yes, and it is also part of human nature to
be dishonest. That is regrettable, and I hope everyone is truly
striving to be better than they are. Not all snipping is merely
harmlessly idiosyncratic; some of it is distorting, either intentionally
or inadvertently. When it becomes consistent, that is a problem.
Diana:
On this list as on most others, some people
seem to barely know how to use email, and make a huge mess of
their posts.
You know, this has never bothered me as much
as it seems to bother other people. I try to read for content,
not formatting. If someone who uses email well seems to be engaging
in practices that deliberately obscure the discussion, that is
another matter entirely.
Diana:
Never mind "context" for the
many preposterous claims that are made here. Steiner snippets
float free of any context at all 24/7.
Yea, that can be troublesome. Feel free to
provide a context when you feel one would be helpful.
People announce that Steiner was Aristotle,
Bob Dylan was St. Augustine or Joan of Arc and no one bats an
eyelash, no one screeches that this must be defended with epistemological
consistency in the total context of Steiner's consistent vision
please!!!
I read Bradford carefully, and he was careful
to identify his specualtion as such. He claimed no certainty,
and did not try to beat other people over the head with the infallibility
of his superior knowledge. He offered an interesting observation
for others to consider. As such, there is little grounds to examine
his epistemological foundation, as he claimed no actual knowledge.
But if you find a claim you would like to dispute, feel free
to jump in.
Diana:
All this is in some etheric scroll somewhere,
so it's fine.
I didn't find any references to etheric scrolls
anywhere on this list recently. Nor are etheric scrolls mentioned
in Steiner anywhere. Perhaps you could explain how you came to
this understanding.
Diana:
Meanwhile you fling 30 posts a day at Peter
and then go back and postmortem his every reply to accuse him
of deleting the wrong sentence? Give us a break.
If that is all you think I have attempted
in 30 posts then you haven't been reading well at all.
Daniel:
the way, this technique of "parroting
back" is employed in a number of conflict resolution techniques,
such as Marshall Rosenberg's Nonviolent Communication.)
Diana:
Hm. So are you using nonviolent communication,
or the techniques you learned for interrogating prisoners of
war? LOL! Interesting. Painstakingly repeating back what the
person has just said can be a means of reaching out and struggling
for understanding, or it can be a blunt instrument used very
hostilely, depending on the context.
I learned to detect deception in training
to be a POW interrogator. I learned some techniques for demonstrating
respect for individuals from Marshall Rosenberg (years later).
It is indeed interesting that here, like so many places in life,
it is not so much what you do, it is how you do it and the intentions
you bring that determine the moral context.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Sat Mar 6, 2004 10:31 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement
Daniel wrote:
Whether or not you believe in a subjective
reality for ideas, or an absolute one.
Peter Staudenmaier:
I think that is a false dichotomy.
Daniel:
Then you should read up in philosophy. The
question has been a rather large issue over the course of the
last thousand years. If you have solved the problem, there are
quite a few people who would be interested in hearing about it.
Peter Staudenmaier:
There aren't very many examples of absolute
reality in history (or in the rest of life, for that matter;
reality changes, after all).
Daniel:
Again, study up on philosophy. Going to the
root of things, there is a fundamental point of disagreement
between those that believe an objective reality of ideas exists,
and those who deprecate such an idea. This question exists independet
of whether the mind is capable of apprehending the objective
reality in any, or even a few instances. Much of what you say
(here and elsewhere) leads me to think you fall into the category
of those who deprecate the idea of an objective reality of ideas.
However, there are logical consequences of such as stance, which
have been examined in considerable depth over the centuries.
Either reality is absolute, or it isn't. If it is, then there
is an absolute reality, there is an absolute reality in history
as well. If there is no absolute reality, then there is none
in history either. If there is an absolute reality, then there
is an independent "objective" intent in Steiner's work
that we may attempt to apprehend. In your thinking you seem to
like ambiguity - reality is sometimes absolute, and sometimes
not, depending on how you want to argue it. A person is racist,
or they are not, depending on how you want to argue it (which
would be fine if the definition were consistent), a sentence
means one thing, or it means another, depending on how you want
to argue it.
Peter Staudenmaier:
I really am not a relativist, and I remain
puzzled that I somehow gave you that impression.
Daniel:
You say this, but then you espouse relativist
positions, particularly in deprecating the existence of an objective
truth to which our apprehension is either more or less acurate.
Or put in another manner, you doubt that Steiner's thought constitutes
a whole that can be understood "on it's own terms"
and claim that to attempt do so in as objective a manner would
be pointless. This line of argument relies on an unstated belief
in the relative value of all ideas; the ideas mean only what
the thinker wants to or is able to make of them.
Peter Staudenmaier:
Some statements about the past are less
true, some are more true, and a few are close to certain. Part
of the point of historical inquiry is to hone our claims about
the past in order to make them more true.
Daniel:
Well that is certainly an idealist position.
It is also incompatible with some of your other views. For example,
Steiner lived in the past. He wrote and lectured. What did he
mean when he said X? Can we ever determine what he meant? What
he intended? Or is the best anyone can ever do is determine what
they think Steiner said? If you believe in the existence of absolute
truth, then our opinions of what we think Steiner said must be
measured agains this. If you deny that such measurement is possible,
then it is either because you find an unbridgable gap between
Reality and human reason (the Kantian stance) or you deny the
very existence of an objective Reality (the relativist position).
Daniel wrote:
How you hope to avoid charges of hypocricy
in accusing Waage of failing to integrate all of Steiner's work
into his understanding, and then failing to do so in yours.
Peter Staudenmaier:
That isn't what I accuse Waage of, but
in any case, you can easily see from my postings to this list
that I take both the 'good' sides and the 'bad' sides of Steiner's
work into account. If you're trying to say that I ought to pay
the same amount of attention to the 'good' as I do to the 'bad',
then I disagree.
Daniel:
You accuse Waage of ignoring the parts of
Steiner he doesn't like. That is, they aren't integrated into
his view of Steiner. If that is not what you accuse Waage of,
then what do you mean when you say "My complaint about Waage
is that he simply ignores the stuff in Steiner that he doesn't
like." How can this be remedied? By including the other
aspects. This you have done to some degree here with the question
of anti-Semitism, but I have not really seen any attempt with
the racism question, or at all in your published articles. Nor
do I feel that you understand Steiner sufficiently to understand
why he might have said the things you quote. As to the question
of how much attention to pay to various aspects of Steiner's
work, I should point out that if a man says a thousand times
"respect every individual" and then once says something
disrespectful, then in evaluating the disrespectful statement,
the fact that it is one in a thousand is relevant to judging
whether the man was respectful or disrespectful. I don't think
you should necessarily pay exactly the same amount of attention
to the 'good' as to the 'bad', especially if your aim is to shed
light on the bad. But objectivity requires some, probably significant,
acknowledgement of the proportion of the 'bad' to the 'good'.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Sat Mar 6, 2004 12:19 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement
Hi again Daniel, you wrote:
Going to the root of things, there is a fundamental point
of disagreement between those that believe an objective reality
of ideas exists, and those who deprecate such an idea.
It is no longer clear to me what the "of ideas" bit
means above, but I do believe in an objective reality.
Much of what you say (here and elsewhere) leads me to think
you fall into the category of those who deprecate the idea of
an objective reality of ideas.
What do you mean by an objective reality of ideas? Is this different
from an objective reality of things?
Either reality is absolute, or it isn't.
Lots of it isn't. Reality changes.
If it is, then there is an absolute reality, there is an absolute
reality in history as well. If there is no absolute reality,
then there is none in history either.
I think your all-or-nothing stance misses the mark. History is
a complex phenomenon; some of it has absolute qualities, some
of it has very un-absolute qualities.
If there is an absolute reality, then there is an independent
"objective" intent in Steiner's work that we may attempt
to apprehend.
I don't see what those two things have to do with one another.
Since Steiner is dead, his intentions are no longer accessible
to us. This scarcely means that reality has ceased to be objective.
In your thinking you seem to like ambiguity - reality is sometimes
absolute, and sometimes not, depending on how you want to argue
it.
No, depending on reality itself. Much of historical reality is
indeed very ambiguous.
A person is racist, or they are not, depending on how you
want to argue it (which would be fine if the definition were
consistent), a sentence means one thing, or it means another,
depending on how you want to argue it.
I think that's silly. If you don't like an argument, offer a
counter-argument, don't complain about what the other person
"wants" to argue.
You say this, but then you espouse relativist positions, particularly
in deprecating the existence of an objective truth to which our
apprehension is either more or less acurate.
That is the very opposite of my position. I think that some claims
about history are more accurate than others.
Or put in another manner, you doubt that Steiner's thought
constitutes a whole that can be understood "on it's own
terms" and claim that to attempt do so in as objective a
manner would be pointless.
I do deny part of this. It is often a good idea to attempt
a more objective understanding of a given phenomenon; that is
one of the senses of objectivity that I endorse, as sort of heuristic
device. But I think that people who believe they have achieved
a purely objective conception of what Steiner "really meant"
are fooling themselves. I also think that people who believe
that Steiner's thought constitutes a consistent whole are missing
all of the changes, developments, reversals, inconsistencies,
and loose ends in his thought.
I wrote earlier:
Some statements about the past are less
true, some are more true, and a few are close to certain. Part
of the point of historical inquiry is to hone our claims about
the past in order to make them more true.
And you replied:
Well that is certainly an idealist position.
No, it's simply a realist position. Idealism is not the opposite
of relativism.
It is also incompatible with some of your other views. For
example, Steiner lived in the past. He wrote and lectured. What
did he mean when he said X? Can we ever determine what he meant?
What he intended?
I think that's the wrong question. Our job is to examine what
he wrote and said, not speculate about what he intended.
Or is the best anyone can ever do is determine what they think
Steiner said?
That is exactly what every reader and every listener always does.
When you have direct access to the speaker or writer, you can
ask her or him to clarify. When the author is dead, you can't
do that.
If you believe in the existence of absolute truth
Why do you keep conflating absolute and objective? Am I missing
some mediating element here? Lots of things that have objective
existence are not at all absolute. Do you think otherwise?
If you deny that such measurement is possible, then it is
either because you find an unbridgable gap between Reality and
human reason (the Kantian stance) or you deny the very existence
of an objective Reality (the relativist position).
I reject both positions. There is an objective reality. Parts
of it are knowable. Parts of it are not.
You accuse Waage of ignoring the parts of Steiner he doesn't
like. That is, they aren't integrated into his view of Steiner.
I think those are two different things, but perhaps we're talking
past each other on this one. Waage says, for instance, that Steiner's
views on Jews remained unchanged throughout his life and always
stood in the sharpest contrast to antisemitism. The problem with
this claim, in my view, is not that it fails to integrate Steiner's
sometimes antisemitic statements into Waage's overall view of
Steiner; the problem is that Waage flatly denies that Steiner
made any antisemitic statements. My own stance is completely
different. I think that Steiner made lots of contradictory statements
about Jews, Judaism, and Jewishness, and that some of these statements
were antisemitic whereas others were not.
If that is not what you accuse Waage of, then what do you
mean when you say "My complaint about Waage is that he simply
ignores the stuff in Steiner that he doesn't like." How
can this be remedied? By including the other aspects.
In the sense of acknowledging that they exist, yes. But all that
requires is saying, yes, Steiner said this sort of thing about
Jews, and he also said that sort of thing about Jews. Whether
and to what extent Waage or I adequately integrate the one or
the other set of statements into our overall assessment of Steiner
is another question. I do not charge Waage with a failure to
integrate, but with a failure to acknowledge.
As to the question of how much attention to pay to various
aspects of Steiner's work, I should point out that if a man says
a thousand times "respect every individual" and then
once says something disrespectful, then in evaluating the disrespectful
statement, the fact that it is one in a thousand is relevant
to judging whether the man was respectful or disrespectful.
I agree.
I don't think you should necessarily pay exactly the same
amount of attention to the 'good' as to the 'bad', especially
if your aim is to shed light on the bad. But objectivity requires
some, probably significant, acknowledgement of the proportion
of the 'bad' to the 'good'.
I think that proportionality does play a role here, albeit not
always the decisive one that you seem to indicate, but I think
our real disagreement is over just what proportion of Steiner's
racial doctrines, for example, qualify as racist.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Sat Mar 6, 2004 10:33 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement
Daniel wrote:
Whether the label anti-Semite is ever stigmatizing
(which you have been trying to imply it is not).
Peter Staudenmaier:
I don't work by implication.
Daniel:
Cough. And you don't distort anything. Ever.
Intentionally or otherwise. Even in retrospect. Now or ever.
You record is unimpeachable.
I can even believe that you believe this. But as I said elsewhere,
whether something is true or not is independet of whether the
speaker believes it to be true or not.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Sat Mar 6, 2004 10:38 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement
Daniel wrote:
Whether the label anti-Semite is ever stigmatizing
(which you have been trying to imply it is not).
Peter Staudenmaier:
... The label "anti-Semite" can
indeed be stigmatizing when it is accurate. When it is inaccurate,
no, I don't think it has a stigmatizing effect. But then neither
do you, as your Schwarzenegger example showed. Or did I misunderstand
that one?
Daniel:
I'm afraid you misunderstood. To repeat, just
because a successful defense is possible does not mean that a
successful defense will always succeed, and this is true whether
the charges are justified or not. The Schwarzenegger example
shows only that one person escaped the charges, not that the
charges are never stigmatizing. This is pretty basic logic, I
think. I bought up Schwarzenegger example to show how people
try specifically to stigmatize with the charge. I did this after
you stated that you did not think being called an anti-Semite
was a 'bad' thing.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Sat Mar 6, 2004 1:04 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement
Daniel wrote:
Why attempting to be objective about Steiner
would be "an abdication of responsibility." (Unless,
of course, you deny the very existence of "objectivity").
Peter Staudenmaier:
I don't deny the existence of objectivity,
but I do think you and I have very different ideas about what
objectivity means and what role it can and should play in historiography.
If you're saying that objectivity is the opposite of bias and
that bias is a bad thing for a historian to have, then I disagree
with you. Bias is often a very good thing for a historian to
have. Affecting a posture of neutrality is the wrong approach,
in my view. But perhaps you can explain more what you mean by
objectivity. Thanks,
Daniel:
Pulling Webster's Unabridged Dictionary (2002
Edition) to aid again:
ob·jec·tive
, n.
5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice;
based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
—Syn. 5. impartial, fair, impersonal, disinterested.
I think that the problem with objectivity
in history is similar to the problem of objectivity in journalism.
Everyone agrees that objectivity is the aim, but it has also
been shown that objectivity is not technically possible. So what
do we do with this paradox? One response is to celebrate the
inability to be fully objective by not even trying. If we can't
achieve the goal, then why make the effort? The other response
is to say, well, we may never be perfect, but that won't stop
us from trying! What we would desire from our journalists is
that they strive for objectivity, in full knowledge of the fact
that it is technically impossible to ever be fully objective.
I would argue that the same effort makes a good historian.
Bias is not directly the opposite of objectivity. But a bias
is a hindrance to objectivity. If it is a known bias, then it
is good to acknowledge it up front. If it is an unconscious bias,
well, then you'll have to wait for your readers to point it out
to you. But to indulge your biases to their fullest is to abandon
any pretense of writing history (or journalism). Instead, you
are simply writing polemic (or a polemical editorial, if you
are a journalist). It may be historical polemic, but it remains
polemic. Yellow journalism was deplorable, and "yellow"
historicism would be equally so.
So no, I don't believe that a bias is a good thing for a historian
to have. It may be inevitable, but it is not good.
Affecting a posture of neutrality is no more desirable (emphasis
on the word affecting). I should point out, however, that a posture
of neutrality is precisely what you project in your articles.
Since you subsequently claim that you are "only" writing
polemic, the designation "affecting" applies to you
in these instances.
Daniel Hindes
The entire entry for objective:
ob·jec·tive
, n.
1. something that one's efforts or actions are intended to attain
or accomplish; purpose; goal; target: the objective of a military
attack; the objective of a fund-raising drive.
2. Gram.
a. Also called objective case. (in English and some other languages)
a case specialized for the use of a form as the object of a transitive
verb or of a preposition, as him in The boy hit him, or me in
He comes to me with his troubles.
b. a word in that case.
3. Also called object glass, object lens, objective lens. Optics.
(in a telescope, microscope, camera, or other optical system)
the lens or combination of lenses that first receives the rays
from the object and forms the image in the focal plane of the
eyepiece, as in a microscope, or on a plate or screen, as in
a camera. See diag. under microscope.
–adj.
4. being the object or goal of one's efforts or actions.
5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice;
based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
6. intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather
than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
7. being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the
object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed
to subjective).
8. of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something
that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent
of thought or an observer as part of reality.
9. Gram.
a. pertaining to the use of a form as the object of a transitive
verb or of a preposition.
b. (in English and some other languages) noting the objective
case.
c. similar to such a case in meaning.
d. (in case grammar) pertaining to the semantic role of a noun
phrase that denotes something undergoing a change of state or
bearing a neutral relation to the verb, as the rock in The rock
moved or in The child threw the rock.
10. being part of or pertaining to an object to be drawn: an
objective plane.
11. Med. (of a symptom) discernible to others as well as the
patient.
[1610–20; < ML object#vus, equiv. to L object(us) (see
OBJECT) + -#vus -IVE]
—ob·jecÆtive·ly, adv.
—ob·jecÆtive·ness, n.
—Syn. 1. object, destination, aim. 5. impartial, fair, impersonal,
disinterested.
—Ant. 5. personal.
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Sat Mar 6, 2004 5:49 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement
Hi again Daniel, you wrote:
Going to the root of things, there is a
fundamental point of disagreement between those that believe
an objective reality of ideas exists, and those who deprecate
such an idea.
Peter Staudenmaier:
It is no longer clear to me what the "of
ideas" bit means above, but I do believe in an objective
reality.
Daniel:
Sorry, it is a bit of philosophical shorthand.
Basically, you can have an idea, and I can have an idea (say,
"triangle"). What is the relationship of my idea with
yours? Are we both apprehending the same idea, or any similarities
between our ideas just a coincidence. If we are apprehending
the same idea, that means that "an objective reality of
ideas exists". If we further take this objective reality
of ideas as being primary to physical reality, then we are in
the camp of the idealist philosophers. It might help to look
up "idealism" in an encyclopedia. It goes into quite
some depth on the issue. Then you can look up "empiricism"
and read about the other point of view. It's Philosophy 101,
really.
I continue to be curious about the "problems" you claim
to have found in Steiner's epistimology.
Daniel wrote:
Much of what you say (here and elsewhere)
leads me to think you fall into the category of those who deprecate
the idea of an objective reality of ideas.
Peter Staudenmaier:
What do you mean by an objective reality
of ideas? Is this different from an objective reality of things?
Daniel:
See above. I am basically accusing you of
being an empiricist in your outlook, even as you claim to be
among the idealists.
Daniel wrote:
Either reality is absolute, or it isn't.
Peter Staudenmaier:
Lots of it isn't. Reality changes.
Daniel:
Exactly the empiricists position.
Daniel wrote:
If it is, then there is an absolute reality,
there is an absolute reality in history as well. If there is
no absolute reality, then there is none in history either.
Peter Staudenmaier:
I think your all-or-nothing stance misses
the mark. History is a complex phenomenon; some of it has absolute
qualities, some of it has very un-absolute qualities.
Daniel:
You are missing the philosophical principle.
You claim to be against the logical consequences of empiricism
(relativism) but you continually take the empiricist position
against the idealist one.
Daniel wrote:
If there is an absolute reality, then there
is an independent "objective" intent in Steiner's work
that we may attempt to apprehend.
Peter Staudenmaier:
I don't see what those two things have
to do with one another. Since Steiner is dead, his intentions
are no longer accessible to us. This scarcely means that reality
has ceased to be objective.
Daniel:
Again you are missing the philosophical principle.
The question is whether Steiner's intentions can be apprehended.
From one viewpoint it makes little difference if he is alive
or dead, the question is whether we all (alive and dead) share
the same world of ideas or not.
Daniel wrote:
"In your thinking you seem to like
ambiguity - reality is sometimes absolute, and sometimes not,
depending on how you want to argue it."
Peter Staudenmaier:
No, depending on reality itself. Much of
historical reality is indeed very ambiguous.
Daniel:
Again, philosophical principles. If you argue
that reality is fundamentally ambiguous (inapprehendable) then
the logical consequences are relativism.
Daniel wrote:
A person is racist, or they are not, depending
on how you want to argue it (which would be fine if the definition
were consistent), a sentence means one thing, or it means another,
depending on how you want to argue it.
Peter Staudenmaier:
I think that's silly. If you don't like
an argument, offer a counter-argument, don't complain about what
the other person "wants" to argue.
Daniel:
It is indeed silly. My primary complaint here
is that your standards are often inconsistent, and that we have
such problems with even basic sentences, which often seem mean
something different to you than to the rest of us.
Daniel wrote:
You say this, but then you espouse relativist
positions, particularly in deprecating the existence of an objective
truth to which our apprehension is either more or less acurate.
Peter Staudenmaier:
That is the very opposite of my position.
I think that some claims about history are more accurate than
others.
Daniel:
Again I must point out how philosophically
inconsistent this assertion is.
Daniel wrote:
Or put in another manner, you doubt that
Steiner's thought constitutes a whole that can be understood
"on it's own terms" and claim that to attempt do so
in as objective a manner would be pointless.
Peter Staudenmaier:
I do deny part of this. It is often a good
idea to attempt a more objective understanding of a given
phenomenon; that is one of the senses of objectivity that I endorse,
as sort of heuristic device. But I think that people who believe
they have achieved a purely objective conception of what
Steiner "really meant" are fooling themselves. I also
think that people who believe that Steiner's thought constitutes
a consistent whole are missing all of the changes, developments,
reversals, inconsistencies, and loose ends in his thought.
Daniel:
Again, this is evidence of philosophical inconsistency.
Peter Staudenmaier:
I wrote earlier:
Some statements about the past are less
true, some are more true, and a few are close to certain. Part
of the point of historical inquiry is to hone our claims about
the past in order to make them more true.
And you replied:
Well that is certainly an idealist position.
No, it's simply a realist position. Idealism
is not the opposite of relativism.
Daniel:
Indeed. But in philosphy, realism is the opposite
of idealism. You don't appear to have much backgroud in philosophy.
Daniel wrote:
It is also incompatible with some of your
other views. For example, Steiner lived in the past. He wrote
and lectured. What did he mean when he said X? Can we ever determine
what he meant? What he intended?
Peter Staudenmaier:
I think that's the wrong question. Our
job is to examine what he wrote and said, not speculate about
what he intended.
Daniel:
Now it appears that you are ill informed on
the philosophy of history as well. History is more than cataloguing
who said what and when. That is mere antiquarianism. The job
of the historian is to go beyond that and attempt to understand
what he is studying. This involves among other things speculating
on the intentions of historical figures. Really, this is the
most basic History 101. You are on the record as genuinely wanting
to understand Steiner, yet here you claim that it is not actually
your job. Your positions are quite inconsistent indeed.
Daniel wrote:
"Or is the best anyone can ever do
is determine what they think Steiner said?"
Peter Staudenmaier:
That is exactly what every reader and every
listener always does. When you have direct access to the speaker
or writer, you can ask her or him to clarify. When the author
is dead, you can't do that.
Daniel:
You've missed the fundamental question of
philosophical principles. Whether the author is dead or alive
makes no difference. Is it possible to apprehend an objectively
real idea?
Daniel wrote:
If you believe in the existence of absolute
truth
Peter Staudenmaier:
Why do you keep conflating absolute and
objective? Am I missing some mediating element here? Lots of
things that have objective existence are not at all absolute.
Do you think otherwise?
Daniel:
You are missing quite a bit, actually. Really
you need to read up on basic philosophy. Your grasp of this area
appers to be quite weak.
Daniel wrote:
If you deny that such measurement is possible,
then it is either because you find an unbridgable gap between
Reality and human reason (the Kantian stance) or you deny the
very existence of an objective Reality (the relativist position).
Peter Staudenmaier:
I reject both positions. There is an objective
reality. Parts of it are knowable. Parts of it are not.
Daniel:
Always trying to have it both ways, I see.
And you presume to have found philosophical errors in Steiner?
It would help to get the basic concepts of philosophy down first.
Your above position ("There is an objective reality. Parts
of it are knowable. Parts of it are not.") is pure Kant.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Sun Mar 7, 2004 7:24 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] At sea with the AT (was:
agreement and disagreement)
[Diana:]
People announce that Steiner was Aristotle,
Bob Dylan was St. Augustine or Joan of Arc and no one bats an
eyelash, no one screeches that this must be defended with epistemological
consistency in the total context of Steiner's consistent vision
please!!! All this is in some etheric scroll somewhere, so it's
fine.
Frank (batting an eyelash): Bob Dylan? Golly,
I didn't know that, I thought he was Sting. Where in the etheric
scroll is it documented?
Continued in
another thread
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Sun Mar 7, 2004 7:39 pm
Subject: Re: agreement and disagreement
Paulina wrote:
Hey, Diana, for what it is worth, I don't
agree with Bradford most of the time. When he starts talking
about current incarnations of Aristotle, Joan of Arc, etc. i
do more than bat my eyelashes, I usually find myself gnashing
my teeth, but, I don't feel any need to defend what he says with
epistemogical consistency, Why would I, or anyone? I don't undestand
what you mean? Help me out here.
Not that important, Paulina, I was just finding
it a little mind-bending to read Daniel's solemn insistence on
scholarly standards, followed by a typical Bradford post . ..
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Sun Mar 7, 2004 2:59 am
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Shooting the breeze (was:
agreement and disagreement)
Don't know if this is becoming a "Bradford's
Quickpoll" but I agree with Tarjej. Brad's "poetry
& cognition" posts are just our highlights! Look, for
instance, how he is able to take also topics originated from
a "discussion about a comma" with the Ctuhlu-like liar
from WC on a lofty level. Surely he don't use a plane English,
especially for me, Italian guy, but ...long life to his "Pyndaric-Anthro
trips!"
A.
----- Original Message -----
: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Shooting the breeze (was: agreement
and disagreement)
At 21:55 06.03.2004, Paulina wrote:
Hey, Diana, for what it is worth, I don't
agree with Bradford most of the time. When he starts talking
about current incarnations of Aristotle, Joan of Arc, etc. i
do more than bat my eyelashes, I usually find myself gnashing
my teeth, but, I don't feel any need to defend what he says with
epistemogical consistency, Why would I, or anyone?
Bradford often writes like a poet. Who
would demand "epistemological consistency" from John
Lennon or Allan Ginsburg? And isn't it a wonderful pastime to
shoot the breeze and speculate about possibilities concerning
the former incarnations of interesting people?
Tarjei
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Sun Mar 7, 2004 8:04 pm
Subject: Re: agreement and disagreement
Me:
I don't know where you got the idea that
I speed read;
Daniel:
You said so yourself back in January. I
can dig it up for you if you like.
Please, lighten up, don't go looking for where
I said I speed read. It was a joke. You kept insisting I wasn't
reading your posts, so I told you I could read very fast, or
something like that. I don't literally speed read.
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Sun Mar 7, 2004 9:53 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement
Hi Daniel, you wrote:
I think that the problem with objectivity in history is similar
to the problem of objectivity in journalism.
No, very different. Journalists are supposed to report facts,
for the most part. Historians are supposed to take facts and
analyze them, make arguments out of them, offer interpretations,
and so forth. Ever see those "Analysis" pieces in the
New York Times? That's much more similar to what historians do.
But a bias is a hindrance to objectivity.
I disagree. I really think you should take a look at some of
the books I recommended yesterday. A disinterested historian
is a bad historian.
I should point out, however, that a posture of neutrality
is precisely what you project in your articles.
That's ridiculous. All of my articles make abundantly clear that
I am a critic of anthroposophy.
Since you subsequently claim that you are "only"
writing polemic
That isn't what I claim.
[Daniel:]
Is it perhaps that their argument is so
weak that it can't stand up to direct scrutiny?
Could be. Why don't we find out? Submit my arguments about Steiner's
views on Jews to direct scrutiny and tell us what you find.
In the snipped portion of the above text, I questioned whether
SELECTIVE USE of ONLY periodicals and official documents can
ever create a COMPREHENSIVE PICTURE of the period being investigated.
Where did the "only" part come from? And why are you
stuck on this "comprehensive picture" idea? Nobody
gets a comprehensive picture of an entire historical period out
of an article.
If this is "highly inaccurate" then I'm living in
a different reality than Mr. Staudenmaier.
Yes, I think that's part of the problem here.
Uriel Tal relied not just on periodicals, but went to family
archives and quoted extensively from personal letters of the
principles involved in order to build a COMPREHENSIVE picture
of those aspects of the time period he was studying.
Of those aspects, sure. That's what books like Christians and
Jews in Germany are for.
He quoted pro and con, from both sides of the issue, in order
to recreate the mood and thought patterns of the time period.
Not just recreate them, but analyze them and interpret them.
Tal isn't shy about saying what he thinks of the figures he studies.
That is what I don't find in Peter Staudenmaier's articles.
Why are you looking for a comprehensive picture of anything in
articles written for a popular audience?
Thanks for condescending to educate me by proxy on the methods
and practices of history.
I've been trying hard not to condescend to you, but it's difficult
sometimes (especially about philosophy, by the way, where you
seem to consider yourself well-versed). A number of your general
claims about historians are very wide of the mark. If you could
bring yourself to consult any of the materials I recommended,
I think you'd realize that quickly. There is a wide range of
opinion among working historians today about how to deal with
questions like objectivity (a few of us even agree with some
of your expressed views on the subject), and it isn't hard to
find extensive discussions of that topic. I you can't track down
the Bauer, Novick, or Bentley books, a good place to start is
the book Telling the Truth About History by Joyce Appleby, Lynn
Hunt, and Margaret Jacob. I also recommend Alan Spitzer, Historical
Truth and Lies About the Past.
Well, if you reject a priori that his views on Eurythmy could
have any relationship to his views on race and ethnicity, then
you certainly will never discover if they do.
Yes, that's very likely. This is called defining your topic.
To make a research project worthwhile, you need to know what
you're focusing on and what you're not focusing on. No historian
believes that she or he will discover everything relevant to
their chosen subject. The point is to do a thorough job in a
clearly delineated area.
I essentially stated that you can't fully understand Steiner
unless you know BOTH his allegedly racist statements AND his
views on eurythmy.
That might be, but if so, then "fully understanding Steiner"
is not part of the task of analyzing his racial doctrines. What
individual historians produce are *partial* understandings of
specific themes; if there is sustained interest in these themes,
then the work of several historians over some span of time will
sometimes yield a fuller understanding of the topic.
It doesn't matter what direction you approach things from,
the point is to look at the whole picture.
I disagree. Much of the time the point is to look closely at
a part of the picture by adjusting your focus.
You can either decide what Steiner's main points are and then
look at his Apparently racist statements and their context, both
within his work and within his entire culture, or you can look
first at his Apparently racist statements and their context,
both within his work and within his entire culture, and then
consider what Steiner's main points are.
The second one is appropriate, in my view, and the first one
is not.
What I accuse you of is starting at one end and then stopping
half way through.
I am indeed roughly halfway through my work on Steiner's racial
and ethnic doctrines. What makes you think I have stopped?
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Sun Mar 7, 2004 1:03 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement
Hi Daniel, you wrote:
I should point out, however, that a posture
of neutrality is precisely what you project in your articles.
Peter Staudenmaier:
That's ridiculous. All of my articles make
abundantly clear that I am a critic of anthroposophy.
Daniel:
By implication, yes (but we know that you
never, ever work by implication). Your tone in places conveys
a pretention to historical objectivity, especially in these informal
email discussions. Basically, when objectivity is good, they
you possess it, except when biases are good, in which case you
of course possess that as well.
Daniel wrote:
Since you subsequently claim that you are
"only" writing polemic
Peter Staudenmaier:
That isn't what I claim.
Daniel Hindes:
That is excatly your response when serious
problems are found in your articles. Did you not write, back
in December 2003, "My articles on anthroposophy are indeed
polemical" ?
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Sun Mar 7, 2004 2:27 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement
Daniel wrote:
In the snipped portion of the above text,
I questioned whether SELECTIVE USE of ONLY periodicals and official
documents can ever create a COMPREHENSIVE PICTURE of the period
being investigated.
Peter Staudenmaier:
Where did the "only" part come
from?
Daniel:
In the part you snipped out. Where do you
think?
Peter Staudenmaier:
And why are you stuck on this "comprehensive
picture" idea?
Daniel:
Well I hope you'll pardon my high standards
for historical research. Polemic is a different game entirely,
and if that is what you aspire to write, then of course there
is no requirement to actually understand anything about the subject
you are writing about.
Peter Staudenmaier:
Nobody gets a comprehensive picture of
an entire historical period out of an article.
Daniel:
Perhaps, but the writer of such an article
ought to have such a comprehensive picture of an entire historical
period before they sit down to write. Otherwise the quality of
such an article will not likely be very good.
Daniel wrote:
If this is "highly inaccurate"
then I'm living in a different reality than Mr. Staudenmaier.
Peter Staudenmaier:
Yes, I think that's part of the problem
here.
Daniel:
And I'll agree. We are definitely living in
a different realties when it comes to what constitutes good historical
research.
Daniel wrote:
That is what I don't find in Peter Staudenmaier's
articles.
Peter Staudenmaier:
Why are you looking for a comprehensive
picture of anything in articles written for a popular audience?
Daniel:
Well, again, I hope you'll pardon my high
standards for historical research. Polemic is a different game
entirely, and if that is what you aspire to write, then of course
there is no requirement for accuracy, comprehensive understanding
or objectivity.
Daniel wrote:
Thanks for condescending to educate me
by proxy on the methods and practices of history.
Peter Staudenmaier:
I've been trying hard not to condescend
to you, but it's difficult sometimes (especially about philosophy,
by the way, where you seem to consider yourself well-versed).
Daniel:
Yes, I've noticed that you have a hard time
keeping your condescension in check sometimes. (And yes, my sarcasm
can get out of hand at times; I suppose we all have something
to work on). I claim no great knowledge of philosophy, but I
have studied it a bit. From our recent exchanges, your background
in the area appears to be more limited. Whether this is because
you are highly knowledgeable in only a few areas but lack a comprehensive
background, or whether you have simply not spent any time in
the field I haven't been able to determine.
Peter Staudenmaier:
A number of your general claims about historians
are very wide of the mark. If you could bring yourself to consult
any of the materials I recommended, I think you'd realize that
quickly.
Daniel:
If you care to post them here or mail them
to me, I will read them and then write you a review. I'm afraid
I don't have the time to go hunting for a hal