To: <anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com>
References: <20040303040622.33497.qmail@web14427.mail.yahoo.com>
Subject: Understanding the anthroposophical worldview
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 17:03:22 -0500

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."

Peter Staudenmaier replied.