To: <anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com>
References: <20040306185240.65631.qmail@web14424.mail.yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Morality and Racism - Selective quotation
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 19:42:23 -0500

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 then Peter Staudenmaier replied to that:
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 in an earlier post:

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 then 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:

Quoting 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

In another post, the exchange continues.