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

Argument, logic and epistemology

Expand Messages
  • ted.wrinch
    Over in sugar land, Dugan has said that Hale has lost the holocaust argument because he hasn t responded and Der Staudi has attacked Dennis, Joel (!) and
    Message 1 of 10 , Sep 7, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Over in sugar land, Dugan has said that Hale has lost the holocaust argument because he hasn't responded and Der Staudi has attacked Dennis, Joel (!) and anthroposophists in general for their lack of familiarity with epistemology. But Dugan is selective in his application of logic and Der Staudi's epistemological knowledge is patchy. The debate a year ago about 'Ostwald, Steiner and materialism', which I took part in, was to a considerable extent about epistemology. And Dugan's response to an debate he couldn't win by argument was the same as he's accused Hale of: he walked away - here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/14690.

      Der Staudi, who was involved in this discussion, also failed to respond and instead walked off making claims of superior knowledge as he went. He likes to claim superior knowledge in general over anyone he disagrees with. This can get him into hot water and a few years ago, in a debate over design in nature with Charlie Morrison, he tried to claim that Charlie was ignorant of the principles of design. He tried to claim that he himself had this knowledge, supposedly from stomping around building sites at some point. To anyone who had worked professionally as a designer it was apparent that he had done no more than read about the topic. Unfortunately for him, Charlie turned out to be an aeronautical design engineer (which didn't stop him from continuing to claim superior knowledge). On the other hand, with people he agrees with he will make startlingly inflated claims of cognitive competence. At the moment he is trying to claim that Diana has a good understanding of epistemology. In the debate over 'Steiner, Ostwald and materialism', which she dropped into from time to time, she supplied very little evidence for this supposed ability.

      The logic evinced in the ongoing hole crusade to claim that there is no spiritual link between the first 40 years of Steiner's life and the last 25 is apparent by its absence. Der Staudi wishes to claim that it is normal for an author to forget who they were at the end of their life, when they perhaps write their autobiography, and to instead make significant things up. He wishes to do this as part of his 10 year plus campaign to undermine Steiner's work. And the best way for him to do this, in the very few academic circles that might have an interest in Steiner, is to undermine Steiner personal credibility. Trying to demonstrate that he made things up is one good way of achieving this. But he has to keep his own motives for his campaign hidden (or risk looking like he is attacking Steiner for personal reasons) by trying to claim that this endeavour has the effect of improving Steiner's image, of making him 'just like any other man'. The real effect of his work can be seen all around him in the hole where Pete, Diana, and co have taken this demonstration as just more evidence that Steiner was 'a liar', 'a snake oil salesman', 'a megalomanic', someone suffering from brain damage, etc.

      So much for argument, logic and epistemology in the hole.

      T.

      Ted Wrinch
    • elfuncle
      ... argument because he hasn t responded and Der Staudi has attacked Dennis, Joel (!) and anthroposophists in general for their lack of familiarity with
      Message 2 of 10 , Sep 7, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@...> wrote:
        >
        > Over in sugar land, Dugan has said that Hale has lost the holocaust argument because he hasn't responded and Der Staudi has attacked Dennis, Joel (!) and anthroposophists in general for their lack of familiarity with epistemology. But Dugan is selective in his application of logic and Der Staudi's epistemological knowledge is patchy.

        None of the Sugar Cherubs seem to understand what epistemology is, and they keep confusing Steiner's epistemolgy as outlined in Truth And Knowledge (GA 3) and the PoF (GA 4) with other statements of his that have nothing to do with epistemology. In a nutshell, it's the investigation into how we acquire knowledge and how we know that we know something. So it's a branch of science belonging to the realm of philosophy. It's subject to evolution and change as human consciousness and culture evolves.

        > The logic evinced in the ongoing hole crusade to claim that there is no spiritual link between the first 40 years of Steiner's life and the last 25 is apparent by its absence. Der Staudi wishes to claim that it is normal for an author to forget who they were at the end of their life, when they perhaps write their autobiography, and to instead make significant things up.


        Exactly. This is only yet another hopeless and brainless discussion going on there, no longer worth commenting. Der Staudi, as you call him, has been insisting for a very long time that Steiner gave false information in his autobio about his life, thoughts and feelings before he was 40, not because he lied about it, and not because he suffered from premature dementia or Alzheimer in his early sixties, but because everybody gets their past wrong when they try to tell about it later. In other words, no autobiographies or memoirs are reliable because people simply can't remember things decades later. And the other Sugar Cherubs only echo Der Staudi's doctrine. Boring and totally absurd.

        It's no surprise that our beloved Adorable Darling (with his sweet vocabulary and blessings in our direction) in the Unthinkable Facility is losing "the holocaust argument" precisely as DD says, because he has always expressed himself in an anti-Semitic vein, apparently inspired by Bondarev, the only person to have his AS membership revoked by the Vorstand to the best of my recollection. Our beloved Adorable Darling keeps refusing to answer whether or not he believes that the Nazi regime had a "final solution" for "the Jewish problem. I've never understood holocaust deniers, because I grew up with first hand accounts from the older generation, and I saw innumerable documentaries, article and books about it. Auschwitz is still standing with all the evidence, and Stephen Spielberg has taped hundreds of interviews with death camp survivors in video, after he made "Schindler's List". To deny these horrible historical facts is madness, and madness is the hallmark of most (if not all?) beloved Adorable Darlings.

        And as "der Staudi" points out, there are others like him. Those are his fellow Adorable Darlings, who sometimes congregate in Yahoo groups of their own. Racism and holocaust denial and fascism and such are things that characterize many of them. It's sadly amusing to see the explosive chemical reaction that results when an Adorable Darling like that is thrown into the Unthinkable Facility, a lair of highly toxic babysnakes and pathological liars affectionately referred to by us as Sugar Cherubs.

        The WC is, of course, a hate group, similar to jihad-watch and jew-watch and all that. When "der Staudi" talks about how many anthroposophically oriented holocaust deniers he can cram into a Volkswagen, implying that a high percentage of anthroposophists are holocaust deniers like our Adorable Darlings, it's like hearing Glenn Beck argue that ten percent of Muslims are terrorists, which would translate into hundreds of thousands, possibly a million.

        Such is the language, the rhetoric, the logic, of hate.

        Tarjei

      • elfuncle
        ... jew-watch ... anthroposophically ... that ... Gee, where s my math? There are a billion Muslims, so if ten percent of them are terrorists like Beck
        Message 3 of 10 , Sep 7, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" <elfuncle@...> wrote:

          > The WC is, of course, a hate group, similar to jihad-watch and jew-watch
          > and all that. When "der Staudi" talks about how many anthroposophically
          > oriented holocaust deniers he can cram into a Volkswagen, implying that
          > a high percentage of anthroposophists are holocaust deniers like our
          > Adorable Darlings, it's like hearing Glenn Beck argue that ten percent
          > of Muslims are terrorists, which would translate into hundreds of
          > thousands, possibly a million.


          Gee, where's my math? There are a billion Muslims, so if ten percent of them are terrorists like Beck suggests, it would mean a hundred million Muslim terrorists. "Der Staudi" as Ted calls him, is implying something similar with regard to the ratio between anthroposophists and holocaust deniers. He doesn't give numbers or percentages, because statistics have never been his strong point it seems, but his constant "academic" hate speech, or rather hate-type, can easily lead an unsuspecting reader to reach the conclusion that lots and lots of anthroposophists are holocaust deniers.

          Tarjei
        • ted.wrinch
          Over in sugar land, Dugan has said that Hale has lost the holocaust argument.. My apologies - they were actually debating epistemology. This got a bit lost
          Message 4 of 10 , Sep 8, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            "Over in sugar land, Dugan has said that Hale has lost the holocaust argument.."

            My apologies - they were actually debating epistemology. This got a bit lost in the melee.

            T.

            Ted Wrinch.

            --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@...> wrote:
            >
            > Over in sugar land, Dugan has said that Hale has lost the holocaust argument because he hasn't responded and Der Staudi has attacked Dennis, Joel (!) and anthroposophists in general for their lack of familiarity with epistemology. But Dugan is selective in his application of logic and Der Staudi's epistemological knowledge is patchy. The debate a year ago about 'Ostwald, Steiner and materialism', which I took part in, was to a considerable extent about epistemology. And Dugan's response to an debate he couldn't win by argument was the same as he's accused Hale of: he walked away - here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/14690.
            >
            > Der Staudi, who was involved in this discussion, also failed to respond and instead walked off making claims of superior knowledge as he went. He likes to claim superior knowledge in general over anyone he disagrees with. This can get him into hot water and a few years ago, in a debate over design in nature with Charlie Morrison, he tried to claim that Charlie was ignorant of the principles of design. He tried to claim that he himself had this knowledge, supposedly from stomping around building sites at some point. To anyone who had worked professionally as a designer it was apparent that he had done no more than read about the topic. Unfortunately for him, Charlie turned out to be an aeronautical design engineer (which didn't stop him from continuing to claim superior knowledge). On the other hand, with people he agrees with he will make startlingly inflated claims of cognitive competence. At the moment he is trying to claim that Diana has a good understanding of epistemology. In the debate over 'Steiner, Ostwald and materialism', which she dropped into from time to time, she supplied very little evidence for this supposed ability.
            >
            > The logic evinced in the ongoing hole crusade to claim that there is no spiritual link between the first 40 years of Steiner's life and the last 25 is apparent by its absence. Der Staudi wishes to claim that it is normal for an author to forget who they were at the end of their life, when they perhaps write their autobiography, and to instead make significant things up. He wishes to do this as part of his 10 year plus campaign to undermine Steiner's work. And the best way for him to do this, in the very few academic circles that might have an interest in Steiner, is to undermine Steiner personal credibility. Trying to demonstrate that he made things up is one good way of achieving this. But he has to keep his own motives for his campaign hidden (or risk looking like he is attacking Steiner for personal reasons) by trying to claim that this endeavour has the effect of improving Steiner's image, of making him 'just like any other man'. The real effect of his work can be seen all around him in the hole where Pete, Diana, and co have taken this demonstration as just more evidence that Steiner was 'a liar', 'a snake oil salesman', 'a megalomanic', someone suffering from brain damage, etc.
            >
            > So much for argument, logic and epistemology in the hole.
            >
            > T.
            >
            > Ted Wrinch
            >
          • ted.wrinch
            The WC is, of course, a hate group, similar to jihad-watch and jew-watch and all that. Yes. This is an observation that I made and shared with the group soon
            Message 5 of 10 , Sep 8, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              "The WC is, of course, a hate group, similar to jihad-watch and jew-watch and all that."

              Yes. This is an observation that I made and shared with the group soon after joining it. It's something they vehemently deny of course, in the same way that those other group would.

              ".. his constant "academic" hate speech, or rather hate-type, can easily lead an unsuspecting reader to reach the conclusion that lots and lots of anthroposophists are holocaust deniers."

              This is true and is all part of his cleverly constructed modus operandii: go as close as you can to claiming that anthroposophists per se are racist, anti-semitic reactionaries whilst maintaining your academic credibility. But he is increasingly crossing that line, perhaps because in the hole he's amongst people that uncritically agree with him and this makes him careless. He similarly likes to try to claim that he follows a modern, scholarly neutral position of 'methodical agnosticism' with respect to truth of anthroposophy, and does not relegate to an anti-scientific, epistemological dustbin. But his increasingly frequent hoots of derision concerning this topic belie that neutrality.

              T.

              Ted Wrinch


              --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" <elfuncle@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" <elfuncle@>
              > wrote:
              >
              > > The WC is, of course, a hate group, similar to jihad-watch and
              > jew-watch
              > > and all that. When "der Staudi" talks about how many
              > anthroposophically
              > > oriented holocaust deniers he can cram into a Volkswagen, implying
              > that
              > > a high percentage of anthroposophists are holocaust deniers like our
              > > Adorable Darlings, it's like hearing Glenn Beck argue that ten percent
              > > of Muslims are terrorists, which would translate into hundreds of
              > > thousands, possibly a million.
              >
              > Gee, where's my math? There are a billion Muslims, so if ten percent of
              > them are terrorists like Beck suggests, it would mean a hundred million
              > Muslim terrorists. "Der Staudi" as Ted calls him, is implying something
              > similar with regard to the ratio between anthroposophists and holocaust
              > deniers. He doesn't give numbers or percentages, because statistics have
              > never been his strong point it seems, but his constant "academic" hate
              > speech, or rather hate-type, can easily lead an unsuspecting reader to
              > reach the conclusion that lots and lots of anthroposophists are
              > holocaust deniers.
              >
              > Tarjei
              >
            • Frank Thomas Smith
              ... ...The WC is, of course, a hate group, similar to jihad-watch and jew-watch and all that. When der Staudi talks about how many anthroposophically
              Message 6 of 10 , Sep 8, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" <elfuncle@...> wrote:
                >
                "...The WC is, of course, a hate group, similar to jihad-watch and jew-watch and all that. When "der Staudi" talks about how many anthroposophically oriented holocaust deniers he can cram into a Volkswagen, implying that a high percentage of anthroposophists are holocaust deniers like our Adorable Darlings, it's like hearing Glenn Beck argue that ten percent of Muslims are terrorists, which would translate into hundreds of thousands, possibly a million.
                >
                > Such is the language, the rhetoric, the logic, of hate.

                It's a method, Tarjei. That's why they love Steve Hale so much. He's a holocaust denier and conspiracy theorist - so they can claim (aka lie) that he's typical of anthropsophists.
                Frank
              • elfuncle
                ... holocaust denier and conspiracy theorist - so they can claim (aka lie) that he s typical of anthropsophists. They may love him, but he s earned his first
                Message 7 of 10 , Sep 9, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Thomas Smith" <fts.trasla@...> wrote:

                  > It's a method, Tarjei. That's why they love Steve Hale so much. He's a holocaust denier and conspiracy theorist - so they can claim (aka lie) that he's typical of anthropsophists.

                  They may love him, but he's earned his first week on the bench already to repent his ad hom sins. (Did DD pick up this practice from ice hockey?) It's not unexpected. I'm surprised he has managed to refrain from the kind of ad hom vocabulary he served to us through --- was it Boris Yeltsin? Stuff like that inspired me to change all their nicknames, or at least most of them, to sweeter and more lovable inventions.

                  Tarjei
                • Frank Thomas Smith
                  ... T: They may love him, but he s earned his first week on the bench already to repent his ad hom sins. (Did DD pick up this practice from ice hockey?) It s
                  Message 8 of 10 , Sep 9, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" <elfuncle@...> wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Thomas Smith"
                    > <fts.trasla@> wrote:
                    >
                    > > It's a method, Tarjei. That's why they love Steve Hale so much. He's a
                    > holocaust denier and conspiracy theorist - so they can claim (aka lie)
                    > that he's typical of anthropsophists.
                    >
                    T: They may love him, but he's earned his first week on the bench already to repent his ad hom sins. (Did DD pick up this practice from ice hockey?) It's not unexpected. I'm surprised he has managed to refrain from the kind of ad hom vocabulary he served to us through --- was it Boris Yeltsin? Stuff like that inspired me to change all their > nicknames, or at least most of them, to sweeter and more lovable inventions.

                    F: Your missing the comedy effect, Tarjei. Here a recent post by Pete K. (knowing your sensibility to disgusting language, I have censured the offending words (actually only one word):


                    Pete K: This is personal and completely unrelated to what we're talking about.

                    ---- you!

                    ---- YOU STEVE.

                    ---- YOU STEVE.

                    Now an off-list message that Steve H. just sent me:
                    "---- you. [Is he cloning Pete, or is Pete cloning him?] I'm doing the work that your dumb old ass couldn't handle in the kitchen. Hell's Kitchen Frankie, that's what they call you.
                    You take the high road and publish words, like in a review. Wow"
                  • elfuncle
                    You re right, And he s loved by them, he really is. As soon as DD puts him on the bench, Di says she hopes he ll be back in a week. I wish those words you
                    Message 9 of 10 , Sep 9, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment
                      You're right, And he's loved by them, he really is. As soon as DD puts him on the bench, Di says she hopes he'll be back in a week.

                      I wish those words you deleted, or that repeated word you deleted -- he is not very imaginative or versatile with his literal skills -- would be permitted over there, or down there rather. Let them deliver what they advertise: "Not for the overly sensitive." DD has been trying to make the Unthinkable Facility respectable with those rules, but it just doesn't work.

                      If DD is as savvy in science as he claims, he probably knows what he's doing with Adorable Darlings. The interaction between Sugar Cherubs and Adorable Darlings is like a course of experimentation with elemental atoms. Sometimes there are loud explosions, at other times there is mutual attraction. The Adorable Darling is usually oxidized, like iron when it rusts, and the Sugar Cherubs get their ideological hate-agenda "reduced", which in chemistry means the opposite of what it sounds like. And I say, the crazier, spacier, nuttier, wackier Adorable Darlings we can send to the Unthinkable Facility, the better. Whenever they show up around here, I always try to point them in the right direction, as politely as I can: To the hole where they all belong. Some people need to go to hell and back before they find salvation. That's why we need to be vigilant with our lovathon towards them. So let's light two candles tonight, Frank, you and I: One for the Sugar Cherubs and another one for the Adorable Darlings.

                      Tarjei


                      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Thomas Smith" <fts.trasla@...> wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" elfuncle@ wrote:
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Thomas Smith"
                      > > <fts.trasla@> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > > It's a method, Tarjei. That's why they love Steve Hale so much. He's a
                      > > holocaust denier and conspiracy theorist - so they can claim (aka lie)
                      > > that he's typical of anthropsophists.
                      > >
                      > T: They may love him, but he's earned his first week on the bench already to repent his ad hom sins. (Did DD pick up this practice from ice hockey?) It's not unexpected. I'm surprised he has managed to refrain from the kind of ad hom vocabulary he served to us through --- was it Boris Yeltsin? Stuff like that inspired me to change all their > nicknames, or at least most of them, to sweeter and more lovable inventions.
                      >
                      > F: Your missing the comedy effect, Tarjei. Here a recent post by Pete K. (knowing your sensibility to disgusting language, I have censured the offending words (actually only one word):
                      >
                      >
                      > Pete K: This is personal and completely unrelated to what we're talking about.
                      >
                      > ---- you!
                      >
                      > ---- YOU STEVE.
                      >
                      > ---- YOU STEVE.
                      >
                      > Now an off-list message that Steve H. just sent me:
                      > "---- you. [Is he cloning Pete, or is Pete cloning him?] I'm doing the work that your dumb old ass couldn't handle in the kitchen. Hell's Kitchen Frankie, that's what they call you.
                      > You take the high road and publish words, like in a review. Wow"
                      >

                    • elfuncle
                      ... literary skills of course -- clumsy me again.... T
                      Message 10 of 10 , Sep 10, 2011
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" <elfuncle@...> wrote:

                        > -- he
                        > is not very imaginative or versatile with his literal skills --


                        literary skills of course -- clumsy me again....

                        T

                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.