Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

4327Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Sune Nordwall's original post re Peter

Expand Messages
  • at@ael...
    Apr 8, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Daniel wrote:
      "I could never just "discover" it and then pass it off as authentic."
       
      Peter Staudenmaier:
      I did not discover Steiner's 'folk souls' lectures. If you think the published versions of these lectures are not authentic, go ahead and tell us why.
       
      Daniel:
      In those lectures you did "discover" the nordic-germanic sub-race as well as references to the "aryan race". You made them up! They are not in the original. You have even admitted as much!
       
      ---------------------------------------
      Daniel wrote:
      "Peter, your original article invented new content for Anthroposophy (such as the non-existent "nordic-germanic sub-race", which only exists in your article). This new content was produced as "evidence" of racism in Anthroposophy. That seems pretty close to forgery to me."
       
      Peter Staudenmaier:
      It does? Then you don't understand what forgery is. All you say above is that I misrepresented the content of a text that Steiner wrote and published. You do not say that I wrote and published the text myself under Steiner's name.
       
      Daniel:
      I note that you are not denying making up references to the nordic-germanic sub-race and the "aryan race". You can haggle over the use of the word "forgery". I conceed the point (for the third time) - it is not technically forgery in the conventional sense. But it is dishonest.
       
      ------------------------------------------------
      Daniel wrote:
      "It is not the word I would have used, but I can understand why Sune chose it."
       
      Peter Staudenmaier:
      I thought I originally understood his choice of words as well, and I said to him what I just said to you time and time again. Each time he insisted that *forgery* was at stake, not misrepresentation. That is why the whole topic is a waste of time, as I have also frequently pointed out. Aside from Sune, as far as I can tell, all any of you really thinks I did was misread and misportray an authentic text. You do not really think I faked a non-existent text.
       
      Daniel:
      I agree, your treatment of the lecture cycle "The Mission of Folk Souls" in you article "Anthroposophy and Ecofascism" is not forgery. It is simply misrepresentation. Malicious misrepresentation, probably inadvertent and careless originally, but defended almost to the death since then.
       
      Daniel Hindes
    • Show all 8 messages in this topic