|
I jumped in midstream here. Peter Staudenmaier
posted his thoughts on all Anthroposophists to the Waldorf Critics
list. It was copied and discussed on the Anthroposophy Tomorrow
list. It is quite interesting to see how Peter Staudenmaier
attempts to defend his words.
To: <anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com>
References: <20040303170012.54141.qmail@web14423.mail.yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Fwd: Morality and Racism
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 18:55:28 -0500
The whole thing again for reference:
Peter Staudenmaier:
I think there is a logic to this approach, one that lines
up well with the
premise that people cannot discuss topics like racism without
impugning one
another's moral status. Some anthroposophists genuinely believe
that for
purposes of public discussion, who you are is more important
than what you
say, and are quite baffled when others decline to endorse
this basic error.
The recent discussion of my politics is a perfect example
of this view of
'morality'; it fits right in with the notion that critically
describing and
discussing Steiner's racial doctrines is in and of itself
insulting to his
moral character. It may take some time, but eventually anthroposophists
will
need to come to terms with racism and antisemitism as belief
systems, as
worldviews, that can be examined within their historical contexts
and
assessed on that basis. Once that recognition is in place,
I think it will
become much easier to talk about what Steiner said, and assess
these
doctrines within their historical context, without thereby
creating an
unbridgeable gulf between anthroposophist and non-anthroposophist
conceptions of who Steiner was as a person.
Christine:
"NO Peter - you are bold-faced Lying!!"
Peter Staudenmaier:
"If you mean that, then you and I disagree about what
lying means. People who believe what they are saying are not
lying, plain and simple."
Daniel:
Your statement "It may take some time, but eventually
anthroposophists will..." has no qualifier; it applies
to all anthroposophists. 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. 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.
At best your statement was inadvertently overly broad.
Daniel Hindes
PS: 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.
Peter Staudenmaier will do just about anything to deny what
he wrote. It is quite interesing. Follow
the thread. What I can't understand is why he feels the
need to be so stubborn on a point like this, when he could easily
apologize for inadvertantly omitting a qualifier when he intened
one. Instead he will argue that the whole world is stupid for
not reading it the way he would like it to be read. |
