Hello Peter, I wrote:
"I'm sure a Chinese person would "feel" disgusted
when presented with the very select quotes that you selectively present in
your very select method that discards any attempt at metaphorical
understanding and implies it to be irrational. And conveniently discards
almost all inspirational material. I'm also
sure that a Chinese person would "feel" quite gratified by much of other RS
writings presented by someone who might be inspired by some
of RS's work."
Great. So we agree that Steiner's work contains both racist and
Please don't draw me into your twisted way of
thinking. I don't agree with that.
I think that you see it that way because you like
to deconstruct ideas that seem foolish to you because you really don't
understand their metaphorical significance. I'm sure that the deconstruction
of ideas has it's place. But the kind of deconstructionism that you do with RS
and anthroposophy is like me coming over to your house and taking your bike
apart to find a mechanical flaw, and telling you that the chain is rusted
to the core and then leaving it there in your driveway in pieces for
"You know, the irony of you commenting on this
question is what prompted my response. For a minuet there I thought you
might actually care about how other people might feel."
You mean how you personally feel? No, I confess
that I don't care much about that. I don't have a particularly high opinion of
you as a person, to the extent that such assessments are even
possible from email discussion. But this has nothing to do with the ideas you
put forward. Those can be assessed regardless of personal
No, I was talking about how the Chinese must
feel, in the context of Raymond's question that you put forth as an example.
Raymond asked about how the Chinese must feel, because he cared about that. I
thought that to be a noble question, coming from someone that seems to like
some of RS's writings.
For what it's worth, I have a high regard for you
as a person, as I try to have with every person that I meet. And I get to
meet allot of people that suffer the societal stigma of compartmentalized
thinking that leaves them in the category of disrespect as a "Person," because
they were raised by people that don't understand the idea of compassion,
and where it truly comes from. I don't particularly care for
the compassionless behavior that allot of recovering dope-fiends exhibit;
but on the occasion when I have had the chance to offer them up some kind of
compassionate gesture, in spite of some seemingly dumb ideas or behavior, I
have seen big burley scary looking biker dudes break down in tears. That's the
"Person" that I'm talking about.
"I think is quite bizarre that this is the only
thing that interests you about RS."
It's not the only thing that interests me about Steiner, it's just one of
the two things I came here to talk about.
And you wonder why you seem to have so much
difficulty "Talking to Anthroposophists."
I am not an Anthroposophist by the way. Unless of
course you want to label me as such. I consider myself more of a Human
Maybe this strikes you as bizarre because you're not used to sustained
focus on specific subjects, or maybe it strikes you as bizarre because you
don't have much use for intellectuals. Or maybe there's some other reason. In
any case, I think there is nothing unusual about concentrating our attention
on particular aspects of anthroposophy, especially those that are notably
Alright, I'll give you the "nothing unusual"
thing. I just don't understand why you won't talk about other subjects, of
which there are a wide variety here; It paints a bias sectarian picture. When
Tarjei Dottie myself and others were on the Critics list, we frequently
engaged in different topics. Tarjei has posted a great thread on
morality on his web site for instance.
And I wouldn't say that I "don't have much use
for intellectuals." It's the nihilistic potential of "intellectualism" that
Truth and Love