agreement
and disagreement 3
Understanding the anthroposophical
worldview
From: at
Date: Wed Mar 3, 2004 2:03 pm
Subject: Understanding the anthroposophical worldview
Patrick:
You do not address the worldview only the
remarks that fit your view.
Peter Staudenmaier:
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.
Patrick:
This is your very complaint about Waage.
Peter Staudenmaier:
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.
Daniel:
Your complaint about Waage is that, in your
estimation, he does not integrate all of Steiner's work into
his understanding of Anthroposophy. Patrick's complaint about
you is that you do not integrate all of Steiner's work into your
understanding of Anthroposophy. Waage chooses to ignore the parts
you focus on, you choose to ignore all the parts about the sanctity
and independence of the individual over all ties of race, gender,
class and nationality that Waage values.
You have admitted that there exist (at least)
two views of Anthroposophy, your view and Patrick's view. The
possibilities are either that one view is correct and all others
incorrect, or there is a separate and fully valid view of Anthroposophy
for every individual person. If the second is the case, then
either everybody is equally right (essentially a philosophically
nominalist take on existence) or there is a single correct view
of Anthroposophy, and all the various versions are approximations
to one degree or another of this complete view (the philosophical
realist position). If the first case is correct, then this equates
to the view that truth is relative (and you have stated that
you oppose relativism). So taking the second to be the case,
none of us (even you) have a full understanding of the anthroposophical
worldview, and all of our understanding is incomplete and possibly
incorrect. However, there exists nonetheless a view of Anthroposophy
that is correct, and we are all striving towards it. As such,
we have things to learn from you, but you also have things to
learn from us (unless, of course, you feel that you already possess
that perfect view, and we need to accept your version and adapt
to it).
I think what Patrick is trying to get at is
that there are quite a few people who feel you do not actually
understand the Anthroposophical worldview on it's own terms before
raising your objections. You could probably counter this objection
with some sort of essay that is simply descriptive, similar in
style to what I wrote about Tal's book and posted to this list,
describing the content of a Steiner lecture cycle in such a way
that nobody, not even Steiner himself, could accuse you of not
fully understanding it as the author intended it, while at the
same time not taking any position about the contents. This would
have to be sufficiently long as to demonstrate a full mastery
of the details. I would recommend something like the first volume
of the Karmic Relationships series, or perhaps "The Reappearance
of Christ in the Etheric."
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Mar 3, 2004 10:28 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Understanding the anthroposophical
worldview
Hi Daniel, thanks for your posts. I'm going
to try to bundle together my replies to several of them. You
wrote:
Waage chooses to ignore the parts you focus on, you choose
to ignore all the parts about the sanctity and independence of
the individual over all ties of race, gender, class and nationality
that Waage values.
No, I don't ignore those parts. I pointed them out in my first
post to this list. I think you should check out my posts on Steiner's
racial theories at openwaldorf; I include both sides of the story,
and focus on the side that I think needs more attention.
You have admitted that there exist (at least) two views of
Anthroposophy, your view and Patrick's view. The possibilities
are either that one view is correct and all others incorrect,
or there is a separate and fully valid view of Anthroposophy
for every individual person.
I don't agree that those are the two possibilities. But I do
agree with part of your conclusion:
So taking the second to be the case, none of us (even you)
have a full understanding of the anthroposophical worldview,
and all of our understanding is incomplete and possibly incorrect.
Yes. I take this to be axiomatic.
However, there exists nonetheless a view of Anthroposophy
that is correct, and we are all striving towards it. As such,
we have things to learn from you, but you also have things to
learn from us (unless, of course, you feel that you already possess
that perfect view, and we need to accept your version and adapt
to it).
I do not think that I have anything close to a perfect view of
anthroposophy. My focus is on a fairly narrow strip of anthroposophical
doctrine, albeit a very important one, in my estimation.
I think what Patrick is trying to get at is that there are
quite a few people who feel you do not actually understand the
Anthroposophical worldview on it's own terms before raising your
objections.
Yes, I got that part. I think this argument depends on an indefensible
notion of proper 'understanding'. What we ought to be arguing
about, in my view, is the extent to which our respective understandings
of Steiner's doctrines are supported by and compatible with his
published works.
You could probably counter this objection with some sort of
essay that is simply descriptive, similar in style to what I
wrote about Tal's book and posted to this list, describing the
content of a Steiner lecture cycle in such a way that nobody,
not even Steiner himself, could accuse you of not fully understanding
it as the author intended it, while at the same time not taking
any position about the contents.
That would be an abdication of responsibility. I think part of
our job is to examine the past critically, not merely describe
it. I also reject the idea that any of us can determine what
Steiner "intended" in the sense you seem to mean.
[Daniel:]
So honest understanding is not a desirable
goal when bandying about opinions on controversial topics?
No, that
is not my position. It's the "instead of" part of Patrick's
line that I do not accept. I think that making and assessing
arguments is a crucial part of honest understanding, not a distraction
from it.
[Daniel:]
Now that is
an interesting position. Essentially, you state that you are
justified in selectively quoting statements of others, even if
this then alters the original meaning, because theoretically
anyone can go back and look at the original statement to catch
you at it.
No. Altering
the original meaning is not what quotation is for. It's not okay
to alter the original meaning no matter how much or how little
you quote. One of the functions of quotation is to summarize
the original meaning. That is, in part, what quotation is for.
In this sense, all quotation is necessarily 'selective'. If you
think I have altered the meaning of any of the passages I have
quoted, please point them out.
If you are
known to employ this technique here, we may quite rightly suspect
that you employ it in your other writings.
That is
foolish. Quite apart from the fact that this is not the technique
I employ, we are talking about an email list with a very easily
accessible public archive. It is a waste of bandwidth to quote
every bit of every post you respond to. The proper procedure
is to quote the specific part you're replying to.
You may respond that you write polemic, not history.
No, I write both.
Of course, all your sources are theoretically public
You are very much missing the point. On an email list like this
one, every post you reply to is not just "theoretically"
public, it is actually public, with no need to buy any books
or visit any libraries. All you need is a click of the mouse.
Anybody reading this post has already read the previous posts
in the thread. If you think this is an unreasonable approach
to email discussion, could you perhaps explain why?
[Daniel:]
It may be historically
mistaken, but it is true in the present time
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:
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 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.
If political
operatives find it advantageous to attach that label to their
opponents, they must have some reason.
It hasn't occurred to you that they might actually believe it?
Unfortunately the general public is not so discerning.
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:]
Your statement
"It may take some time, but eventually anthroposophists
will..." has no qualifier; it applies to all anthroposophists.
Only in the sense that it will indeed take some time for all
anthroposophists to recognize this. You don't really disagree
with that part, do you? Surely you don't mean that all anthroposophists
currently have an adequate grasp of racism and antisemitism as
belief systems?
Arguing that a different statement two sentences earlier has
a qualifier, and thus the reader should infer the continual application
of the qualifier throughout the text in contradiction to your
actual written words, appears disingenuous.
I disagree. I think that competent readers will note that the
entire post was directed toward a specific mindset shared by
some anthroposophists. It was quite explicitly not directed toward
all anthroposophists as such.
Shifting the argument to what does or does not constitute
a lie is moving away from the responsibility of either writing
what you mean or apologizing for lack of clarity.
I don't think the lack of clarity lies with my writing in this
case. I think I introduced the post in a very clear fashion.
But I am always happy to apologize for any misunderstandings.
I will try to be even clearer in the future.
A statement that is not true, even though the author believes
it to be true, is still not true. A statement that is not true,
and the author knows it is not true, is a lie.
Yes, exactly. That is why it is beside the point to bring "lying"
into the discussion, when all you mean is that the statement
is untrue.
Thanks for the discussion,
Peter
Continued [agr.
disagr.]
...................................................................................................................................
From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Thu Mar 4, 2004 2:01 am
Subject: PS's Theatre of the Absurd R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow]
Understanding the anthroposophical worldview
Dear all,
Welcome to PS's "Theatre of the Absurd".
In the beginning (a couple of weeks ago) we saw a guy jumpin'
in this list claiming "Steiner's racist". Ok, instead
of kicking him in the ass (the only right thing to do) and eject
him from AT we have accepted to "debate".
Well, after a couple of weeks we are able
to give some conclusion about it. He has no evidence at all about
his claims.
For instance the "evidences " given
are endless discussions on the right meaning of a "negative",
the "actual" meaning of a Steiner's word among millions
that he spoke or wrote, ridiculous assumption of "similarities"
beween racist cosmology and the Initiatic picture of Mankind's
and Universe evolution depicted by RS and so on. This guy PS
went here also trying to demonstrate "Anthroposophist's
mistake"...... but he himself knows nothing of real about
Steiner's teaching.! The "discussion" between him and
Daniel shows it in a bright light.
Focusing on "understanding" Anthropos
PS demonstrate again and again to ignore that the rational approach
("understanding") it's only a preliminary step "towards"
Anthroposophy. The true work begins with the inner training and
the meditative study. At the "understanding" level,
as an intellectual mind level, Anthroposophy, as a "theory"
tells very few.. As a "theory" it is pretty unworthy.
It begins to live at the Living Thinking level: the life we can
able to grasp at the Intellectual Mind level is only a preliminary
"reflection" of the Light. This level is the level
from which the "daughters" were born : Medicine, Eurhythmia,
Waldorf Method, Byodinamics, Organic Architecture, Art of Speech.
But the further absurdity is that PS has not even a basic rational
knowledge of the matter.
He is interested, by his admission, in a small
l side of it, that , parodoxically, DOES NOT EXIST AT ALL!!!
(Steiner's "racism") He invented a topic "ex nihilo"
!
Sure, here Ubu Roi should have jumped and clapped: where can
be find a brighter example of "Theatre of Absurd" ?
Needless to say PS has no experience of the training necessary
to grasp Anthroposophy's contents, (every Spiritual Science student
knows, for instance, the difference between the pure "rational"
approach to Steiner's cosmology and the meditatiive one) but
neverthless he claims to be able to give lessons of Anthroposophy!
(Clapping again)
And the good, kind hearted anthropop "debated"
on and on such a nothingness that PS was surely very clever to
dress with his monkey-like jumpin' dialectics......
Surely we have also had the chance to see the positive side of
the "theatre". We could see how does it work an ahrimanically
infected lovecraftian dialectic mind or to grasp the unlimited
power of the lie.
We could also appreciate the fact that some listmates , following
PS's twisted comments, could investigate better some matter.
Someone else could test his (her) "wish for sinner's redemption"........
but we have also to admit that is actually bothering to listen
on and on and on to this broken record!!
Andrea
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Thu Mar 4, 2004 4:58 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Understanding the anthroposophical
worldview
Daniel wrote:
Waage chooses to ignore the parts you focus
on, you choose to ignore all the parts about the sanctity and
independence of the individual over all ties of race, gender,
class and nationality that Waage values.
Peter S wrote:
No, I don't ignore those parts. I pointed
them out in my first post to this list. I think you should check
out my posts on Steiner's racial theories at openwaldorf; I include
both sides of the story, and focus on the side that I think needs
more attention.
Tarjei:
I've been in touch with Peter N.W. He's moved
on to other subjects - I just heard his lecture about Anthroposophy
and Islam - and is uncomprehending about my endurance with lists
like this.
Peter S:
My focus is on a fairly narrow strip of
anthroposophical doctrine, albeit a very important one, in my
estimation.
Tarjei:
It looks like it's important for you because
it seems to give you an opportunity to delude outsiders about
what Anthroposophy really has to say about human races. In one
of your first posts to this list, you admitted that RS expressed
anti-racist sentiments, but you never mention or quote these
sentiments in your published articles.
Peter S:
I think part of our job is to examine the
past critically, not merely describe it. I also reject the idea
that any of us can determine what Steiner "intended"
in the sense you seem to mean.
Tarjei:
What you forget here is that Rudolf Steiner
was not the founder of Anthroposophy; St. Michael was. RS was
only the mediator. For that reason, what Steiner intended can
be determined by examining what St. Michael has been trying to
achieve all along.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Thu Mar 4, 2004 5:55 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Understanding the anthroposophical
worldview
Peter,
Thanks for your reply.
Patrick once wrote:
This is your very complaint about Waage.
To which Peter Staudenmaier replied:
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.
Daniel jumped in and said:
Your complaint about Waage is that, in
your estimation, he does not integrate all of Steiner's work
into his understanding of Anthroposophy. Patrick's complaint
about you is that you do not integrate all of Steiner's work
into your understanding of Anthroposophy. Waage chooses to ignore
the parts you focus on, you choose to ignore all the parts about
the sanctity and independence of the individual over all ties
of race, gender, class and nationality that Waage values.
Which Peter Staudenmaier snipped to:
Waage chooses to ignore the parts you focus
on, you choose to ignore all the parts about the sanctity and
independence of the individual over all ties of race, gender,
class and nationality that Waage values.
And Peter Staudenmaier replied:
No, I don't ignore those parts. I pointed
them out in my first post to this list. I think you should check
out my posts on Steiner's racial theories at openwaldorf; I include
both sides of the story, and focus on the side that I think needs
more attention.
Daniel replies:
This answer avoids the question of integration.
If your view only consistes only of the parts of Steiner you
pick and choose, then you are open to charges of distortion.
These are the charges you level against Waage. By the same token,
they apply to you. Tipping your hat to the existance of other
elements in Steiner's work and then continuing to ignore them
does not solve the problem.
Daniel wrote:
You have admitted that there exist (at
least) two views of Anthroposophy, your view and Patrick's view.
The possibilities are either that one view is correct and all
others incorrect, or there is a separate and fully valid view
of Anthroposophy for every individual person. If the second is
the case, then either everybody is equally right (essentially
a philosophically nominalist take on existence) or there is a
single correct view of Anthroposophy, and all the various versions
are approximations to one degree or another of this complete
view (the philosophical realist position). If the first case
is correct, then this equates to the view that truth is relative
(and you have stated that you oppose relativism). So taking the
second to be the case, none of us (even you) have a full understanding
of the anthroposophical worldview, and all of our understanding
is incomplete and possibly incorrect. However, there exists nonetheless
a view of Anthroposophy that is correct, and we are all striving
towards it. As such, we have things to learn from you, but you
also have things to learn from us (unless, of course, you feel
that you already possess that perfect view, and we need to accept
your version and adapt to it).
Which Peter Staudenmaier snipped to a few
pieces:
You have admitted that there exist (at
least) two views of Anthroposophy, your view and Patrick's view.
The possibilities are either that one view is correct and all
others incorrect, or there is a separate and fully valid view
of Anthroposophy for every individual person.
And Peter Staudenmaier replied:
I don't agree that those are the two possibilities.
But I do agree with part of your conclusion:
And Peter quoted Daniel again:
So taking the second to be the case, none
of us (even you) have a full understanding of the anthroposophical
worldview, and all of our understanding is incomplete and possibly
incorrect.
And Peter continued:
Yes. I take this to be axiomatic.
Daniel responds:
This edit chops up the original a bit, then
offered three sentences that don't actually respond to my main
point. First, I don't agree that those are the two possibilities
either; I offered several others in my original, which you seem
to have chosen to ignore, or at least not credit me with writing.
Reading between the lines, it appears that
you stand for relativism. It is not clear whether you believe
that there is any view of Anthroposophy that is more true than
any other.
Peter further quoted Daniel:
However, there exists nonetheless a view
of Anthroposophy that is correct, and we are all striving towards
it. As such, we have things to learn from you, but you also have
things to learn from us (unless, of course, you feel that you
already possess that perfect view, and we need to accept your
version and adapt to it).
And then Peter replied:
I do not think that I have anything close
to a perfect view of anthroposophy. My focus is on a fairly narrow
strip of anthroposophical doctrine, albeit a very important one,
in my estimation.
Daniel responds:
This reply brings up the question of integration
again. If you admittedly have a somewhat to very imperfect view
of Anthroposophy, first, how can you be sure you are understanding
even that properly? Second, how can you avoid charges of hypocricy
if you accuse people like Waage of failing to have a complete
understanding? And third, if you don't believe in relativism,
how can you not want to gain as complete an understanding of
Anthroposophy as possible?
What I was really trying to get at was your
thoughts on truth vis a vis idealist philosophy and philosophical
relativism. But you sidestepped the issue and omitted those points
when you snipped my writing in your reply.
Daniel wrote:
I think what Patrick is trying to get at
is that there are quite a few people who feel you do not actually
understand the Anthroposophical worldview on it's own terms before
raising your objections. You could probably counter this objection
with some sort of essay that is simply descriptive, similar in
style to what I wrote about Tal's book and posted to this list,
describing the content of a Steiner lecture cycle in such a way
that nobody, not even Steiner himself, could accuse you of not
fully understanding it as the author intended it, while at the
same time not taking any position about the contents. This would
have to be sufficiently long as to demonstrate a full mastery
of the details. I would recommend something like the first volume
of the Karmic Relationships series, or perhaps "The Reappearance
of Christ in the Etheric.
Peter, replying in sections, first responded
to this:
Daniel:
I think what Patrick is trying to get at
is that there are quite a few people who feel you do not actually
understand the Anthroposophical worldview on it's own terms before
raising your objections.
Then Peter wrote:
Yes, I got that part. I think this argument
depends on an indefensible notion of proper 'understanding'.
What we ought to be arguing about, in my view, is the extent
to which our respective understandings of Steiner's doctrines
are supported by and compatible with his published works.
Daniel responds:
If "proper understanding" is "indefensible"
then you really do espouse philosophical relativism. What you
are proposing is that we argue our subjective interpretations
one against the other as compared to a text. This is precisely
the sort of dry academic exercise that you criticize elsewhere,
and that I agree leads nowhere in building an understanding of
truth. While this plays to your strengths, it is also pointless
precicely because it is possible to distort any text quite easily
through selective quotation. We are then in a tedious back and
forth over how to read basic German or English (witness the "nichts
weniger als" exchange) and neither side is attempting to
build a comprehensive understanding.
Your understanding is of course supported by the texts you selectively
quote. Your understanding is also incomplete. No one has denied
that the texts you quote are derived from Steiner (though the
authenticity can in some places be disputed). It is also true
that many anthroposophists have not read enough Steiner to have
come across the passages you have collected. As such, you are
doing a service by bringing them up. The problem is when you
stop there. These passages are just a part of a much, much greater
whole. How they fit into the whole is what many on this list
would like to discuss. You would prefer to stop with the pieces.
Fine, stop with the pieces. You will forever possess a distorted
understanding of Steiner's thought.
Peter, quoting Daniel:
You could probably counter this objection
with some sort of essay that is simply descriptive, similar in
style to what I wrote about Tal's book and posted to this list,
describing the content of a Steiner lecture cycle in such a way
that nobody, not even Steiner himself, could accuse you of not
fully understanding it as the author intended it, while at the
same time not taking any position about the contents.
Peter:
That would be an abdication of responsibility.
I think part of our job is to examine the past critically, not
merely describe it. I also reject the idea that any of us can
determine what Steiner "intended" in the sense you
seem to mean.
Daniel responds:
So it is an abdication of responsibility to
try to form a more perfect understanding? This is really an interesting
position. Did you even think of the implications when you wrote
this? I was suggesting a method by which you could gain credibility
(and perhaps understanding). Your response is that you have a
responsibility not to attempt to understand Steiner on his own
terms. Responsibility to whom? I have to wonder.
Your rejection of the possibility of ever understanding Steiner
on his own terms reduces him and all Anthroposophy to an intellectual
chess piece that can be moved around at will, and thus possesses
no intrinsic properties of its own. This is, again, a philosophically
relativist position. Steiner cannot simply mean whatever a given
reader chooses to make of him if there is any objective truth
in the philosophically idealistic sense.
Daniel Hindes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
March/April
2004
The Uncle
Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files
Anthroposophy & Anarchism
Anthroposophy & Scientology
Anthroposophical
Morsels
Anthroposophy,
Critics, and Controversy
