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

RE: [wc] discussion of Anthroposophy and Ecofascism on mums' net

Expand Messages
  • Peter Staudenmaier
    Thanks once again to Zooey for pointing this out. It looks like at least one of the other discussion participants at mumsnet (not just Sune) finds the
    Message 1 of 12 , Feb 3, 2008
      Thanks once again to Zooey for pointing this out. It looks like at least one of the other discussion participants at mumsnet (not just Sune) finds the Defending Steiner and Waldorf Answers and Americans for Waldorf responses compelling. I am not sure if this is due to limited familiarity with the topic or to a basically sympathetic attitude toward anthroposophy, or both. For what it's worth, I have replied to the "Defending Steiner" site, the "Waldorf Answers" site, and the "Americans for Waldorf Education" site at some length. These replies are, of course, never mentioned at the sites themselves. Aside from severely misunderstanding my argument in "Anthroposophy and Ecofascism," all three sites make a large number of historically inaccurate claims. Some of these errors are quite remarkable, and they probably tell us as much about Waldorf and anthroposophical approaches to history in general as they do about anthroposophist attitudes toward their own movement's history. I very much encourage would-be defenders of Waldorf to take at least a brief look at this material.

      For anybody interested, some examples of my various replies to the historical claims made at these websites can be found here:


      http://lists.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1720975998&sort=d&start=37617


      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/1197


      http://lists.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1720229696&sort=d&start=31351


      http://lists.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1720912118&sort=d&start=36961


      http://lists.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1720934097&sort=d&start=37242


      http://lists.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1720961267&sort=d&start=37467


      http://lists.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1720947381&sort=d&start=37392




      As always, I welcome responses from one and all.


      Peter Staudenmaier




      > Subject: [wc] discussion of Anthroposophy and Ecofascism on mums' net
      >
      >
      > Apparently this is some kind of discussion board for parents (or something, I wouldn't know ;))
      >
      > http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/43/469080?addwatch=1

      _________________________________________________________________
      Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live.
      http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_012008
    • cathy223146
      Sune seems to have dug himself into a hole in this discussion. His attempts to explain wake cosciouness have perplexed and amazed people even more- but I
      Message 2 of 12 , Feb 4, 2008
        Sune seems to have dug himself into a hole in this discussion.
        His attempts to explain "wake cosciouness" have perplexed and amazed
        people even more- but I hand it to him for trying actually.

        He now says there' too much rubbish for meaningful dicussion.....

        I think his petty point scoring about whether a lecture was spoken or
        published, similar to Daniel Hindes drama about the translation
        of "to" and "of" only accentuate their desperation.

        I've "speed read" some of your links here Peter-( and am looking
        forward to reading them in detail)- one sentence at the end sums it
        up - where you point out that instead of trying to justify Steiner's
        words, or hide them in a veil of trivial detail - it would be more to
        the point to question it openly , and see where it fits in to today's
        movement.

        Cathy




        > Thanks once again to Zooey for pointing this out. It looks like at
        least one of the other discussion participants at mumsnet (not just
        Sune) finds the Defending Steiner and Waldorf Answers and Americans
        for Waldorf responses compelling. I am not sure if this is due to
        limited familiarity with the topic or to a basically sympathetic
        attitude toward anthroposophy, or both. For what it's worth, I have
        replied to the "Defending Steiner" site, the "Waldorf Answers" site,
        and the "Americans for Waldorf Education" site at some length. These
        replies are, of course, never mentioned at the sites themselves.
        Aside from severely misunderstanding my argument in "Anthroposophy
        and Ecofascism," all three sites make a large number of historically
        inaccurate claims. Some of these errors are quite remarkable, and
        they probably tell us as much about Waldorf and anthroposophical
        approaches to history in general as they do about anthroposophist
        attitudes toward their own movement's history. I very much encourage
        would-be defenders of Waldorf to take at least a brief look at this
        material.
        >
        > For anybody interested, some examples of my various replies to the
        historical claims made at these websites can be found here:
        >
        >
        > http://lists.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?
        mid=1720975998&sort=d&start=37617
        >
        >
        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/1197
        >
        >
        > http://lists.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?
        mid=1720229696&sort=d&start=31351
        >
        >
        > http://lists.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?
        mid=1720912118&sort=d&start=36961
        >
        >
        > http://lists.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?
        mid=1720934097&sort=d&start=37242
        >
        >
        > http://lists.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?
        mid=1720961267&sort=d&start=37467
        >
        >
        > http://lists.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?
        mid=1720947381&sort=d&start=37392
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > As always, I welcome responses from one and all.
        >
        >
        > Peter Staudenmaier
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > > Subject: [wc] discussion of Anthroposophy and Ecofascism on mums'
        net
        > >
        > >
        > > Apparently this is some kind of discussion board for parents (or
        something, I wouldn't know ;))
        > >
        > > http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/43/469080?addwatch=1
        >
        > _________________________________________________________________
        > Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live.
        > http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?
        ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_012008
        >
      • winters_diana
        ... Just to clarify, DOFs ( defenders of the faith ) sometimes claim that many of Steiner s lectures contain errors because the Great Man did not have time to
        Message 3 of 12 , Feb 4, 2008
          Cathy:

          >I think his petty point scoring about whether a lecture was spoken
          >or published,

          Just to clarify, DOFs ("defenders of the faith") sometimes claim that
          many of Steiner's lectures contain errors because the Great Man did
          not have time to review or edit them before publication. Legend has it
          they're full of typos and/or things the transcriptionist mis-heard or
          misunderstood. As if that should make some huge difference regarding
          the racial material - we're supposed to imagine there's an off chance
          that weird racial things somehow crept in that Steiner never actually
          said ??????
        • Zooey
          That s not very clairvoyant of Steiner! Maybe the people who wrote the lectures down were very racist. Maybe his audience and those who purchased the lectures,
          Message 4 of 12 , Feb 4, 2008
            That's not very clairvoyant of Steiner! Maybe the people who wrote the lectures down were very racist. Maybe his audience and those who purchased the lectures, once published, were very racist, too, and never alerted poor Steiner to thes unfortunate "misquotations."

            This does raise a number of new questions about Steiner's adherents, though.


            winters_diana <diana.winters@...> wrote: Cathy:

            >I think his petty point scoring about whether a lecture was spoken
            >or published,

            Just to clarify, DOFs ("defenders of the faith") sometimes claim that
            many of Steiner's lectures contain errors because the Great Man did
            not have time to review or edit them before publication. Legend has it
            they're full of typos and/or things the transcriptionist mis-heard or
            misunderstood. As if that should make some huge difference regarding
            the racial material - we're supposed to imagine there's an off chance
            that weird racial things somehow crept in that Steiner never actually
            said ??????






            ---------------------------------
            Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox.

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Peter Staudenmaier
            ... I d like to second Diana s point. This is indeed why folks like Sune, and many other defenders of Steiner s racial doctrines, are conspicuously preoccupied
            Message 5 of 12 , Feb 4, 2008
              Diana wrote:


              > Just to clarify, DOFs ("defenders of the faith") sometimes claim that
              > many of Steiner's lectures contain errors because the Great Man did
              > not have time to review or edit them before publication. Legend has it
              > they're full of typos and/or things the transcriptionist mis-heard or
              > misunderstood. As if that should make some huge difference regarding
              > the racial material - we're supposed to imagine there's an off chance
              > that weird racial things somehow crept in that Steiner never actually
              > said ??????


              I'd like to second Diana's point. This is indeed why folks like Sune, and many other defenders of Steiner's racial doctrines, are conspicuously preoccupied with the status of Steiner's "lectures" whenever a particular lecture contains something they find embarassing. As the discussion at mumsnet shows, however, anthroposophists very often get the basic distinction wrong, and declare that a published text is actually only a "lecture." Steiner's essay "The Occult Significance of Blood" was published by Steiner's own publishing house within months of the original spoken lecture; the first edition is from 1907. By 1922, three years before Steiner's death, the text had gone through five printings, for a total of fifteen thousand copies. That is an impressive figure for the time (and even for today, for that matter). In fact many of Steiner's most substantial writings on race are printed texts published during his lifetime, not lecture transcripts that he never reviewed. Aside from "The Occult Significance of Blood," this is the case with Steiner's books Cosmic Memory, The Mission of the Folk Souls, Knowledge of Higher Worlds, and The Apocalypse of St. John, among others. The latter text, for example, was first published by Steiner's publishing house in Berlin in 1911. Thus aside from the fact that this particular diversionary tactic makes no sense, as Diana and Zooey point out, it is also very frequently simply untrue.


              Peter S.

              _________________________________________________________________
              Helping your favorite cause is as easy as instant messaging. You IM, we give.
              http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=text_hotmail_join
            • winters_diana
              ... Over the years, I think they ve come to perceive other advantages to playing this angle, too: sometimes they ll imply, for instance, that it means the
              Message 6 of 12 , Feb 4, 2008
                >This is indeed why folks like Sune, and many other defenders of
                >Steiner's racial doctrines, are conspicuously preoccupied with the
                >status of Steiner's "lectures" whenever a particular lecture contains
                >something they find embarassing.

                Over the years, I think they've come to perceive other advantages to
                playing this angle, too: sometimes they'll imply, for instance, that it
                means the critic is careless with facts and details if we fail to note
                (or care) whether something Steiner said was in a lecture or book. If
                we would get such a terribly important detail as this mixed up, how can
                we be trusted to report accurately on anything whatsoever? (It is then
                a short jump from "Critics are careless with facts" to "Critics are
                liars" (and on from there, needless to say, to critics are handpuppets
                of the forces of evil in the cosmos, or whatever).
              • winters_diana
                ... He has simply moved on to another thread on the board. On that thread we were on, he s basically getting boo-ed, so he s piped down over there and is
                Message 7 of 12 , Feb 4, 2008
                  >Sune seems to have dug himself into a hole in this discussion.


                  He has simply moved on to another thread on the board. On that thread
                  we were on, he's basically getting boo-ed, so he's piped down over
                  there and is posting as Eva on a couple of other threads.

                  That is anthroposophical ethics right there. Game's up over here?
                  They're onto me, they know I'm a liar? That is all right, because there
                  are more where they came from, potential customers are interchangeable
                  and disposable, and potential customers who don't yet know me or know
                  what I'm up to are everywhere. Let me refer you to a web site for more
                  information . . .
                • Zooey
                  No, he was just catching his breath. Now he s back on the thread calling Peter Staudenmaier an untruthful but effective writer ;) This is proven by Sune and
                  Message 8 of 12 , Feb 6, 2008
                    No, he was just catching his breath. Now he's back on the thread calling Peter Staudenmaier an untruthful but "effective" writer ;) This is proven by Sune and Daniel Hindes. Sune: "There are many ways to fool people."

                    Yes, there are.

                    -z


                    winters_diana <diana.winters@...> wrote: >Sune seems to have dug himself into a hole in this discussion.

                    He has simply moved on to another thread on the board. On that thread
                    we were on, he's basically getting boo-ed, so he's piped down over
                    there and is posting as Eva on a couple of other threads.

                    That is anthroposophical ethics right there. Game's up over here?
                    They're onto me, they know I'm a liar? That is all right, because there
                    are more where they came from, potential customers are interchangeable
                    and disposable, and potential customers who don't yet know me or know
                    what I'm up to are everywhere. Let me refer you to a web site for more
                    information . . .






                    ---------------------------------
                    Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox.

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.