Staudenmaier on Staudenmaier

Peter Staudenmaier (February 22nd, 2004):
I was hoping we could talk about Steiner, not about me, but the empathy discussion is important, and there is no doubt that any interpretation of a complex body of ideas is bound to be affected by the life experience of the interpreter. I disagree, however, that this has much to do with motive and intent. One of the time-honored principles of both philosophical discourse and public debate is that arguments ought to be judged on their own merits, not on the basis of the character of the person who expresses them. Thus it simply shouldn't matter if I am one of Ahriman's minions or the next incarnation of Rudolf Steiner. But since it seems that this issue keeps getting in the way of substantive dialogue between critics and supporters of anthroposophy, I will try to offer a brief response to your question about why I believe the things I do.
I definitely have what you call an intellectual bias (though I'm not sure why you think this would be a hindrance to understanding Steiner, since he was an intellectual himself), and the aspects of anthroposophy that I study have little to do with Steiner as a person; I am much more interested in his ideas. It is also true that I have "atheistic leanings", as Dottie has reminded the list; I am either an atheist or an agnostic, I'm never quite sure which (believe it or not, the question isn't particularly important to me). It is not true that I am opposed to spirituality; I am a spiritual person, and keenly interested in a variety of spiritual traditions. Some time ago you mentioned my Catholic education; I went to Catholic schools for twelve years, including a Jesuit high school, and a number of my immediate family members are practicing Catholics. I don't see what that has to do with my outlook on anthroposophy, but perhaps you could explain what connection you have in mind. Tarjei's descriptions of my political beliefs are generally accurate (though he did list a number of projects, like LETS schemes, that I am quite skeptical toward; it is unclear to me where he got this list from). I live in Madison, Wisconsin, a very left-leaning city, and spend each summer at the Institute for Social Ecology in Vermont. My chief focus as a historian is the cultural and intellectual history of the German right, and that is basically the perspective from which I approach anthroposophy. I recognize that this is a very different approach from yours, and I will try to keep that in mind here.
I'd be glad to answer any more specific questions you might have, but I still think it makes more sense to focus our discussion on Steiner's writings, not on each other's personalities. In my experience, that is a much more promising way to get at the actual agreements and disagreements.

Bryan Miller (February 23rd, 2004):
"What is your ultimate goal in pursuing this criticism?

Peter Staudenmaier (February 23rd, 2004):
To have my opinion changed. That's why we put arguments out into the public realm, no?

Bryan Miller (February 23rd, 2004):
Not really. Most criticism aims to change the object being critized or at least the perception/opinion that others have of this object. However, if you want to have your opinion changed, may I ask why?

Patrick Evans (February 23rd, 2004):
"I think that certain doors of understanding are closed in your mind with regard to Steiner."

Peter Staudenmaier (February 23rd, 2004):
That is very likely true.

Bryan Miller (February 23rd, 2004):
"However, if you want to have your opinion changed, may I ask why?"

Peter Staudenmaier (February 24th, 2004):
Because that's how you get more well-founded opinions. The wonderful thing about critique is that it frequently strengthens the object of criticism. It also helps you determine which opinions don't hold up to scrutiny and need to be abandoned. I figured that a group of very talkative anthroposophists who have an evident interest in my work might be able to provide some rigorous critiques of that work. I'm enjoying doing that with several list members, though the silly imprecations are a bit of a distraction sometimes. Thanks for asking,
[Sounds pretty good in principle. However, in well over a month on the Anthroposophy Tomorrow list, Peter Staudenmaier has not conceeded a single point, even when caught red-handed in mistranslation and falsified summaries of passages he is quoting. So much for wanting to learn about things.]

Branford (February 23rd, 2004):
"For Peter, debating the cool issues, certain isolated and specialized concepts, is like the scientist in his lab."

Peter Staudenmaier (February 24th, 2004):
Not really. In my view, history is unlike the natural sciences in many crucial respects. There are some similarities, of course (hypothesis formation, rules of evidence, and so forth), but the procedures employed are very different. In the natural sciences, it is often possible to achieve something approaching certainty. That rarely happens in history.

Branford (February 23rd, 2004):
"he is just another viewpoint and another personality with his own set of limitations."

Peter Staudenmaier (February 24th, 2004):
Now *that* I agree with completely.

Dottie Zold (February 24th, 2004):
Peter, do you consider you have any set limitations within the context of what you are studying regarding Dr. Steiners work? Do you recognize what they are? Can you share them with the list if you do? And do you think, with the particular set of limitations you have given yourself, you see why it would be hard for a person with these particular limitations to do an actual historical review on a person such as Dr. Steiner with his particular stream of studies? Or do you think your particular limitations are irrelevant to the study of Dr. Steiners work and words?

Peter Staudenmaier (February 24th, 2004):
Hi Dottie, thanks for your questions:
"Peter, do you consider you have any set limitations within the context of what you are studying regarding Dr. Steiners work?"
Yes, of course.
"Do you recognize what they are?"
I recognize some of them. Needless to say, I can't tell you much about the ones I don't recognize.
"Can you share them with the list if you do?"
Sure. I have very strong pre-existing opinions about many of the figures that Steiner admired (several of them well-known racists and antisemites). I am generally highly skeptical of attempts to marry esoteric beliefs with political endeavors. I greatly dislike the things that many anthroposophists did during the Third Reich.
[Like a skillful politician, he is not actually answering the question. Asked to talk about his limitations, he that he hates anit-Semites (how is that a limitation?) whom Steiner allegedly admired? Note that none are named (it is easy to make allegations in the general). And anyway, Steiner may have admired Wagner for his music, and than does no more to make him an anti-Semite any more than it does Daniel Barrenboim when he conducts Wagner at the Israel Philharmonic. Note further the casual distain for what things (again, who and what remains unnamed) some anthroposophists supposedly did - leaving us to imagine the worst.]
"And do you think, with the particular set of limitations you have given yourself, you see why it would be hard for a person with these particular limitations to do an actual historical review on a person such as Dr. Steiner with his particular stream of studies?"
No, of course not. If I may speak bluntly for a moment: that is an extraordinarily naive thing to say. I spend most of my time studying Nazis. I really, really don't like Nazis, Dottie. Do you think this makes me less likely to come up with accurate historical arguments about them? Would you prefer that historians of Stalinism, for example, were sympathetic to Stalinism?
[Again this argument sounds good in principle, but consider the following: It is not very difficult to form a judgement of Stalin. Stalin was not a thinker, and his actions are well documented. Steiner was a philosopher of at least as much complexity as Kant or Hegel. Dottie is asking Peter if he thinks he can understand Steiner's thought before judging him.]
"Or do you think your particular limitations are irrelevant to the study of Dr. Steiners work and words?"
No, they are not irrelevant, they are often extremely helpful. [Indeed, it is extremely helpful not tu have to actually understand Steiner to denounce him - if you actually tried to understand what he meant, it would be impossible to paint him a racist an anti-Semite!] A critical stance is frequently a boon, not a hindrance, to historical knowledge. Everybody works within their own limitations, and part of the point is to be conscious of them and pay attention to how they affect your work. But once you put the arguments out there for consideration, it is the substance of the arguments themselves that should become the focus. Hence if you genuinely believe, for example, that Austrian Jewry formed a closed totality in 1888, or that German or Swiss Jewry was dominated by racial qualities in 1924, then all you need to do is offer some sort of evidence to back up this belief. [Of course, Steiner did not actually say those things, but then we are talking about Peter Staudenmaier's limitations, and this is a perfect example.] Your own personal limitations, whatever they might be, are not at issue. I do hope that this clarifies how I approach the topics we've been trying to discuss here.

Peter Staudenmaier (February 24th, 2004):
Next to Murray Bookchin, I am perhaps the harshest critic of deep ecology anywhere.

Paulina (February 26th, 2004):
So, you don't go deep, eh? You are only a social ecologist?"

Peter Staudenmaier (February 26th, 2004):
Yes. The often extremely bitter feud between social ecologists and deep ecologists has been going on for nearly twenty years. There are entire shelves of books about this dispute. Getting deep ecologists mixed up with social ecologists is very much like getting leninists mixed up with anarchists (well, except that leninists kill anarchists, and as far as I know no deep ecologist has designs on my life, at least not yet).