To: <anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com>
References: <20040303170012.54141.qmail@web14423.mail.yahoo.com> <00f001c4017c$6bd80c30$5cbd9f3f@y3gnu>
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Fwd: Morality and Racism
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 22:43:57 -0500

One more time:
The whole thing again for reference:
Peter Staudenmaier wrote for the WC list:
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.

Peter Staudenmaier addressed this in parts.
Quoting Daniel:
Your statement "It may take some time, but eventually anthroposophists will..." has no qualifier; it applies to all anthroposophists."
Peter Staudenmaier:
Only in the sense that it will indeed take some time for *all* anthroposophists to recognize this. You don't really disagree with that part, do you? Surely you don't mean that all anthroposophists currently have an adequate grasp of racism and antisemitism as belief systems?

Daniel responds:
Peter, you are wiggling here. It is unseemly. If you can't even understand your own writing, I have to wonder how well you do with a thinker like Steiner. If you want to clarify your original statement, say so. Don't argue that your new meaning somehow lies in the original. It does not, and anyone who can read English can see this. We are not discussing whether I think all anthroposophists currently have an adequate grasp of racism and antisemitism as belief systems (of course I don't), we are discussing how to read a sentence that starts: "It may take some time, but eventually anthroposophists will..."

Quoting Daniel:
"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."
Peter Staudenmaier:
I disagree. I think that competent readers will note that the entire post was directed toward a specific mindset shared by some anthroposophists. It was quite explicitly not directed toward all anthroposophists as such.

Daniel responds:
The competent reader can read the whole passage at the top of this post and decide for themselves.

Quoting Daniel:
"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."
Peter Staudenmaier:
I don't think the lack of clarity lies with my writing in this case. I think I introduced the post in a very clear fashion. But I am always happy to apologize for any misunderstandings. I will try to be even clearer in the future.

Daniel responds:
If you don't feel that the lack of clarity lies with your writing, then by implication we are addled for reading it as we do. This fits the pattern of denigrating the basic intellectual competence of those who disagree with you. In this case the issue is fairly black and white (actually, it is literally in black and white). If you stand to the death on this, then we must assume that you will take a similar stance on other, more substantive issues as well.

Quoting Daniel:
"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:
Yes, exactly. That is why it is beside the point to bring "lying" into the discussion, when all you mean is that the statement is untrue.

Daniel adds:
Unless, of course, you intend that the author knew that something was untrue when they said it. This was Christine's stance.


Daniel Hindes

He first argues his own meaning against his own words. We are not discussing what he meant, we are discussing what he wrote. Yet he maintains, "I don't think the lack of clarity lies with my writing in this case". Sorry, Peter, this is black and white. Yet he will continue to wiggle.