Staudenmaier's Agenda?

Peter Staudenmaier (February 27th, 2004):
I think I am clueless on this one. I thought I did answer your question about why I study anthroposophy's history; I mentioned my more general historical interests and so forth. Did that not go through? Or did I miss a subsequent round?

Peter Hessler (February 27th, 2004):
Here is the question that you did not answer:
Quoting Peter:
I consider Steiner's racial theories and their reception among early anthroposophists a prime example of several of the broader phenomena I study, namely the propensity toward left-right crossover, esoteric politics, and the profusion of racial-ethnic discourse in early 20th century German-speaking Europe.
Mike:
So, Steiners racial theroies and their reception are an example of the broader phenomena that you study. OK, so why do you study this phenomena?
Mike Again: Why do you study this Phenomena? What do you think your motives for doing so are? And what is your overall intention?
Very clear questions I think.
And if it really doesn't matter (your personal motives and intent) then you should have no problem telling the truth.

Peter Staudenmaier (February 27th, 2004):
sorry, looks like that one got lost in the shuffle. You wrote:
"Why do you study this Phenomena? What do you think your motives for doing so are? And what is your overall intention?"
I find these issues fascinating. I see a number of very interesting parallels between current cultural and political trends and the 'alternative' milieu in German-speaking Europe in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, including the three themes I mentioned: left-right crossover, esoteric politics, and the profusion of racial-ethnic discourse (whereby the third one in particular has altered significantly in the course of the last 50 years). My motives are to get people today, especially people involved in the circles I travel in (environmental movement, co-op movement, anti-globalization movement, and so forth) to take a critical look at these historical parallels and maybe even avoid some of the mistakes of the past, and to get other historians to pay more attention to these issues as well. My overall intention is to write good history and good polemic that is relevant to today's concerns and provokes discussion. If I understand you correctly, you find something suspicious about all this. May I ask what that is? Thanks,

Peter Staudenmaier (February 27th, 2004):
[Anthroposophy Tomorrow listmembers] seem to disagree about me. Some of them apparently think I'm Catholic, while others think I'm an atheist (though according to some evidently popular conceptions of atheism, I'm not even an atheist), some think I'm an anarchist, while others think I'm a marxist, and so forth. All this attention is flattering, I suppose, but it's still hard to see what any of it might have to do with Rudolf Steiner's views on Jews.

Tarjei Straume (February 27th, 2004):
The apparent reason for this guesswork is that you keep your deeper convictions, views and opinions about religion and philosophy and politics hidden. That's unusual for someone who posts as voluminously and writes as prolifically as you do. You give the impression that you're only here for the game, for the fun of it, for a hobby that won't bore you. It looks as if people are trying to discover a grain of sincerity in all this, which is why they're trying to guess where you're coming from. You should consider that a compliment, and you probably do, but instead of amusing yourself with what others try to guess, why not play with open cards?
Incidentally, when I "think" you're an anarchist, it's based upon your own words on the WC Jan 24, 2004:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z1D122D87
"In any case, I think that what this theme points to is that movements and worldviews that are relatively far from the mainstream often get extremely protective when outside analysts decide to study their doctrines and traditions. This certainly happens among anarchists, a far-from-the-mainstream tendency that I belong to, and it seems likely to me that something similar is the case with anthroposophists."

Peter Staudenmaier (February 27th, 2004):
That's silly. I am an anarchist, I don't believe in god, my politics are far to the left, and so forth. I've said all those things right here on this list several times. I don't like capitalism, monogamy, the state, or asparagus. Philosophically I'm a social ecologist, a dialectician, and a consequentialist in ethics. What exactly is it that you think I am keeping hidden?
"That's unusual for someone who posts as voluminously and writes as prolifically as you do."
But I do write prolifically about those topics, except for god and asparagus. What are you talking about?

Tarjei Straume (February 27th, 2004):
You debate in a manner that is evasive in many ways, sidetracking the issue raised by someone else by finding ways to revert to your old worn-out repetitive polemical arguments about racism and anti-Semitism. You ask for views and perspectives by others, and then you ignore what is being said and respond only to the letter of the select words that contradict your own, and if the going gets tough, you argue syntax and grammar and definitions as if to avoid a recognition of the other person's central grasp of the issue at hand.
This is clever, but it's also dishonest and insincere. You never compare Steiner's views on racial evolution with your own views, offering *your* explanations as to how we have evolved into what we have become. You say you don't believe in God, but you don't say whether or not you believe that biological life originates from chemical processes, if the universe is the result of blind chance in a primordial soup. You appear to have no interest whatsoever in Rudolf Steiner's cosmology or epistemology, and although you may throw off some remarks about your position, it's all generic labels, such as "anarchist", "ecologist", "atheist-agnostic" and so on - labels that tell us absolutely nothing about your real self. Not a single conviction about the origin or meaning of existence; not one reflection, wonder, feeling is expressed in any of your long texts.
So who knows what you're hiding and why?

Mike Helsher (February 27th, 2004):
I do like the idea of living in the question, so to speak, which is what "living thinking" is to me, but Peter's mode of questioning is all to often derisive or diversionary.
And thanks Tarjei for using the word "sincerity." This is a character trait that I have come to admire in many people over the years. I've heard so many bullshit stories, and told a few too. But a few years of going into jails and state penetenteries, to talk to drug-addicts about a possible spiritual solution to the problem of addiction, has givin me the opportunity to experience what I would call sincerity, or humility. Plunking my ass down to speak to a group of 300 convicts, all dressed in numbered jonnies can be quite a soul stirring experience; and if your not sincere, they know it, and you can see it in their eyes, and on their faces.
A while back I picked up on Peter stating that he uses empathy in his historical research and posted this to open-waldorf:
Peter Staudenmaier:
Good historiography requires the capacity for empathy and putting oneself inside the mental world of one's subject,"
Mike:
Empathy - 1 : the imaginative projection of a subjective state into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it.
This sounds to me more like the kind of empathy that you are talking about in your articles on Steiner's Racism, your own "imaginative projection" of your own "subjective state". If you don't think so, please elucidate.
Empathy - 2 : the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner;
I'm sorry, but I don't see in your writings this kind of empathy toward Rudolf Steiner. You state that "putting oneself inside the mental world of one's subject" is a requirement for such empathy. That seems like only part of the picture to me (thoughts). I can't help but wonder if you have ever vicariously experienced what Steiner might have been feeling on occasion, say like during the talk he once gave on "Love, and it's meaning in the world".
Of course, it seems somewhat oxymoronical to argue as to weather or not someone truly expresses empathy . Kind of like desiring serenity I guess.