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

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

Expand Messages
  • Sune Nordwall
    Do you ever stop playing mind games? What did you write in our discussion last summer: Lies, damn lies, and diversions ?
    Message 1 of 8 , Jul 20, 2002
      Do you ever stop playing mind games?

      What did you write in our discussion last summer: "Lies, damn lies, and
      diversions"?
    • Deborah
      I am copying and reposting this in case any of the newer members of the list missed it the first time around. I went to Sune s website and read through his
      Message 2 of 8 , Apr 1, 2004
        I am copying and reposting this in case any of the newer members of
        the list missed it the first time around. I went to Sune's website
        and read through his material on Peter Staudenmeier. I found it very
        convincing.

        Nana (Deborah)

        Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 7:13 pm
        Subject: Questions for you, Peter and suggestion to the list



        Peter,

        Some time around the beginning of 2000, you made public your first
        story
        as solo author about anthroposophy and anthroposophical activities. It
        was published by DD on the WC-list and according to the WC-list of
        articles it is still found in its pre-publication version at the site.

        The article constitutes the possibly worst smear published in English
        on
        the internet ever of anthroposophy and anthroposophical activities,
        with
        its refined lighthearted and manipulative argumentation, using a
        mixture
        of unsubstantiated assertions, untruths, half truths, and twisting of
        history to paint a picture of anthroposophy and different movements
        based on anthroposophy as a proto- and pronazi, anti-Semitic and
        racist
        movement, in theory and practice. In what you have written after that
        on
        anthroposophy and activities based on anthroposophy, you have
        continued
        to write in a similar way.

        The article was commissioned by the Norwegian secular humanist journal
        Humanist and published in the 2000/2 issue of the journal and later in
        the 2001/2 issue of the journal of the Swedish Association Science and
        Public Education. It is also published by the formed Swedish Secular
        Humanist Association, and at the site of ISE, with which you are
        associated, and a number of other places on the internet.

        The article starts by a made up description by you of the lecture
        series
        "Mission of Folk Souls", held by Rudolf Steiner in Oslo in 1910. The
        original version of your story about it, that is the one still
        published
        at the mentioned sites, contains a number of statements about the
        first
        lecture and the lecture series in its totality, like:

        "The "national souls" of Northern and Central Europe were, Steiner
        explained, components of the "germanic-nordic sub-race," the world's
        most spiritually advanced ethnic group, which was in turn the vanguard
        of the highest of five historical "root races." This superior fifth
        root
        race, Steiner told his Oslo audience, was naturally the "Aryan
        race." "

        You also for some reason assert that the lecture series, that was held
        in Oslo, was held as a "speaking tour of Norway".

        At different times, it has been pointed out to you, that your
        description of the first lecture and the lecture series, that you have
        made into the foundation store of your further writings on
        anthroposophy, and continued to defend in principle up to today, four
        years after its original publication by PLANS, does not correspond to
        reality in the sense of what Rudolf Steiner actually says in the first
        lecture and in the lecture series in its totality. As reading of the
        lecture, found at
        http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/Steiner/Folkspirits/1-
        GeneralIntroduction.htm
        tells, it does not say one word about what I quote above from your
        introduction.

        Instead it constitutes a description of among other things the basic
        nature of man's supersensible being and something of the basic nature
        of
        Angels, Archangels and higher beings described in the Jewish-Christian
        tradition.

        When it has been pointed out that your story about the first lecture
        and
        the lecture series lacks support in the historically documented
        lecture
        and lecture series, you at least up to last year, more than three
        years
        after your first publication of it, have made fun of these comments by
        blowing smoke screens about it in different ways, last year with the
        added help of DD; see
        http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Staudenmaier.html for a
        number
        of your different stories about it.

        When we corresponded in Nov 2001 about where your article has been
        published, you told that you at one time had sent a "revised" version
        of
        your article to the (I assume webmaster of) the site of ISE, and to
        PLANS to make them replace the original version with what you called
        your "revised" version. See
        http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/pseudovetenskap/Staudenmaier-mail.htm

        One may assume that you in the "revised" version had replaced what you
        had found out was untrue in your original version with what you, when
        revising your article, thought was true.

        Am I correct in assuming that the "revised" version, that you sent to
        them is the version that you sent to John Holland for publication at
        his
        site "OpenWaldorf" last summer?

        In that version, you have taken out the reference to the first lecture
        of the lecture series, that you up to at least last year, two years
        later, with the support of DD, continued to defend in a circumscribing
        way on the WC-list as describing reality and making fun of my way of
        telling that your description of the lecture constitutes a historical
        forgery, in an especially obvious way in relation to the first lecture
        of the lecture series.

        But you also told, in late 2001, that when you saw that they (PLANS
        and
        ISE) had not replaced the original version with the "revised" version,
        in which it must be assumed that you had replaced what you had found
        out
        was untrue with what you then thought was true, you did not bother the
        webmaster of the sites publishing what you considered untrue about it
        (again), telling "I don't take these things nearly as seriously as you
        do", referring to the publication of what you even yourself consider
        to
        be untrue on the internet.

        At one time in the discussion of the truthfulness of what is found at
        the site of PLANS, DD added the statement in passing to the
        site: "PLANS
        does not necessarily agree with or vouch for the veracity of
        everything
        posted in this section" up to this day, as also Gary Bonhiver, as far
        as
        I'm aware of have left the original version of the papers by you
        unchanged at the site.

        After almost two more years, last summer, you socially very smoothly
        then made John Holland, who also still possibly is a member of this
        list, publish what you called a revised version of your original
        article
        at his site. In the "revised" version, you start the article with
        what I
        quote at the bottom of
        http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/pseudovetenskap/Staudenmaier-New.htm

        In the new introduction to the article, made available on the net last
        summer by you through John Holland, you have taken out the reference
        to
        the first lecture of the series, that you for then three and a half
        year
        had defended vigorously in different ways when its untruthfulness was
        pointed out by different people.

        After you, possibly on a trip to Germany during the summer of 2001,
        (finally) had gotten a number of versions of the lecture series in
        their
        more or less original form, knowing that the lecture series in its
        totality was held in Oslo, and still without giving any reason or
        source
        for it, you continue to write, in a similar way as in the original
        article:

        "In June, 1910, Rudolf Steiner, the founder of anthroposophy, began a
        speaking tour of Norway with a lecture to a large and attentive
        audience
        in Oslo."

        continuing to for some mysterious reason indicate that Rudolf Steiner
        went on a speaking tour around Norway, and that the lecture series in
        Oslo was just part of this by you indicated lecture tour around
        Norway,
        without at any time giving any source for this assertion, that I have
        found no support for when asking different people if any source
        indicates that Steiner actually went on such a lecture tour around
        Norway.

        You have also kept basically the whole second part of the
        introduction,
        and assert - few months ago; last summer - after you have gotten the
        whole lecture series and indicated that you actually have read it by
        telling that you have compared different versions of it with each
        other:

        "The "national souls" of Northern and Central Europe belonged, Steiner
        explained, to the "germanic-nordic" peoples, the world's most
        spiritually advanced ethnic group, which was in turn the vanguard of
        the
        highest of five historical "root races." This superior fifth root
        race,
        Steiner told his Oslo audience, was naturally the "Aryan" race" "

        This in spite of - as you would know if you actually had read the
        series
        as you indicate that you have - that Steiner neither mentions "root
        races", tells about "five historical "root races" " or tells in the
        lecture series that "the " "Aryan" race" constitutes the "superior
        fifth
        root race" of the "five historical "root races" ".

        It's all made up by you, Peter, and only few months ago - even after
        having indicated that you have read the lecture series - you assert it
        to be true. For my comments and demonstration of the untruthfulness of
        this already in May 2001, see
        http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Untruths-of-Staudenmaier.htm

        Some time ago, you told on the WC-list, that you slowly were writing a
        book on - I think - Steiner's racial doctrines, and after that, you
        have
        entered this list, telling what you think of it and asking what
        different people here on this list - today - think of these "racial
        doctrines" as you superficially understand and describe them, to my
        understanding milking the participants for material that you can use
        in
        the book you have told that you are writing.

        Can you understand, Peter, that you COMPLETELY lack credibility as
        truthteller in ANY consistent way about anthroposophy and that your
        publishing record the four last years, after your first solo act on
        anthroposophy, tells that you repeatedly in a seemingly completely
        unpredictable make up unfounded and untruthful twissted, malicious and
        smearing stories about anthroposophy, in a way that indicates that you
        will continue to do this also in the book you have told that you are
        writing on.

        Your writings so far all the four last years since you started your
        career as solo writer on anthroposophy outside this list, where you
        appear very civilized and with an air of scholar, indicate that you -
        again - will continue to give seemingly credible quotes from Steiner,
        adding comments like the one on the "voluminous" writings and lectures
        by Steiner on "race" in John's forum, that I commented on some days
        ago,
        neglecting what I have pointed out at for example
        http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/comments1.htm , mixing what you
        write with twisted and superficial arguments about different by you
        superficially understood issues, for some mysterious reason here and
        there adding some clear untruths and unsubstantiated statements,
        twisting info from different sources and using different parts of what
        you have milked out the participants on this list for your
        presentation
        as material complementary the quotes you have selected for the purpose
        out of the published works of Steiner and the rest, while also adding
        some comments to try to make what you write stand out as a "balanced"
        and therefore "credible piece of work?

        And of course not writing such sentences as I do, but very eloquent
        ones
        ...

        For the list:

        I would suggest that noone comments on anything that Peter
        Staudenmaier
        brings up for discussion in terms of "quotes" that he "encourages"
        people here to read and comment on, until AFTER Peter has told about
        what he - today - considers to have been true respectively untrue in
        his
        original version of the article "Anthroposophy and Ecofascism", found
        at
        the site of PLANS and a number of places on the internet.

        Starting with the introduction to the article in question and
        continuing
        with the rest of the article:

        What do you today, Peter - after having gotten a number of versions in
        German of the lecture series "Mission of Folk Souls" - consider to be
        true, respectively untrue in your original introduction to the
        article,
        and can you substantiate what you think is true and giving the source
        for
        - you assertion that Steiner went on a lecture tour around Norway, and
        - what lectures and part of the lectures you base your view on in the
        lecture series in its original form with regard to your "description"
        of
        it, in the original version, and in the revised version of your
        article
        "Anthroposophy and Ecofascism"?

        The first lecture is found in English at
        http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/Steiner/Folkspirits/1-
        GeneralIntroduction.htm
        and in German at
        http://www.anthroposophie.net/steiner/ga/bib_steiner_ga_121_01.htm and
        the whole lecture series at
        http://www.anthroposophie.net/steiner/ga/bib_steiner_ga_121.htm I'll
        help you with the English translation of the source you refer to as
        support of your description of the lecture series.

        Could you start with the source for your assertion, both in the
        original
        and the "revised" version of your article that Steiner went on a
        lecture
        tour around Norway during his visit there?

        Also, list members, consider what you write here from the perspective:
        How will Peter use this in what he writes on anthroposophy?

        Sune
      • Peter Staudenmaier
        Hi Deborah, you wrote: I went to Sune s website and read through his material on Peter Staudenmeier. I found it very convincing. You did? Then maybe you can
        Message 3 of 8 , Apr 1, 2004
          Hi Deborah, you wrote:
           
           
          "I went to Sune's website and read through his material on Peter Staudenmeier. I found it very convincing."
           
           
          You did? Then maybe you can explain how I managed to travel back in time and forge Steiner's 1910 lectures on national souls. That would clear up a whole lot of confusion. Thanks,
           
           
          Peter



          Mit schönen Grüßen von Yahoo! Mail.
          Für die Bilder Ihrer Lieben - Yahoo! Fotos - kostenlos!

        • at@ael...
          Hi Deborah, you wrote: I went to Sune s website and read through his material on Peter Staudenmeier. I found it very convincing. Peter Staudenmaier: You did?
          Message 4 of 8 , Apr 5, 2004
            Hi Deborah, you wrote:
            "I went to Sune's website and read through his material on Peter Staudenmeier. I found it very convincing."
             
            Peter Staudenmaier:
            You did? Then maybe you can explain how I managed to travel back in time and forge Steiner's 1910 lectures on national souls. That would clear up a whole lot of confusion. Thanks,
             
            Daniel:
            You don't have to go back in time to create a forgery. Simple mischaracterization will accomplish the same thing, and can be done from the present.
             
            Daniel
          • Peter Staudenmaier
            Hi Daniel, at last, somebody willing to come forward and explain what they think Sune means! You wrote: You don t have to go back in time to create a
            Message 5 of 8 , Apr 6, 2004
              Hi Daniel,
               
               
              at last, somebody willing to come forward and explain what they think Sune means! You wrote:
               
               
              "You don't have to go back in time to create a forgery."
               
               
              If the document in question was published long in the past, then yes, you do need to go back to the time it was published in order to forge it. Are you sure you know what forgery is?
               
               
              "Simple mischaracterization will accomplish the same thing, and can be done from the present."
               
               
              Yes, mischaracterization is something we can do right now, in the present. But this is not what Sune says I did. Try to remember that Sune and I have discussed this thoroughly in several public forums. Each time I have told him that what he really means is that I simply mischaracterized the content of Steiner's 1910 lectures. But Sune always rejected this idea, and insisted that I committed *forgery*, which is of course something else altogether. Recently he has taken to calling this "spiritual forgery", whatever that might be. If you think that forgery and mischaracterization are the same thing, Daniel, perhaps you could say so. Thanks,
               
               
              Peter

               
              Hi Deborah, you wrote:
              "I went to Sune's website and read through his material on Peter Staudenmeier. I found it very convincing."
               
              Peter Staudenmaier:
              You did? Then maybe you can explain how I managed to travel back in time and forge Steiner's 1910 lectures on national souls. That would clear up a whole lot of confusion. Thanks,
               
              Daniel:
              You don't have to go back in time to create a forgery. Simple mischaracterization will accomplish the same thing, and can be done from the present.

              Mit schönen Grüßen von Yahoo! Mail.
              Mit dem Yahoo! Messenger können Sie Freunde noch schneller erreichen!

            • at@ael...
              Hi Daniel, at last, somebody willing to come forward and explain what they think Sune means! You wrote: Daniel wrote: You don t have to go back in time to
              Message 6 of 8 , Apr 7, 2004
                Hi Daniel,
                at last, somebody willing to come forward and explain what they think Sune means! You wrote:
                 
                Daniel wrote:
                "You don't have to go back in time to create a forgery."
                 
                Peter Staudenmaier:
                If the document in question was published long in the past, then yes, you do need to go back to the time it was published in order to forge it. Are you sure you know what forgery is?
                 
                Daniel:
                Ah, yes. Staudenmaier Logic. All forgeries require time travel.
                I suppose I have to travel back in time to forge a Vermeer painting.
                I have to travel back in time to forge an early printing of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet.
                I could never just "discover" it and then pass it off as authentic. Oh no, time travel is required.
                 
                ---------------------------------------
                Daniel wrote:
                "Simple mischaracterization will accomplish the same thing, and can be done from the present."
                 
                Peter Staudenmaier:
                Yes, mischaracterization is something we can do right now, in the present. But this is not what Sune says I did. Try to remember that Sune and I have discussed this thoroughly in several public forums. Each time I have told him that what he really means is that I simply mischaracterized the content of Steiner's 1910 lectures. But Sune always rejected this idea, and insisted that I committed *forgery*, which is of course something else altogether. Recently he has taken to calling this "spiritual forgery", whatever that might be. If you think that forgery and mischaracterization are the same thing, Daniel, perhaps you could say so.
                 
                Daniel:
                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. It is not the word I would have used, but I can understand why Sune chose it.
                 
                Daniel Hindes
              • Peter Staudenmaier
                Hi Daniel, you wrote: I suppose I have to travel back in time to forge a Vermeer painting. If the painting has been hanging in a museum for eighty years,
                Message 7 of 8 , Apr 8, 2004
                  Hi Daniel, you wrote:
                   
                   
                  "I suppose I have to travel back in time to forge a Vermeer painting."
                   
                   
                  If the painting has been hanging in a museum for eighty years, then yes, you would indeed need to travel back in time in order to have forged it. Steiner's 'folk souls' lectures were first published more than eighty years ago. If you think I forged them, that means you think I traveled back in time to do so. Misinterpreting or misrepresenting an authentic text has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with forgery.
                   
                   
                  "I could never just "discover" it and then pass it off as authentic."
                   
                   
                  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.
                   
                   
                  "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."
                   
                   
                  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.
                   
                   
                  "It is not the word I would have used, but I can understand why Sune chose it."
                   
                   
                  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.
                   
                   
                  Peter
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   

                  Mit schönen Grüßen von Yahoo! Mail.
                  Mit dem Yahoo! Messenger können Sie Freunde noch schneller erreichen!

                • at@ael...
                  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
                  Message 8 of 8 , Apr 8, 2004
                    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
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.