Hi Mike, you wrote:
"Please don't draw me into your twisted way of thinking. I don't agree with that."
Okay, so you don't agree that Steiner's work contains both racist and non-racist strands. I take it that this means you deny that there are any racist elements whatsoever in Steiner's work?
"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."
It sounds to me like you have confused several distinct issues. First, I believe in analyzing important ideas regardless of whether they seem foolish to me. Second, the metaphorical significance of these ideas is precisely what is under dispute; it's silly to pretend that I don't understand this siginificance. It would make a lot more sense for you to simply outline your own understanding of this significance, preferably with reference to Steiner's published works on the matter. What do you say?
"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."
Why would that be a problem? Unless I'm incapable of putting the bike back together, I don't see what would be so unhelpful about this. If you are trying to say that you don't know how to put Steiner's doctrines back together after someone else has criticized them and found a flaw within them, then I suppose your analogy makes sense, but I don't know what relevance it might have for me. Surely this is not a good reason to refrain from critique.
"I am a bit irritated but I don't think I am "mixed up." I think that I (and many others) have already explained "why"above. But in brief I'll say it again: Because it has metaphorical significance to those of us who aren't just looking for examples of racist thought to explain in words."
Why would that make any difference? It is obvious that Steiner's racial doctrines have lots of metaphorical significance for any number of anthroposophists. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of whether some of these doctrines are racist.
"RS also frequently mentions the inadequacy of language in trying to describe the world of spirit."
Indeed. But language isn't the problem here. Steiner taught that the world of spirit is reflected in the physical world, and he specifically included race. That's where it gets interesting, from the point of view of determining whether some of his doctrines are racist. Why don't we focus on those doctrines directly?