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

Laughter?

Expand Messages
  • ted.wrinch
    I know I shouldn t, and it s breaking free of the Manichean path a little to do so, but I couldn t help laughing a little at this from the prof: A similar
    Message 1 of 13 , Mar 16, 2011
      I know I shouldn't, and it's breaking free of the Manichean path a little to do so, but I couldn't help laughing a little at this from the prof:

      "A similar
      confusion is what leads quite a few Steiner admirers to mistake people like me
      and Zander for materialists and positivists, a highly amusing notion."

      Maybe you can see where I'm coming from now, Cinnamon, if I say, again, that he can only say this because he has no notion of what 'materialism' is. If you accept that my notion has some merit then you'll see why I think this, as it's the same notion I tried unsuccessfully to get him to take seriously for nearly two years on WC (!!). So, two years after I started, he is repeating the same mistake - plus ca change…(it's also Ahrimanic, the same old, unchanging, dull routine for ever; Kafka's K who never enters the castle…).

      This sentence also caught my eye:

      "In the same
      way that esoteric views of science are often distorted, so are esoteric
      perceptions of spirituality."


      I just don't understand how anyone can take his viewpoint on 'science' or 'spirituality' seriously. What evidence has he ever given that he understands much about either?


      But a leitmotiv is his:

      "In a significant sense, this unfortunate aspect of western esotericism reflects
      the standard cultural chauvinism and unacknowledged colonial roots of so much
      esoteric thought…"

      Which I think provides a partial answer to Kim's question about his motivation, and supplements Cinnamon's supposition that he is motivated by the failure of anthroposophy, as the prof sees it, to focus sufficiently on extant material and social conditions. Anti 'colonialism' and 'Western particularism' are part of what he thinks that he's battling in his Quixotic fashion. But in the end you have to feel a little sorry for him.

      T.

      Ted Wrinch
    • cinnamon94@ymail.com
      Ted: I know I shouldn t, and it s breaking free of the Manichean path a little me: a little? :) ... PS: A similar confusion is what leads quite a few Steiner
      Message 2 of 13 , Mar 16, 2011
        Ted: I know I shouldn't, and it's breaking free of the Manichean path a little

        me: a little? :)

        ----

        PS: "A similar confusion is what leads quite a few Steiner admirers to mistake people like me and Zander for materialists and positivists, a highly amusing notion."

        me: I don't understand any of this. I think I may have been the only one to use the term "positivist" and I said that PS was *not* a "brute positivist." As for materialism, maybe he is thinking that it was historical materialism or dialectical materialism we were referring to? If its just anthroposophical materialism then - duh - he's been accused of that many times before and there's really no resolving it because the kind of stuff he does is the definition of anthroposophic materialism. There should be no "confusion" on his part or an anthroposophist's. It is what it is for that one.

        > "In a significant sense, this unfortunate aspect of western esotericism reflects
        > the standard cultural chauvinism and unacknowledged colonial roots of so much
        > esoteric thought…"
        >
        I dunno. I kind of like this idea. Is it morally wrong to use frameworks meant to liberate oppressed people to defend western positions, no matter how fringe? Don't they, and the people who have the opportunity to entertain them, benefit from hegemony and are thus not in the same position? Does the concept of the Other lose its power when it can be applied to a diverse array of groups and peoples? Spiritual imperialism...Thats interesting too. Frank has a Steiner piece where he actually uses the word in reference to the Catholic Church. (http://www.southerncrossreview.org/75/imperialism3.html) So, maybe, the term "spiritual colonialism" is better in the sense of appropriating concepts. I'm going to mull that over...maybe there is something good there...

        Of course, none of that negates the fact that Stephen and Ted were in the boxing ring with no gloves, as Kim pointed out. Its irrational really. I find out the best stuff from people who have front-line engagement with things I want to investigate. They don't need me but I sure as hell need them. Talk about chauvinism...

        Ted: But in the end you have to feel a little sorry for him.

        me: He'll be fine. He seems to have a lot of stamina for this kind of thing. He's also not too concerned about any need to re-evaluate either his approach or his claims. No need to feel sorry because now you know. You both can be fine with it.
      • Kim Graae Munch
        Hi Ted,Beautiful, he loves to see himself as the godly professor who looks down on everybody else, he is more interested in the formulations than the
        Message 3 of 13 , Mar 17, 2011
          Hi Ted,
          Beautiful, he loves to see himself as the godly professor who looks down on everybody else, he is more interested in the formulations than the content.
          Kim

          --- Den ons 16/3/11 skrev ted.wrinch <ted.wrinch@...>:

          Fra: ted.wrinch <ted.wrinch@...>
          Emne: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Laughter?
          Til: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
          Dato: onsdag 16. marts 2011 22.40

           

          I know I shouldn't, and it's breaking free of the Manichean path a little to do so, but I couldn't help laughing a little at this from the prof:

          "A similar
          confusion is what leads quite a few Steiner admirers to mistake people like me
          and Zander for materialists and positivists, a highly amusing notion."

          Maybe you can see where I'm coming from now, Cinnamon, if I say, again, that he can only say this because he has no notion of what 'materialism' is. If you accept that my notion has some merit then you'll see why I think this, as it's the same notion I tried unsuccessfully to get him to take seriously for nearly two years on WC (!!). So, two years after I started, he is repeating the same mistake - plus ca change…(it's also Ahrimanic, the same old, unchanging, dull routine for ever; Kafka's K who never enters the castle…).

          This sentence also caught my eye:

          "In the same
          way that esoteric views of science are often distorted, so are esoteric
          perceptions of spirituality."

          I just don't understand how anyone can take his viewpoint on 'science' or 'spirituality' seriously. What evidence has he ever given that he understands much about either?

          But a leitmotiv is his:

          "In a significant sense, this unfortunate aspect of western esotericism reflects
          the standard cultural chauvinism and unacknowledged colonial roots of so much
          esoteric thought…"

          Which I think provides a partial answer to Kim's question about his motivation, and supplements Cinnamon's supposition that he is motivated by the failure of anthroposophy, as the prof sees it, to focus sufficiently on extant material and social conditions. Anti 'colonialism' and 'Western particularism' are part of what he thinks that he's battling in his Quixotic fashion. But in the end you have to feel a little sorry for him.

          T.

          Ted Wrinch


        • ted.wrinch
          As for materialism, maybe he is thinking that it was historical materialism or dialectical materialism we were referring to? That s the question, as he s
          Message 4 of 13 , Mar 17, 2011
            "As for
            materialism, maybe he is thinking that it was historical materialism or
            dialectical materialism we were referring to? "

            That's the question, as he's never said. But it's unlikely to be those materialisms he's thinking of (is 'historical materialism' different from positivism?). When I was over there, I asked him for a couple of months what his conception was but he wouldn't answer. But he did castigate my answer, which, as I hope I've sufficiently shown, is pretty standard and was the same as Steiner's (and I would hope is the same as 'anthroposophical materialism'); and he did make the same criticism of me as he does in that sentence . So, I think that, though he doesn't conceive of himself as being a materialist, he doesn't understand his own position, since he rejects the standard definition of materialism. In the manner you wouldn't call him a 'brute positivist', I wouldn't call him a simple materialist, but I think that his confusion about the term 'materialism' means that he's confused about the whole field and a lot of materialism does exist in his worldview. As I've said, I think that his confusion about the 'material' means he's almost inevitably confused about the 'spiritual', and it is this that allows him to make large, unverified - and to me incredible - claims such as that he 'takes the spiritual in history seriously' (I cannot think of a time when I was over there that I have seen him do this).

            Re chauvenism and colonialism.

            There's truth in his formulation, but he uses it with such unblinking causticity against Steiner that's its value is lost and it becomes something like mere ideology.

            T.

            Ted Wrinch

            --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "cinnamon94@..." <cinnamon94@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Ted: I know I shouldn't, and it's breaking free of the Manichean path a little
            >
            > me: a little? :)
            >
            > ----
            >
            > PS: "A similar confusion is what leads quite a few Steiner admirers to mistake people like me and Zander for materialists and positivists, a highly amusing notion."
            >
            > me: I don't understand any of this. I think I may have been the only one to use the term "positivist" and I said that PS was *not* a "brute positivist." As for materialism, maybe he is thinking that it was historical materialism or dialectical materialism we were referring to? If its just anthroposophical materialism then - duh - he's been accused of that many times before and there's really no resolving it because the kind of stuff he does is the definition of anthroposophic materialism. There should be no "confusion" on his part or an anthroposophist's. It is what it is for that one.
            >
            > > "In a significant sense, this unfortunate aspect of western esotericism reflects
            > > the standard cultural chauvinism and unacknowledged colonial roots of so much
            > > esoteric thought…"
            > >
            > I dunno. I kind of like this idea. Is it morally wrong to use frameworks meant to liberate oppressed people to defend western positions, no matter how fringe? Don't they, and the people who have the opportunity to entertain them, benefit from hegemony and are thus not in the same position? Does the concept of the Other lose its power when it can be applied to a diverse array of groups and peoples? Spiritual imperialism...Thats interesting too. Frank has a Steiner piece where he actually uses the word in reference to the Catholic Church. (http://www.southerncrossreview.org/75/imperialism3.html) So, maybe, the term "spiritual colonialism" is better in the sense of appropriating concepts. I'm going to mull that over...maybe there is something good there...
            >
            > Of course, none of that negates the fact that Stephen and Ted were in the boxing ring with no gloves, as Kim pointed out. Its irrational really. I find out the best stuff from people who have front-line engagement with things I want to investigate. They don't need me but I sure as hell need them. Talk about chauvinism...
            >
            > Ted: But in the end you have to feel a little sorry for him.
            >
            > me: He'll be fine. He seems to have a lot of stamina for this kind of thing. He's also not too concerned about any need to re-evaluate either his approach or his claims. No need to feel sorry because now you know. You both can be fine with it.
            >
          • ted.wrinch
            … he loves to see himself as the godly professor who looks down on everybody else.. In confirmation of this the prof, in his earlier post, included the
            Message 5 of 13 , Mar 17, 2011
              "… he loves to see himself as the godly professor who looks down on everybody else.."

              In confirmation of this the prof, in his earlier post, included the immortal line:

              "But it is also important to keep in mind that we haven't exactly been treated to
              the cream of the occult crop…"

              I agree re form vs content.

              T.

              Ted Wrinch


              --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Kim Graae Munch <kimgm@...> wrote:
              >
              > Hi Ted,Beautiful, he loves to see himself as the godly professor who looks down on everybody else, he is more interested in the formulations than the content.Kim
              >
              > --- Den ons 16/3/11 skrev ted.wrinch <ted.wrinch@...>:
              >
              > Fra: ted.wrinch <ted.wrinch@...>
              > Emne: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Laughter?
              > Til: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
              > Dato: onsdag 16. marts 2011 22.40
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >  
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > I know I shouldn't, and it's breaking free of the Manichean path a little to do so, but I couldn't help laughing a little at this from the prof:
              >
              >
              >
              > "A similar
              >
              > confusion is what leads quite a few Steiner admirers to mistake people like me
              >
              > and Zander for materialists and positivists, a highly amusing notion."
              >
              >
              >
              > Maybe you can see where I'm coming from now, Cinnamon, if I say, again, that he can only say this because he has no notion of what 'materialism' is. If you accept that my notion has some merit then you'll see why I think this, as it's the same notion I tried unsuccessfully to get him to take seriously for nearly two years on WC (!!). So, two years after I started, he is repeating the same mistake - plus ca change…(it's also Ahrimanic, the same old, unchanging, dull routine for ever; Kafka's K who never enters the castle…).
              >
              >
              >
              > This sentence also caught my eye:
              >
              >
              >
              > "In the same
              >
              > way that esoteric views of science are often distorted, so are esoteric
              >
              > perceptions of spirituality."
              >
              >
              >
              > I just don't understand how anyone can take his viewpoint on 'science' or 'spirituality' seriously. What evidence has he ever given that he understands much about either?
              >
              >
              >
              > But a leitmotiv is his:
              >
              >
              >
              > "In a significant sense, this unfortunate aspect of western esotericism reflects
              >
              > the standard cultural chauvinism and unacknowledged colonial roots of so much
              >
              > esoteric thought…"
              >
              >
              >
              > Which I think provides a partial answer to Kim's question about his motivation, and supplements Cinnamon's supposition that he is motivated by the failure of anthroposophy, as the prof sees it, to focus sufficiently on extant material and social conditions. Anti 'colonialism' and 'Western particularism' are part of what he thinks that he's battling in his Quixotic fashion. But in the end you have to feel a little sorry for him.
              >
              >
              >
              > T.
              >
              >
              >
              > Ted Wrinch
              >
            • Kim Graae Munch
              Another thing is that he will not take stance for anything, as he would be vulnerable, it would be possible to attack him. ... Fra: ted.wrinch
              Message 6 of 13 , Mar 17, 2011
                Another thing is that he will not take stance for anything, as he would be vulnerable, it would be possible to attack him.

                --- Den tors 17/3/11 skrev ted.wrinch <ted.wrinch@...>:

                Fra: ted.wrinch <ted.wrinch@...>
                Emne: Re: SV: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Laughter?
                Til: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
                Dato: torsdag 17. marts 2011 09.19

                 

                "… he loves to see himself as the godly professor who looks down on everybody else.."

                In confirmation of this the prof, in his earlier post, included the immortal line:

                "But it is also important to keep in mind that we haven't exactly been treated to
                the cream of the occult crop…"

                I agree re form vs content.

                T.

                Ted Wrinch

                --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Kim Graae Munch <kimgm@...> wrote:
                >
                > Hi Ted,Beautiful, he loves to see himself as the godly professor who looks down on everybody else, he is more interested in the formulations than the content.Kim
                >
                > --- Den ons 16/3/11 skrev ted.wrinch <ted.wrinch@...>:
                >
                > Fra: ted.wrinch <ted.wrinch@...>
                > Emne: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Laughter?
                > Til: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
                > Dato: onsdag 16. marts 2011 22.40
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >  
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > I know I shouldn't, and it's breaking free of the Manichean path a little to do so, but I couldn't help laughing a little at this from the prof:
                >
                >
                >
                > "A similar
                >
                > confusion is what leads quite a few Steiner admirers to mistake people like me
                >
                > and Zander for materialists and positivists, a highly amusing notion."
                >
                >
                >
                > Maybe you can see where I'm coming from now, Cinnamon, if I say, again, that he can only say this because he has no notion of what 'materialism' is. If you accept that my notion has some merit then you'll see why I think this, as it's the same notion I tried unsuccessfully to get him to take seriously for nearly two years on WC (!!). So, two years after I started, he is repeating the same mistake - plus ca change…(it's also Ahrimanic, the same old, unchanging, dull routine for ever; Kafka's K who never enters the castle…).
                >
                >
                >
                > This sentence also caught my eye:
                >
                >
                >
                > "In the same
                >
                > way that esoteric views of science are often distorted, so are esoteric
                >
                > perceptions of spirituality."
                >
                >
                >
                > I just don't understand how anyone can take his viewpoint on 'science' or 'spirituality' seriously. What evidence has he ever given that he understands much about either?
                >
                >
                >
                > But a leitmotiv is his:
                >
                >
                >
                > "In a significant sense, this unfortunate aspect of western esotericism reflects
                >
                > the standard cultural chauvinism and unacknowledged colonial roots of so much
                >
                > esoteric thought…"
                >
                >
                >
                > Which I think provides a partial answer to Kim's question about his motivation, and supplements Cinnamon's supposition that he is motivated by the failure of anthroposophy, as the prof sees it, to focus sufficiently on extant material and social conditions. Anti 'colonialism' and 'Western particularism' are part of what he thinks that he's battling in his Quixotic fashion. But in the end you have to feel a little sorry for him.
                >
                >
                >
                > T.
                >
                >
                >
                > Ted Wrinch
                >


              • overwhelmedseeker
                No, the professor will open the Gate , the flowers are waiting there for him. I believe in him, even if everyone else has already decided not to. Please
                Message 7 of 13 , Mar 17, 2011
                  No, the professor will open the 'Gate', the flowers are waiting there for him. I believe in him, even if everyone else has already decided not to. Please don't pity him, please don't give up on him. He is tired, I can tell but he wants to open his heart up to love and to receive love - his creativity begging to flow. Whenever he gets scared, he questions his own ability to love himself again. he has tested much but I know how he is 'moving'. I feel he's standing better on his own two feet now than previously. He is NOT a dog like how J. Evola referred to 'fundies' in his book 'Introduction to Magic'. he will not die a dog's death, or that of an animal.

                  Between the things he MUST do and the things he LOVES to do...where's the time for things he 'likes' to do? He'll give up his 'hobby of likes' and create something of a renewed LOVE, I'm certain he's catching on!
                  Love you Pete.
                  S.


                  --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Kim Graae Munch <kimgm@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Hi Ted,Beautiful, he loves to see himself as the godly professor who looks down on everybody else, he is more interested in the formulations than the content.Kim
                  >
                  > --- Den ons 16/3/11 skrev ted.wrinch <ted.wrinch@...>:
                  >
                  > Fra: ted.wrinch <ted.wrinch@...>
                  > Emne: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Laughter?
                  > Til: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
                  > Dato: onsdag 16. marts 2011 22.40
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >  
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > I know I shouldn't, and it's breaking free of the Manichean path a little to do so, but I couldn't help laughing a little at this from the prof:
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > "A similar
                  >
                  > confusion is what leads quite a few Steiner admirers to mistake people like me
                  >
                  > and Zander for materialists and positivists, a highly amusing notion."
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Maybe you can see where I'm coming from now, Cinnamon, if I say, again, that he can only say this because he has no notion of what 'materialism' is. If you accept that my notion has some merit then you'll see why I think this, as it's the same notion I tried unsuccessfully to get him to take seriously for nearly two years on WC (!!). So, two years after I started, he is repeating the same mistake - plus ca change…(it's also Ahrimanic, the same old, unchanging, dull routine for ever; Kafka's K who never enters the castle…).
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > This sentence also caught my eye:
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > "In the same
                  >
                  > way that esoteric views of science are often distorted, so are esoteric
                  >
                  > perceptions of spirituality."
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > I just don't understand how anyone can take his viewpoint on 'science' or 'spirituality' seriously. What evidence has he ever given that he understands much about either?
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > But a leitmotiv is his:
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > "In a significant sense, this unfortunate aspect of western esotericism reflects
                  >
                  > the standard cultural chauvinism and unacknowledged colonial roots of so much
                  >
                  > esoteric thought…"
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Which I think provides a partial answer to Kim's question about his motivation, and supplements Cinnamon's supposition that he is motivated by the failure of anthroposophy, as the prof sees it, to focus sufficiently on extant material and social conditions. Anti 'colonialism' and 'Western particularism' are part of what he thinks that he's battling in his Quixotic fashion. But in the end you have to feel a little sorry for him.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > T.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Ted Wrinch
                  >
                • ted.wrinch
                  Seems right. As I said to Cinnamon, I never could get him to say what he understood by materialism. I also take this to be part of the social science game,
                  Message 8 of 13 , Mar 17, 2011
                    Seems right. As I said to Cinnamon, I never could get him to say what he understood by materialism. I also take this to be part of the social science game, where, in the manner of a physics experiment, one is supposed to efface all subjectivity. You can the the WC denizens unconsciously following this precept with their rule that it's inadmissible to discuss people, only their ideas (not that this is not a good precept in context, as a call to personal balance and discipline).

                    T.

                    Ted Wrinch

                    --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Kim Graae Munch <kimgm@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Another thing is that he will not take stance for anything, as he would be vulnerable, it would be possible to attack him.
                    >
                    > --- Den tors 17/3/11 skrev ted.wrinch <ted.wrinch@...>:
                    >
                    > Fra: ted.wrinch <ted.wrinch@...>
                    > Emne: Re: SV: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Laughter?
                    > Til: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
                    > Dato: torsdag 17. marts 2011 09.19
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >  
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > "… he loves to see himself as the godly professor who looks down on everybody else.."
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > In confirmation of this the prof, in his earlier post, included the immortal line:
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > "But it is also important to keep in mind that we haven't exactly been treated to
                    >
                    > the cream of the occult crop…"
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > I agree re form vs content.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > T.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Ted Wrinch
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Kim Graae Munch <kimgm@> wrote:
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > > Hi Ted,Beautiful, he loves to see himself as the godly professor who looks down on everybody else, he is more interested in the formulations than the content.Kim
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > > --- Den ons 16/3/11 skrev ted.wrinch <ted.wrinch@>:
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > > Fra: ted.wrinch <ted.wrinch@>
                    >
                    > > Emne: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Laughter?
                    >
                    > > Til: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
                    >
                    > > Dato: onsdag 16. marts 2011 22.40
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > >  
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > > I know I shouldn't, and it's breaking free of the Manichean path a little to do so, but I couldn't help laughing a little at this from the prof:
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > > "A similar
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > > confusion is what leads quite a few Steiner admirers to mistake people like me
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > > and Zander for materialists and positivists, a highly amusing notion."
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > > Maybe you can see where I'm coming from now, Cinnamon, if I say, again, that he can only say this because he has no notion of what 'materialism' is. If you accept that my notion has some merit then you'll see why I think this, as it's the same notion I tried unsuccessfully to get him to take seriously for nearly two years on WC (!!). So, two years after I started, he is repeating the same mistake - plus ca change…(it's also Ahrimanic, the same old, unchanging, dull routine for ever; Kafka's K who never enters the castle…).
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > > This sentence also caught my eye:
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > > "In the same
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > > way that esoteric views of science are often distorted, so are esoteric
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > > perceptions of spirituality."
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > > I just don't understand how anyone can take his viewpoint on 'science' or 'spirituality' seriously. What evidence has he ever given that he understands much about either?
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > > But a leitmotiv is his:
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > > "In a significant sense, this unfortunate aspect of western esotericism reflects
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > > the standard cultural chauvinism and unacknowledged colonial roots of so much
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > > esoteric thought…"
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > > Which I think provides a partial answer to Kim's question about his motivation, and supplements Cinnamon's supposition that he is motivated by the failure of anthroposophy, as the prof sees it, to focus sufficiently on extant material and social conditions. Anti 'colonialism' and 'Western particularism' are part of what he thinks that he's battling in his Quixotic fashion. But in the end you have to feel a little sorry for him.
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > > T.
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    > > Ted Wrinch
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                  • cinnamon94@ymail.com
                    Ted, With so many possible definitions, it would be worth the effort to define materialism. And although materialist can be used pejoratively, its actual
                    Message 9 of 13 , Mar 17, 2011
                      Ted,

                      With so many possible definitions, it would be worth the effort to define "materialism." And although "materialist" can be used pejoratively, its actual meaning is more complex in all the contexts that we've been using it.

                      I have no quotes or anything but I can't imagine that, as a whole, Steiner would speak of materialism is an entirely negative way. In line with his overall way of considering subjects, material has its necessary component in the spiritual. I see the need to distinguish:

                      1) Anthroposophic conceptions of materialism
                      2) Classical and neo-classical conceptions of materialism
                      3) Contemporary/post-modern conceptions of materialism

                      There are cross-overs and differences in how the idea of materialism is used in discussion. For example, Ted as a natural scientist focuses on certain questions of materiality whereas someone like me tends to look at historical, cultural and social questions of materiality.

                      I don't have time to work on this today but I am game for contributing to 2-3 on the list.


                      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > "As for
                      > materialism, maybe he is thinking that it was historical materialism or
                      > dialectical materialism we were referring to? "
                      >
                      > That's the question, as he's never said. But it's unlikely to be those materialisms he's thinking of (is 'historical materialism' different from positivism?). When I was over there, I asked him for a couple of months what his conception was but he wouldn't answer. But he did castigate my answer, which, as I hope I've sufficiently shown, is pretty standard and was the same as Steiner's (and I would hope is the same as 'anthroposophical materialism'); and he did make the same criticism of me as he does in that sentence . So, I think that, though he doesn't conceive of himself as being a materialist, he doesn't understand his own position, since he rejects the standard definition of materialism. In the manner you wouldn't call him a 'brute positivist', I wouldn't call him a simple materialist, but I think that his confusion about the term 'materialism' means that he's confused about the whole field and a lot of materialism does exist in his worldview. As I've said, I think that his confusion about the 'material' means he's almost inevitably confused about the 'spiritual', and it is this that allows him to make large, unverified - and to me incredible - claims such as that he 'takes the spiritual in history seriously' (I cannot think of a time when I was over there that I have seen him do this).
                      >
                      > Re chauvenism and colonialism.
                      >
                      > There's truth in his formulation, but he uses it with such unblinking causticity against Steiner that's its value is lost and it becomes something like mere ideology.
                      >
                      > T.
                      >
                      > Ted Wrinch
                      >
                      > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "cinnamon94@" <cinnamon94@> wrote:
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > Ted: I know I shouldn't, and it's breaking free of the Manichean path a little
                      > >
                      > > me: a little? :)
                      > >
                      > > ----
                      > >
                      > > PS: "A similar confusion is what leads quite a few Steiner admirers to mistake people like me and Zander for materialists and positivists, a highly amusing notion."
                      > >
                      > > me: I don't understand any of this. I think I may have been the only one to use the term "positivist" and I said that PS was *not* a "brute positivist." As for materialism, maybe he is thinking that it was historical materialism or dialectical materialism we were referring to? If its just anthroposophical materialism then - duh - he's been accused of that many times before and there's really no resolving it because the kind of stuff he does is the definition of anthroposophic materialism. There should be no "confusion" on his part or an anthroposophist's. It is what it is for that one.
                      > >
                      > > > "In a significant sense, this unfortunate aspect of western esotericism reflects
                      > > > the standard cultural chauvinism and unacknowledged colonial roots of so much
                      > > > esoteric thought…"
                      > > >
                      > > I dunno. I kind of like this idea. Is it morally wrong to use frameworks meant to liberate oppressed people to defend western positions, no matter how fringe? Don't they, and the people who have the opportunity to entertain them, benefit from hegemony and are thus not in the same position? Does the concept of the Other lose its power when it can be applied to a diverse array of groups and peoples? Spiritual imperialism...Thats interesting too. Frank has a Steiner piece where he actually uses the word in reference to the Catholic Church. (http://www.southerncrossreview.org/75/imperialism3.html) So, maybe, the term "spiritual colonialism" is better in the sense of appropriating concepts. I'm going to mull that over...maybe there is something good there...
                      > >
                      > > Of course, none of that negates the fact that Stephen and Ted were in the boxing ring with no gloves, as Kim pointed out. Its irrational really. I find out the best stuff from people who have front-line engagement with things I want to investigate. They don't need me but I sure as hell need them. Talk about chauvinism...
                      > >
                      > > Ted: But in the end you have to feel a little sorry for him.
                      > >
                      > > me: He'll be fine. He seems to have a lot of stamina for this kind of thing. He's also not too concerned about any need to re-evaluate either his approach or his claims. No need to feel sorry because now you know. You both can be fine with it.
                      > >
                      >
                    • cinnamon94@ymail.com
                      But I think his implicit argument is clear as a bell when you take his oeuvre into account. The difficulty lies in that his criticisms of anthroposophy are
                      Message 10 of 13 , Mar 17, 2011
                        But I think his implicit argument is clear as a bell when you take his oeuvre into account. The difficulty lies in that his criticisms of anthroposophy are coming from a form of consciousness (trying to speaking anthroposophically here) that didn't yet exist in Steiner's time. It was coming, for sure. The seeds are there. But it wasn't there yet. So, for me, the argument gets better and better the more we reach the present and less persuasive the more you go back in history to the time of Steiner.

                        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Kim Graae Munch <kimgm@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Another thing is that he will not take stance for anything, as he would be vulnerable, it would be possible to attack him.
                        >
                        > --- Den tors 17/3/11 skrev ted.wrinch <ted.wrinch@...>:
                        >
                        > Fra: ted.wrinch <ted.wrinch@...>
                        > Emne: Re: SV: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Laughter?
                        > Til: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
                        > Dato: torsdag 17. marts 2011 09.19
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >  
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > "… he loves to see himself as the godly professor who looks down on everybody else.."
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > In confirmation of this the prof, in his earlier post, included the immortal line:
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > "But it is also important to keep in mind that we haven't exactly been treated to
                        >
                        > the cream of the occult crop…"
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > I agree re form vs content.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > T.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Ted Wrinch
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Kim Graae Munch <kimgm@> wrote:
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > > Hi Ted,Beautiful, he loves to see himself as the godly professor who looks down on everybody else, he is more interested in the formulations than the content.Kim
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > > --- Den ons 16/3/11 skrev ted.wrinch <ted.wrinch@>:
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > > Fra: ted.wrinch <ted.wrinch@>
                        >
                        > > Emne: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Laughter?
                        >
                        > > Til: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
                        >
                        > > Dato: onsdag 16. marts 2011 22.40
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >  
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > > I know I shouldn't, and it's breaking free of the Manichean path a little to do so, but I couldn't help laughing a little at this from the prof:
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > > "A similar
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > > confusion is what leads quite a few Steiner admirers to mistake people like me
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > > and Zander for materialists and positivists, a highly amusing notion."
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > > Maybe you can see where I'm coming from now, Cinnamon, if I say, again, that he can only say this because he has no notion of what 'materialism' is. If you accept that my notion has some merit then you'll see why I think this, as it's the same notion I tried unsuccessfully to get him to take seriously for nearly two years on WC (!!). So, two years after I started, he is repeating the same mistake - plus ca change…(it's also Ahrimanic, the same old, unchanging, dull routine for ever; Kafka's K who never enters the castle…).
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > > This sentence also caught my eye:
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > > "In the same
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > > way that esoteric views of science are often distorted, so are esoteric
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > > perceptions of spirituality."
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > > I just don't understand how anyone can take his viewpoint on 'science' or 'spirituality' seriously. What evidence has he ever given that he understands much about either?
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > > But a leitmotiv is his:
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > > "In a significant sense, this unfortunate aspect of western esotericism reflects
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > > the standard cultural chauvinism and unacknowledged colonial roots of so much
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > > esoteric thought…"
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > > Which I think provides a partial answer to Kim's question about his motivation, and supplements Cinnamon's supposition that he is motivated by the failure of anthroposophy, as the prof sees it, to focus sufficiently on extant material and social conditions. Anti 'colonialism' and 'Western particularism' are part of what he thinks that he's battling in his Quixotic fashion. But in the end you have to feel a little sorry for him.
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > > T.
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                        > > Ted Wrinch
                        >
                        > >
                        >
                      • bikhe hozho
                        Cinnamon: Good idea. What is your background (professional?) for being able to contribute on these? I must have missed the introduction.... Stephen
                        Message 11 of 13 , Mar 17, 2011
                          Cinnamon:

                          Good idea. What is your background (professional?) for being able to contribute on these? I must have missed the introduction....

                          Stephen


                          --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "cinnamon94@..." <cinnamon94@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Ted,
                          >
                          > With so many possible definitions, it would be worth the effort to define "materialism." And although "materialist" can be used pejoratively, its actual meaning is more complex in all the contexts that we've been using it.
                          >
                          > I have no quotes or anything but I can't imagine that, as a whole, Steiner would speak of materialism is an entirely negative way. In line with his overall way of considering subjects, material has its necessary component in the spiritual. I see the need to distinguish:
                          >
                          > 1) Anthroposophic conceptions of materialism
                          > 2) Classical and neo-classical conceptions of materialism
                          > 3) Contemporary/post-modern conceptions of materialism
                          >
                          > There are cross-overs and differences in how the idea of materialism is used in discussion. For example, Ted as a natural scientist focuses on certain questions of materiality whereas someone like me tends to look at historical, cultural and social questions of materiality.
                          >
                          > I don't have time to work on this today but I am game for contributing to 2-3 on the list.
                          >
                          >
                          > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
                          > >
                          > > "As for
                          > > materialism, maybe he is thinking that it was historical materialism or
                          > > dialectical materialism we were referring to? "
                          > >
                          > > That's the question, as he's never said. But it's unlikely to be those materialisms he's thinking of (is 'historical materialism' different from positivism?). When I was over there, I asked him for a couple of months what his conception was but he wouldn't answer. But he did castigate my answer, which, as I hope I've sufficiently shown, is pretty standard and was the same as Steiner's (and I would hope is the same as 'anthroposophical materialism'); and he did make the same criticism of me as he does in that sentence . So, I think that, though he doesn't conceive of himself as being a materialist, he doesn't understand his own position, since he rejects the standard definition of materialism. In the manner you wouldn't call him a 'brute positivist', I wouldn't call him a simple materialist, but I think that his confusion about the term 'materialism' means that he's confused about the whole field and a lot of materialism does exist in his worldview. As I've said, I think that his confusion about the 'material' means he's almost inevitably confused about the 'spiritual', and it is this that allows him to make large, unverified - and to me incredible - claims such as that he 'takes the spiritual in history seriously' (I cannot think of a time when I was over there that I have seen him do this).
                          > >
                          > > Re chauvenism and colonialism.
                          > >
                          > > There's truth in his formulation, but he uses it with such unblinking causticity against Steiner that's its value is lost and it becomes something like mere ideology.
                          > >
                          > > T.
                          > >
                          > > Ted Wrinch
                          > >
                          > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "cinnamon94@" <cinnamon94@> wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > Ted: I know I shouldn't, and it's breaking free of the Manichean path a little
                          > > >
                          > > > me: a little? :)
                          > > >
                          > > > ----
                          > > >
                          > > > PS: "A similar confusion is what leads quite a few Steiner admirers to mistake people like me and Zander for materialists and positivists, a highly amusing notion."
                          > > >
                          > > > me: I don't understand any of this. I think I may have been the only one to use the term "positivist" and I said that PS was *not* a "brute positivist." As for materialism, maybe he is thinking that it was historical materialism or dialectical materialism we were referring to? If its just anthroposophical materialism then - duh - he's been accused of that many times before and there's really no resolving it because the kind of stuff he does is the definition of anthroposophic materialism. There should be no "confusion" on his part or an anthroposophist's. It is what it is for that one.
                          > > >
                          > > > > "In a significant sense, this unfortunate aspect of western esotericism reflects
                          > > > > the standard cultural chauvinism and unacknowledged colonial roots of so much
                          > > > > esoteric thought…"
                          > > > >
                          > > > I dunno. I kind of like this idea. Is it morally wrong to use frameworks meant to liberate oppressed people to defend western positions, no matter how fringe? Don't they, and the people who have the opportunity to entertain them, benefit from hegemony and are thus not in the same position? Does the concept of the Other lose its power when it can be applied to a diverse array of groups and peoples? Spiritual imperialism...Thats interesting too. Frank has a Steiner piece where he actually uses the word in reference to the Catholic Church. (http://www.southerncrossreview.org/75/imperialism3.html) So, maybe, the term "spiritual colonialism" is better in the sense of appropriating concepts. I'm going to mull that over...maybe there is something good there...
                          > > >
                          > > > Of course, none of that negates the fact that Stephen and Ted were in the boxing ring with no gloves, as Kim pointed out. Its irrational really. I find out the best stuff from people who have front-line engagement with things I want to investigate. They don't need me but I sure as hell need them. Talk about chauvinism...
                          > > >
                          > > > Ted: But in the end you have to feel a little sorry for him.
                          > > >
                          > > > me: He'll be fine. He seems to have a lot of stamina for this kind of thing. He's also not too concerned about any need to re-evaluate either his approach or his claims. No need to feel sorry because now you know. You both can be fine with it.
                          > > >
                          > >
                          >
                        • cinnamon94@ymail.com
                          I have an advanced degree in a humanities/social science area. So, I am very familiar with the philosophical milieu at the time of Steiner. That is the main
                          Message 12 of 13 , Mar 17, 2011
                            I have an advanced degree in a humanities/social science area. So, I am very familiar with the philosophical milieu at the time of Steiner. That is the main way I approach his work (ie those are my "tools"). Theory/philosophy are not the main focus of things I do so working on this would be good for me, especially as it helps me to understand Steiner.



                            --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "bikhe hozho" <hozhonahasglii@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Cinnamon:
                            >
                            > Good idea. What is your background (professional?) for being able to contribute on these? I must have missed the introduction....
                            >
                            > Stephen
                            >
                            >
                            > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "cinnamon94@" <cinnamon94@> wrote:
                            > >
                            > > Ted,
                            > >
                            > > With so many possible definitions, it would be worth the effort to define "materialism." And although "materialist" can be used pejoratively, its actual meaning is more complex in all the contexts that we've been using it.
                            > >
                            > > I have no quotes or anything but I can't imagine that, as a whole, Steiner would speak of materialism is an entirely negative way. In line with his overall way of considering subjects, material has its necessary component in the spiritual. I see the need to distinguish:
                            > >
                            > > 1) Anthroposophic conceptions of materialism
                            > > 2) Classical and neo-classical conceptions of materialism
                            > > 3) Contemporary/post-modern conceptions of materialism
                            > >
                            > > There are cross-overs and differences in how the idea of materialism is used in discussion. For example, Ted as a natural scientist focuses on certain questions of materiality whereas someone like me tends to look at historical, cultural and social questions of materiality.
                            > >
                            > > I don't have time to work on this today but I am game for contributing to 2-3 on the list.
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
                            > > >
                            > > > "As for
                            > > > materialism, maybe he is thinking that it was historical materialism or
                            > > > dialectical materialism we were referring to? "
                            > > >
                            > > > That's the question, as he's never said. But it's unlikely to be those materialisms he's thinking of (is 'historical materialism' different from positivism?). When I was over there, I asked him for a couple of months what his conception was but he wouldn't answer. But he did castigate my answer, which, as I hope I've sufficiently shown, is pretty standard and was the same as Steiner's (and I would hope is the same as 'anthroposophical materialism'); and he did make the same criticism of me as he does in that sentence . So, I think that, though he doesn't conceive of himself as being a materialist, he doesn't understand his own position, since he rejects the standard definition of materialism. In the manner you wouldn't call him a 'brute positivist', I wouldn't call him a simple materialist, but I think that his confusion about the term 'materialism' means that he's confused about the whole field and a lot of materialism does exist in his worldview. As I've said, I think that his confusion about the 'material' means he's almost inevitably confused about the 'spiritual', and it is this that allows him to make large, unverified - and to me incredible - claims such as that he 'takes the spiritual in history seriously' (I cannot think of a time when I was over there that I have seen him do this).
                            > > >
                            > > > Re chauvenism and colonialism.
                            > > >
                            > > > There's truth in his formulation, but he uses it with such unblinking causticity against Steiner that's its value is lost and it becomes something like mere ideology.
                            > > >
                            > > > T.
                            > > >
                            > > > Ted Wrinch
                            > > >
                            > > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "cinnamon94@" <cinnamon94@> wrote:
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > > Ted: I know I shouldn't, and it's breaking free of the Manichean path a little
                            > > > >
                            > > > > me: a little? :)
                            > > > >
                            > > > > ----
                            > > > >
                            > > > > PS: "A similar confusion is what leads quite a few Steiner admirers to mistake people like me and Zander for materialists and positivists, a highly amusing notion."
                            > > > >
                            > > > > me: I don't understand any of this. I think I may have been the only one to use the term "positivist" and I said that PS was *not* a "brute positivist." As for materialism, maybe he is thinking that it was historical materialism or dialectical materialism we were referring to? If its just anthroposophical materialism then - duh - he's been accused of that many times before and there's really no resolving it because the kind of stuff he does is the definition of anthroposophic materialism. There should be no "confusion" on his part or an anthroposophist's. It is what it is for that one.
                            > > > >
                            > > > > > "In a significant sense, this unfortunate aspect of western esotericism reflects
                            > > > > > the standard cultural chauvinism and unacknowledged colonial roots of so much
                            > > > > > esoteric thought…"
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > I dunno. I kind of like this idea. Is it morally wrong to use frameworks meant to liberate oppressed people to defend western positions, no matter how fringe? Don't they, and the people who have the opportunity to entertain them, benefit from hegemony and are thus not in the same position? Does the concept of the Other lose its power when it can be applied to a diverse array of groups and peoples? Spiritual imperialism...Thats interesting too. Frank has a Steiner piece where he actually uses the word in reference to the Catholic Church. (http://www.southerncrossreview.org/75/imperialism3.html) So, maybe, the term "spiritual colonialism" is better in the sense of appropriating concepts. I'm going to mull that over...maybe there is something good there...
                            > > > >
                            > > > > Of course, none of that negates the fact that Stephen and Ted were in the boxing ring with no gloves, as Kim pointed out. Its irrational really. I find out the best stuff from people who have front-line engagement with things I want to investigate. They don't need me but I sure as hell need them. Talk about chauvinism...
                            > > > >
                            > > > > Ted: But in the end you have to feel a little sorry for him.
                            > > > >
                            > > > > me: He'll be fine. He seems to have a lot of stamina for this kind of thing. He's also not too concerned about any need to re-evaluate either his approach or his claims. No need to feel sorry because now you know. You both can be fine with it.
                            > > > >
                            > > >
                            > >
                            >
                          • ted.wrinch
                            Afternoon Cinnamon, I think I ve provided a brief, but perhaps adequate to get us going, definition, and indicated Steiner s take on it, here
                            Message 13 of 13 , Mar 17, 2011
                              Afternoon Cinnamon,

                              I think I've provided a brief, but perhaps adequate to get us going, definition, and indicated Steiner's take on it, here http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/46608. I can amplify or elaborate on this as you wish (atomism and the primary/secondary quality distinction are important for me, and were for Steiner).

                              As regards the history from Steiner to us: I don't see much change in the concept. I did try ploughing through a bit of Lange's 'History of materialism' but didn't learn much that I didn't know already. The hazy outline of the materialism I've described had already been painted by Democritus, back in ancient Greece.

                              I think that the concept I've outlined is foundational - I think that you can see from those quotes that it was important to Steiner too. Other concepts can no doubt be built up and out from this one - the popular understanding of moral materialism, coveting the material, comes straight from it. Steiner thought materialism as a method of inquiry for understanding the physical world (what is now called methodological materialism and which is the default approach for much of science) was exemplary and a necessary part of our age's Zeitgeist that promoted clarity and independence of thought; he only objected to it when people tried to promote it to a worldview. I would be interested in your thoughts on the kinds of materialisms you distinguish and particularly how they relate to what I've called the foundation concept (I'd be interested to know whether you agree with this characterisation too).

                              T.

                              Ted Wrinch

                              --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "cinnamon94@..." <cinnamon94@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > Ted,
                              >
                              > With so many possible definitions, it would be worth the effort to define "materialism." And although "materialist" can be used pejoratively, its actual meaning is more complex in all the contexts that we've been using it.
                              >
                              > I have no quotes or anything but I can't imagine that, as a whole, Steiner would speak of materialism is an entirely negative way. In line with his overall way of considering subjects, material has its necessary component in the spiritual. I see the need to distinguish:
                              >
                              > 1) Anthroposophic conceptions of materialism
                              > 2) Classical and neo-classical conceptions of materialism
                              > 3) Contemporary/post-modern conceptions of materialism
                              >
                              > There are cross-overs and differences in how the idea of materialism is used in discussion. For example, Ted as a natural scientist focuses on certain questions of materiality whereas someone like me tends to look at historical, cultural and social questions of materiality.
                              >
                              > I don't have time to work on this today but I am game for contributing to 2-3 on the list.
                              >
                              >
                              > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
                              > >
                              > > "As for
                              > > materialism, maybe he is thinking that it was historical materialism or
                              > > dialectical materialism we were referring to? "
                              > >
                              > > That's the question, as he's never said. But it's unlikely to be those materialisms he's thinking of (is 'historical materialism' different from positivism?). When I was over there, I asked him for a couple of months what his conception was but he wouldn't answer. But he did castigate my answer, which, as I hope I've sufficiently shown, is pretty standard and was the same as Steiner's (and I would hope is the same as 'anthroposophical materialism'); and he did make the same criticism of me as he does in that sentence . So, I think that, though he doesn't conceive of himself as being a materialist, he doesn't understand his own position, since he rejects the standard definition of materialism. In the manner you wouldn't call him a 'brute positivist', I wouldn't call him a simple materialist, but I think that his confusion about the term 'materialism' means that he's confused about the whole field and a lot of materialism does exist in his worldview. As I've said, I think that his confusion about the 'material' means he's almost inevitably confused about the 'spiritual', and it is this that allows him to make large, unverified - and to me incredible - claims such as that he 'takes the spiritual in history seriously' (I cannot think of a time when I was over there that I have seen him do this).
                              > >
                              > > Re chauvenism and colonialism.
                              > >
                              > > There's truth in his formulation, but he uses it with such unblinking causticity against Steiner that's its value is lost and it becomes something like mere ideology.
                              > >
                              > > T.
                              > >
                              > > Ted Wrinch
                              > >
                              > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "cinnamon94@" <cinnamon94@> wrote:
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > > Ted: I know I shouldn't, and it's breaking free of the Manichean path a little
                              > > >
                              > > > me: a little? :)
                              > > >
                              > > > ----
                              > > >
                              > > > PS: "A similar confusion is what leads quite a few Steiner admirers to mistake people like me and Zander for materialists and positivists, a highly amusing notion."
                              > > >
                              > > > me: I don't understand any of this. I think I may have been the only one to use the term "positivist" and I said that PS was *not* a "brute positivist." As for materialism, maybe he is thinking that it was historical materialism or dialectical materialism we were referring to? If its just anthroposophical materialism then - duh - he's been accused of that many times before and there's really no resolving it because the kind of stuff he does is the definition of anthroposophic materialism. There should be no "confusion" on his part or an anthroposophist's. It is what it is for that one.
                              > > >
                              > > > > "In a significant sense, this unfortunate aspect of western esotericism reflects
                              > > > > the standard cultural chauvinism and unacknowledged colonial roots of so much
                              > > > > esoteric thought…"
                              > > > >
                              > > > I dunno. I kind of like this idea. Is it morally wrong to use frameworks meant to liberate oppressed people to defend western positions, no matter how fringe? Don't they, and the people who have the opportunity to entertain them, benefit from hegemony and are thus not in the same position? Does the concept of the Other lose its power when it can be applied to a diverse array of groups and peoples? Spiritual imperialism...Thats interesting too. Frank has a Steiner piece where he actually uses the word in reference to the Catholic Church. (http://www.southerncrossreview.org/75/imperialism3.html) So, maybe, the term "spiritual colonialism" is better in the sense of appropriating concepts. I'm going to mull that over...maybe there is something good there...
                              > > >
                              > > > Of course, none of that negates the fact that Stephen and Ted were in the boxing ring with no gloves, as Kim pointed out. Its irrational really. I find out the best stuff from people who have front-line engagement with things I want to investigate. They don't need me but I sure as hell need them. Talk about chauvinism...
                              > > >
                              > > > Ted: But in the end you have to feel a little sorry for him.
                              > > >
                              > > > me: He'll be fine. He seems to have a lot of stamina for this kind of thing. He's also not too concerned about any need to re-evaluate either his approach or his claims. No need to feel sorry because now you know. You both can be fine with it.
                              > > >
                              > >
                              >
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.