To: <anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com>
References: <20040305051227.25864.qmail@web14427.mail.yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 13:52:22 -0500

Peter Staudenmaier:
I disagree with your approach to quotation. Full paragraphs are rarely warranted. There is one thing we appear to agree on. You wrote:
Daniel:
"A thing is either true or untrue, regardless of how we subsequently label it or whether there is any opprobrium attached to the label."
Peter Staudenmaier:
Exactly. I say the best thing to do is ignore the opprobrium and concentrate on whether the thing is true or untrue.

Daniel responds:
Here you are sidestepping the question of accuracy again. In the last 24 hours you have twice snipped my posts in a way that distored the original, and I have pointed them both out to you. This is a real problem with your writing, whether you want to admit it or not. Appearently you disagree that your favorite tactic in argumentation - selective representation of opposing viewpoints in a manner that is misleading - is in the least bit problematic. I can grant you this in polemical writing. But if you aspire to write real history, and not merely anti-anthroposophical propoganda, you will have to overcome the inclination to misrepresent things, whether it be my arguments or Steiner's thinking.


You still have not addressed the following points:

How is the reader to separate your polemical from your historical writing (especially if you employ both techniques in one piece).

Whether or not you believe in a subjective reality for ideas, or an absolute one.

Whether or not you wish to claim that you are striving for an honest understanding of Steiner and Anthroposophy (so far you have been very careful not to actually claim this for yourself).

How you hope to avoid charges of hypocricy in accusing Waage of failing to integrate all of Steiner's work into his understanding, and then failing to do so in yours.

Whether the label anti-Semite is ever stigmatizing (which you have been trying to imply it is not).


And the following points I continue to find puzzling:

On the one hand, you have categorically denial that you ever distort the views of others you quote.
On the other hand, you have argued (in the very next sentence) that all quotation necessarily introduces a degree of distortion.

Why attempting to be objective about Steiner would be "an abdication of responsibility." (Unless, of course, you deny the very existence of "objectivity").


I hope you can shed some light on these questions.

Daniel Hindes