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

Re: Peter Staudenmaier's latest piece of wisdom

Expand Messages
  • Tarjei Straume
    On January 25, 2004, Peter Staudenmaier wrote a post about me on the WC list that may need a little commenting: Tarjei
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 30, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      On January 25, 2004, Peter Staudenmaier wrote a post about me on the WC
      list that may need a little commenting:

      Tarjei (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/1439)
      is quoted:

      >"If it is important for the PLANS-WC cult to establish that Anthroposophy
      >is a religion and not a science, they should treat Anthroposophy as a
      >religion all the way, in a way that a religion deserves to be treated:
      >With respect and honor. Otherwise, they defeat their own purpose with
      >their utterly depicable and morally bankrupt conduct."

      Peter S. comments:

      >Taking a somewhat different tack from Walden's, I'd say there are several
      >things wrong with this picture. First, on general principles: it is a very
      >bad idea to say that all religions as such deserve to be treated with
      >respect and honor. One obvious example is The Creativity Movement,
      >formerly the World Church of the Creator, which urges its adherents to
      >engage in "Racial Holy War" against Jews and people of color. The
      >doctrines of this religion deserve neither respect nor honor.

      What did Christopher Rocancourt posing as 'Christopher Rockefeller' say
      again? He said that if he asks to borrow your necktie and promises to give
      it back to you but keeps it instead, he is not a thief, but 'only' a liar.
      That's how millions of dollars were lured from people in terms of "loans"
      and "investments." By the same token, if you accuse Peter Staudenmaier of
      saying that Anthroposophy is reminiscent of a sect engaging in racial holy
      war against Jews and blacks, you're a moron in need of better reading
      glasses, or you should go back to school to improve your reading
      comprehension skills. Peter Staudenmaier says no such thing here, and of
      course he has no intention to create this association in the mind of his
      readers. People imagining that have been smoking too much weed, or their
      ramblings are only typical of anthroposophical irrationality.

      The problem for this particular breed of critics is as follows: They argue
      that Anthroposophy is a religion for their own political-judicial reasons.
      If we say it's a religion, they say it isn't. Or if it is, it's not a
      religion worthy of any respect, and another excellent example of a
      so-called religion not deserving respect is the above-mentioned "Creativity
      Movement". These critics won't accept Anthroposophy as a science either, of
      course, and they think the art is crappy. So when Anthroposophy is neither
      a religion, a science, nor an art, all they can say is that it's a piece of
      shit. So they've waged a holy war against this piece of shit and devoted
      much of their lives to it. For what?

      Peter S. continues:

      >Second, even for less aggressively violent religions, public discourse in
      >a secular society depends on the opportunity to criticize and reject, or
      >support and affirm, specific religious beliefs when these beliefs are made
      >public. There is nothing wrong with criticizing particular examples of
      >Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and so forth, when these examples
      >have been put forward by their adherents for public consideration.
      >
      >Third, the demand for blanket respect and honor misconstrues existing
      >arguments about anthroposophy's religious nature (which are in any case
      >not unanimously shared by the "WC cult"), and is moreover obviously
      >incompatible with the self-conception of many anthroposophists that they
      >are engaged in science. A few lines earlier in the same message that
      >Walden quoted, we read that for some anthroposophists, religion and
      >science are in fact the same thing:

      Just for the record: Peter S. appears to have great faith in his own
      clairvoyant faculties if he is conceited enough to imagine that he has any
      inkling of others' self-conception, especially among anthroposophists. And
      if anthroposophists have demanded anything of Peter S. and his cohorts,
      these demands should be quoted. Anthroposophists are not only quite
      accustomed to have their understanding of the Gospel ridiculed and
      blasphemed by people who can see no distinction between the Easter Bunny
      and the Risen One; anthroposophists are also aware that the endurance of
      such blasphemy and ridicule is an important aspect of the Christian
      initiation path called "The Crowning of the Thorns":

      "And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe. And when they had
      platted a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in his
      right hand: and they bowed the knee before him, and mocked him, saying,
      Hail, King of the Jews! And they spit upon him, and took the reed, and
      smote him on the head. And after that they had mocked him, they took the
      robe off from him, and put his own raiment on him, and led him away to
      crucify him." - Matthew 27:28-31

      "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." - Luke 23:34

      [Tarjei]

      >"What's the difference? It's our approach to the holy of holies: An
      >understanding of Christ and the Gospels, and of God as a Being of
      >unalloyed, absolute love. This is sacred, and every insult against it is
      >sacrilege. Whether you call it religion or spiritual science is totally
      >irrelevant."

      [Peter S]

      >This is a remarkable instance of self-misrecognition.

      Again, Peter Staudenmaier's faith in his clairvoyant faculties are quite
      astounding. His trust in his own ability to see how I actually cognize my
      own "I" is a rare case of exceptionally arrogant conceit.

      >If anthroposophy were a science, it would demand public scrutiny and
      >welcome critique and refutation of its central claims, it would encourage
      >skepticism and rigorous doubt, state its own conditions of falsifiability,
      >and treat its tenets as hypotheses subject to constant modification by
      >others. All of these things, of course, have been adamantly rejected by
      >anthroposophists on this list and elsewhere, who do indeed consider their
      >own beliefs to be exempt from the standards of public discourse, and who
      >occasionally become apoplectic when non-anthroposophists decline to grant
      >them this exemption.

      Like I said, this breed of critics will not accept Anthroposophy as a
      religion, an art, or a science, but only as a piece of shit. With this
      view, it's amazing how much time they like to spend in the sewer, even
      celebrating anniversaries of how long they've been knee-deep in it.

      >Which brings us back to the chronic difficulties involved in trying to
      >talk with anthroposophists...
      >
      >Sacreligious greetings to all,
      >
      >Peter Staudenmaier

      When you approach anthroposophists with the pre-conceived notion that you
      know their self-cognition better than they know it themselves, your chronic
      communication difficulties are indeed understandable.

      And God bless you,



      Tarjei Straume
      http://www.uncletaz.com/anthrocritics.html

      "The worst readers are those who proceed like plundering soldiers:
      they pick up a few things they use, soil and confuse the rest,
      and blaspheme the whole." - Friedrich Nietzsche, Mixed Opinions and Maxims
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.