Anthroposophy and Critics
From: Daniel Hindes
Date: Sat Jan 24, 2004 9:29 am
Subject: anthroposophy and critics
Diana,
If I might step back from our conversation
a bit and characterize our exchange, it seems to me that the
following points have been established. Please let me know if
you feel this is not actually how you feel things to be.
It seems to me that you rely very strongly
on Staudenmaier and a few others on the WC list for your opinions
on many things, especially on how you should think of Anthroposophy
in general. The actual truth of such opinions does not really
interest you terribly much. Your source of most information behind
your own opinions are the opinions of others that you trust,
and whether this has any correspondence with truth is uninteresting
to you.
When you state someone else's opinion as your
own fact, and then I challenge you on the ultimate truth of such
a statement of fact, your response is: 1. It is obvious to you.
2. Proof is unnecessary, and 3. Truth is irrelevant.
Now when critics complain about anthroposophists,
they generally lament the fact that they, the critics, have been
unable to convince the stupid anthroposophists of how dumb their
beliefs are. "We tell them what to think of their religion",
say the critics, "and they never seem to agree with us!
And they even dare challenge us on our understanding of their
beliefs."
When anthroposophists complain about critics,
the general complaint is that they do not feel that the critics
actually understand anthroposophy at all. "You construct
a straw man out of an imperfect understanding, and then spend
so much time knocking it down." That and a disregard for
the actual truth of their criticisms is the complaint most heard
from anthroposophists about their critics.
I would suggest that any sort of dialogue
between the two sides is not possible until both sides try to
honestly understand the position of the other. And actual dialogue
will not occur unless both sides have an interest in truth. Nobody
is going to listen to your rather important points about the
pedagogical treatment of left-handed children if you make unqualified
generalizations contrary to the facts as we understand them,
and especially if you are perceived as bashing the entire system
based on an incomplete understanding of it, with no interest
in learning anything you don't already know.
Finally, I see no point whatsoever in trying
to hold a discussion with someone who is uninterested in truth.
I might learn a few things from reading your contributions, but
I see no point in attempting a dialogue if you state up front
that you don't care a thing for my ideas or opinions unless you
happen to already agree with them. You may feel that this is
not your attitude, but if I speak to what I think is truth, and
you say you don't care about truth, it amounts to the same thing.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Sat Jan 24, 2004 9:09 pm
Subject: Re: anthroposophy and critics
Here's the links you asked for, Daniel.
http://www.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1715832474&sort=d&start=19649
http://www.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1715833074&sort=d&start=19674
(If that doesn't work, maybe Tarjei can fix
them, I don't know how to do the shorter link thing.)
If I might step back from our conversation
a bit and characterize our exchange, it seems to me that the
following points have been established. Please let me know if
you feel this is not actually how you feel things to be.
Daniel, I have the impression you've been
getting angrier and angrier. What you wrote is too full of insults,
and off-topic speculation about my character (it's called an
ad hominem argument), to be worthy of much of my time. I don't
think a discussion of how I form my opinions is on topic. Why
the radical diversion from the topics we were discussing? (If
you are interested in my opinions or how I form them, begin reading
the Waldorf critics archives beginning in about this time year
2000. Do you need more links? I won't presume you are really
that interested.)
But whether I get my opinions from Peter Staudenmaier
or Bart Simpson or actually think up a few of them on my own,
is probably not of great interest to most list members.
Anyway I asked Peter, and he told me to tell
you he doesn't think so either. <GG>
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Sun Jan 25, 2004 3:26 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: anthroposophy and critics
Daniel wrote:
If I might step back from our conversation
a bit and characterize our exchange, it seems to me that the
following points have been established. Please let me know if
you feel this is not actually how you feel things to be.
Diana
Daniel, I have the impression you've been
getting angrier and angrier.
Dottie
Daniel angry? That is pretty funny! Diana
it is you who looks downright emotional and tweaked a bit too
tight. You obviously have no idea what anyone watching this list
has just seen with your reply to Daniel: it's the Peter exorcisism.
And it goes something like this: First its you talking and slowly
your head turns around towards the right and we see Peter S.
slowly making his way and then we see you and then Peter one
more time to finally end with you looking all dazed and confused
with a big smile on your face spouting stupid Peter words.
This one point of non critical thinking, when
it comes to the critics and their Peter Staudenmaier, has always
been so surprising to me mainly because you are all brain smart.
It seems you and the others have no idea how much under his influence
you really are. You throw common sense right out the window.
Check a quote by him? Puhleaase. Most of his are in German anyway.
Diana
What you wrote is too full of insults,
and off-topic speculation about my character (it's called an
ad hominem argument), to be worthy of much of my time. I don't
think a discussion of how I form my opinions is on topic.
Dottie
Oh, but the critics talk night and day about
how anthroposophists form their opinions but lets not please
ask Diana how she might form hers. And the discussion is not
about how you form your opinions Diana rather it is how easily
your whole demeaner has changed once Peter Staudenmaier got involved
in the conversation. Wham! It was that quick. Good thing Dan
Dugan is not the moderator or we might just have had Daniel kicked
off the list in the same manner he kicked Sune off and actually
any Steiner student once he/she asked for a verifiable quote
of Staudenmaier.
No matter all the kicking and screaming you
do, it can not change the fact that it is easy to see the impact
Peter has on you and the rest of the critics. He speaks you all
shake your head yes and clap your hands: Thank you Peter, oh
thank you so very much, thankyou....ick. Daniel angry?
What a bunch of hippocrates you all are. First
you call Steiners group out as a cult and do not recognize the
Peter Cult in your own midst. Too bad, all these smart women
yesmanning Peter, pretty disgusting to watch.
Diana
Why the radical diversion from the topics
we were discussing? (If you are interested in my opinions or
how I form them, begin reading the Waldorf critics archives beginning
in about this time year 2000. Do you need more links? I won't
presume you are really that interested.)
Dottie
Peter paragraph formation:) Hey, we know how
this works Diana. "Radical diversion from the topic we were
discussing"? Maybe you could take a few days off to work
that Peter thing out of your system.
Diana
But whether I get my opinions from Peter
Staudenmaier or Bart Simpson or actually think up a few of them
on my own, is probably not of great interest to most list members.
Dottie
Well it should be of great interest to you
and the critics. You lose so much credibility when dealing with
the snakey Staudenmaier and it seems you all have no idea. It's
of interest to me because 1) its right in front of my face and
2) I can not stand to see women follow a backsliding son of a
gun such as Peter. As soon as he gets involved in a conversation
look what happens: anger spouting critics jumping all over everyone.
All critcial thinking out the window.
Diana
Anyway I asked Peter, and he told me to
tell you he doesn't think so either. <GG>
Dottie
As I get older these kinds of things just
are not funny anymore: Women letting men think their thoughts
for them. And then smiling about it. Gross. IT reminds me of
a story a woman I met told on the train. She said she hates when
she sees a bunch of catty women in an office that are willing
to only stop as soon as a man comes in the room. It takes a man
to straighten out the women. And that is what it looks like over
there on the critics and now here with your Peter turnabout.
Go Peter! Yeah Peter! Whoohooo Peter!!!Yeah
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sun Jan 25, 2004 4:59 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: anthroposophy and critics
At 12:26 25.01.2004, Dottie wrote (to Diana):
As I get older these kinds of things just
are not funny anymore: Women letting men think their thoughts
for them. And then smiling about it. Gross. IT reminds me of
a story a woman I met told on the train. She said she hates when
she sees a bunch of catty women in an office that are willing
to only stop as soon as a man comes in the room. It takes a man
to straighten out the women. And that is what it looks like over
there on the critics and now here with your Peter turnabout.
Go Peter! Yeah Peter! Whoohooo Peter!!!Yeah
In all fairness, Dottie, I just posted a little
help from Sune in connection with an article cited by Peter S.
And it should make no difference what the Peters have between
their legs; if we were talking about the Cult of Petra instead
for instance. The Cult of Sharon has already been mentioned.
So Sharon or Debra or any other female WC-critic could have backed
up Diana's position as well. Gender has nothing to do with it.
Diana is holding an opposing view on her own on this list, and
she feels that the Peters are echoing her own views. Besides,
she's been reaching out for points of agreement from time to
time, like this thing I wrote about Christ and sin and forgiveness
and damnation. That raises another issue, of course, about her
ambivalent views about Christianity, but that's a different subject
altogether.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Sun Jan 25, 2004 7:51 am
Subject: Re: anthroposophy and critics
Tarjei
The Cult of Sharon has already been mentioned.
Dottie
I never took it serious when you or others
called it a cult of Sharon. I find it very different with Peter.
With Sharon you can check out her facts. With Peter you can not.
The only person I see leading anyone off a cliff and down into
the mucky muck is Peter S. And Tarjei, it does matter what is
between the legs. We hear one day it might not.
I don't see myself as tough with Diana or
unfair. I feel like I am just answering the non thinking behaviour,
not hers specifically, that happens over at the critics whenever
Peter puts his nose into a situation telling others what Daniel
is actually feeling as he has tried to do with Steiner. He thinks
he thinks.
And I am not referring to Peters post rather
Dianas quick turn around hostile, flippant nature towards Daniel.
And I do not see how you see Daniel as being tough with Diana.
I see him as being fair and clear minded as to avoid exactly
what has just happened with her follow up post.
Maybe I should just avoid any conversations
you are all having regarding this subject. I am kind of point
blank when it comes to this Peter and his two word quotes that
none of the critics have bothered to check out to make sure they
were valid as can be seen by their whole hearted back up.
Peter is no joke. He is a man who's twisted
lies are trying to show Steiner as a co-conspirator of the nazi
regime and I have no patience for anyone, and yes, especially
women, that hold him in high esteem and espouse the virtues of
his work without having done the footwork to check if it is warranted
or not.
What is great about this list is you would
never find a conversation like the one we are having over there.
We have people here who are willing to think and talk for themselves.
Diana, I am sorry if I offended you. It was
not my intention. I don't have a poetical way of expressing my
feelings when it comes to Peter Staudenmaier and what I see as
his influence on a cause (waldorf schools) that I find valid
over there at the critics.
Sincerely,
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sun Jan 25, 2004 2:42 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: anthroposophy and critics
At 16:51 25.01.2004, Dottie wrote:
Maybe I should just avoid any conversations
you are all having regarding this subject.
Dottie, I enjoy your spelling things out in
no uncertain terms, and you often hit the nail on the head that
way, so don't avoid anything for my sake, especially about the
PLANS-WC cult. I just didn't want Diana to feel chased off the
list or anything like that. It adds spice to this group to have
critics here.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Sun Jan 25, 2004 7:17 pm
Subject: Re: anthroposophy and critics
Tarjei wrote:
I just didn't want Diana to feel chased
off the list or anything like that. It adds spice to this group
to have critics here.
Hey Tarjei,
I was just plain rude to Diana with the whole
exorcist thing. That was not very nice of me at all. I just can't
see how anyone could see Daniel's post as angry and then to read
the post by Peter it just all seemed to fit together. Maybe I
had a flashback moment, (again) of the ugly ugly ugly way Steiner
students were treated over there and did not like seeing Daniel
misinterpreted so badly. Either way it was not nice.
I am glad Diana is on this list. It brings
forth some fine thinking on what is happening from her perspective
as well as some further research on things I would not naturally
hear of. She is a really bright articulate woman that didn't
deserve to have me be as rude as I was in public and I am sorry.
Sincerely,
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Sun Jan 25, 2004 8:05 pm
Subject: Re: anthroposophy and critics
Tarjei wrote:
I just didn't want Diana to feel chased
off the list or anything like that.
Not to worry, I'm not chased off, just no
time tonight to go through the 30 posts since last time I checked
this list! esp. a couple from Daniel that look beefy. Do you
guys sleep?
Dottie wrote:
I was just plain rude to Diana with the
whole exorcist thing.
LOL!! I missed that, Dottie, did you say I
needed an exorcism? :)
catch you all later,
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sun Jan 25, 2004 6:19 am
Subject: fixing those long URL links
At 06:09 25.01.2004, Diana wrote:
Here's the links you asked for, Daniel.
http://www.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1715832474&sort=d&start=19649
http://www.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1715833074&sort=d&start=19674
(If that doesn't work, maybe Tarjei can
fix them, I don't know how to do the shorter link thing.)
OK everybody, here is how this thing works:
When URL links exceed a certain length, they
don't work in email because they break up and become unclickable.
You have to copy one line at the time and past them into the
address field of the browser.
That is when we use a free service called
"MakeAShorterLink" at http://makeashorterlink.com/
. Paste the long URL into the field in the center and hit the
button. The short link key is then created. Just copy this key
and paste in into your email message. It's a good idea to test
the key by clicking it.
In this way, the long URL links above get
the following clickable keys:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R35513E27
http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1F521E27
The main page for the latest WC messages is
however short enough to be used in email:
http://www.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read
Diana, you wrote to Daniel:
Daniel, I have the impression you've been
getting angrier and angrier. What you wrote is too full of insults,
and off-topic speculation about my character (it's called an
ad hominem argument), to be worthy of much of my time.
I'm tempted to do another "Dirty Harry"
here by saying that I lost count of how many insults have been
flying in all this excitement. And methinks Dottie and Daniel
are coming down too hard on you. It was, after all, I who quoted
the Peters from the WC posts and commented them on this list.
You only expressed appreciation for their support on the WC list.
On the other hand, a little quote from Dan
Dugan, previously awarded "WC Quote of the Day":
""I think a little hostility is
quite in order when busting a system of institutionalized racism."
- Dan Dugan
So why wouldn't a little hostility be in order
when busting a system of institutionalized smear campaigns, malignant
gossip, false accusations, lies, and hate-mongering?
I also have a little note about these ad hominems,
Diana. Remember the last "WC Quote of the Day" when
I picked you as "the winner"? You said that you had
been called all those names, but I don't think that anybody said
that Diana is an opposing power or a hyena. Bradford talked poetically
about the WC critics doing a hyena choir or something like that,
and my comparison of WC critics to gremlins who were fed after
midnight and therefore turned bad was also aimed at the PLANS-WC
cult as an institution, not at you as a person. So when you summed
up all the expressions used, you created the impression that
you had personally been called a lot of things - perhaps because
you identify so strongly with the PLANS-WC that you don't see
yourself as a separate entity. That could resemble cult addiction.
I don't think a discussion of how I form
my opinions is on topic.
Oh, this is tricky: It's nobody's business
to tell you how to form your opinions, but how we form our opinions
is a legitimate topic in itself, especially in Anthroposophy,
because we're dealing with epistemology here; and epistemology
is the branch of science and philosophy that deals with how we
perceive, know, believe, cognize, and form judgements and opinions.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Daniel Hindes
Date: Sun Jan 25, 2004 8:30 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: anthroposophy and critics
Diana,
Thanks for the links. to some of your statements:
Daniel, I have the impression you've been
getting angrier and angrier. What you wrote is too full of insults,
and off-topic speculation about my character (it's called an
ad hominem argument), to be worthy of much of my time. I don't
think a discussion of how I form my opinions is on topic. Why
the radical diversion from the topics we were discussing? (If
you are interested in my opinions or how I form them, begin reading
the Waldorf critics archives beginning in about this time year
2000. Do you need more links? I won't presume you are really
that interested.)
Diana,
I'm not angry, just little sad. As I stated in my last post,
I feel like I'm talking and you're not actually listening. I
do not feel that you have actually addressed the points that
I have brought up. This, our exchange, started when you and Tarjei
were talking about left-handedness, and I jumped in to question
one of your generalizations. I was very careful not to say anything
against your general argument, and only wanted to know your source
for making one of your statements that I felt was overly broad
and unjustified. I then continued our exchange focused on the
question of sources and methodology. The results were quite illuminating
for me, and I realizeed that you and I really have no basis for
any sort of discussion. I find it distressing that among critics
any real criticism of their position is quickly characterized
as an ad hominem attack, and any question as to the source or
accuracy of statements is somehow irrelevant.
But whether I get my opinions from Peter
Staudenmaier or Bart Simpson or actually think up a few of them
on my own, is probably not of great interest to most list members.
Actually, I think you underestimate the interests
of most list members.
Daniel Hindes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
January/February
2004
The Uncle
Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files
Anthroposophy & Anarchism
Anthroposophy & Scientology
Anthroposophical
Morsels
Anthroposophy,
Critics, and Controversy