Peter S Trying to Talk
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Fri Jan 23, 2004 3:10 pm
Subject: Peter S trying to talk
At the WC list, Peter Staudenmaier is ruminating
about the ordeal trying to talk with anthroposophists, especially
as evidenced through the recent dialogue between Diana and myself
and Daniel.
On the WC list in a thread entitled, "trying
to talk with anthroposophists," Peter Staudenmaier writes:
I was particularly interested
in the discussion of Steiner's deeply ambivalent attitude toward
modern science, not just because the topic itself is compelling,
but also because the way the discussion evolved offered a fascinating
glimpse of the difficulties involved when non-anthroposophists
try to talk with anthroposophists.
Why someone who considers spiritual science
nutty and whacky finds the controversy at hand compelling seems
to be a good question for psychiatrists. There is no ambivalence
in Steiner's attitude toward natural science. He stands firmly
on the ground of natural science what its methods and facts are
concerned, but he disagrees with how scientific facts are interpreted
by many people, including the researchers themselves. For this
reason, when Steiner speaks of "modern science," he
sometimes means not the methods and facts, but the personal opinions
and interpretations held by some scientists - opinions and interpretations
that contribute to the molding of public beliefs. These are the
materialistic beliefs that Steiner also refers to as modern superstitions.
Staudenmaier continues:
In a post from January
18, Diana remarked in passing that "Steiner, of course,
spoke against modern science frequently". This elicited
a couple of posts from Tarjei Straume and Daniel Hindes about
Steiner's skepticism toward materialistic thinking within modern
science, pretty much standard anthro fare. But then something
peculiar happened: each time Diana replied with a more nuanced
and specific explanation of her original remark, Tarjei's and
Daniel's responses got less nuanced and less specific. Although
Diana never offered any generalized characterization of Steiner's
views on science as such, on January 19 Tarjei imputed to her
the claim that Steiner "opposed modern science" altogether.
Hold it a minute. After Diana wrote, "Steiner,
of course, spoke against modern science frequently," I retorted:
"Can you quote Steiner where he spoke against 'modern science',
or are you getting it mixed up with his critique of materialistic
_thinking_ in modern science?" I did not impute to Diana
any claim that she had not made. And nobody who reads these posts
will be left with the impression that I did so, with the possible
exception of Staudenmaier's less critical congregation at the
WC.
Staudenmaier:
Diana took the opportunity
to clarify her position again on January 20, writing to Tarjei:
"If a person says two contradictory things, one doesn't
negate the other, it's the contradiction that would need explanation.
And the way I read many of your favorite Steiner-on-science quotes,
he is not speaking as a supporter of modern science, but trying
to give "spiritual science" legitimacy and respectability.
It doesn't matter if someone *says* they support modern science
when they continue proclaiming many things that directly contradict
it, espouse a method that is plainly not scientific, or, when
asked to show how or where science backs up spiritual claims,
suddenly insist the scientific method is all wrong."
Instead of clarifying the dispute, however, this simply lead
to further misunderstanding; in his next post, Daniel said "I
would like to see the quotes that show Steiner to be against
science." Thus within the space of a few days, the topic
had shifted from 'Steiner frequently spoke against modern science'
to 'Steiner was against science pure and simple'.
What is the difference between frequently
speaking against science and being opposed to science? Nobody
has said there is anything "pure and simple" about
this; that's Staudenmaier's convenient little invention, his
own cog in this wheel of semantic drivel. The topic is indeed
complicated for those who consider spiritual science to be pure
fantasy, but to say that Daniel and I challenged Diana about
something she had not uttered is intellectually dishonest.
Staudenmaier:
To top it all off, Daniel
went on to give Diana a little lecture on choosing one's words
carefully, admonishing her that "Simply stating that "Steiner
was against science" is a misrepresentation of Steiner's
own position." But Diana did not state this; what she said
was merely that Steiner often spoke against modern science, not
that this was all he ever had to say on the topic, much less
that his own expressed position could be summed up as simply
"against science" overall.
This is bullshit, and Peter S knows it. He
is quite an accomplished artist when it comes to *subtle* bullshit
and semantic nonsense of this kind. Someone who frequently speaks
against modern science is clearly an opponent of modern science,
regardless of whether or not he mentions some of its redeeming
qualities that he can support. Daniel asked Diana to quote some
of Steiner's utterances against modern science, which
she had claimed that Steiner made. Daniel asked her to show some
cards to back up her claim. He did not impute to her anything
she had not claimed.
Staudenmaier:
What Daniel and Tarjei
managed to overlook, moreover, is that Diana's original claim
is accurate. Steiner did indeed speak against modern science
frequently, just as he frequently claimed the mantle of modern
science for his own system.
When Diana claims that Steiner frequently
spoke against modern science, it may be based upon a confusion
or mixing of research and results (facts) on the one hand, and
opinions, comclusions, and materialistic superstitions on the
other hand. (See above.) When Peter S echoes the same claim,
however, it is often a deliberate attempt to distort things in
order to appear very clever when in fact he is proving the opposite.
Staudenmaier:
This was the standard paradigm
among Theosophists, who often praised the achievements of the
contemporary natural sciences and insisted that their own doctrines
were entirely compatible with scientific methods, while simultaneously
disparaging the materialistic assumptions and mechanistic methodologies
which supposedly afflict the scientific mindset.
The Theosophists (before Steiner) did not
take a scientific approach to the spiritual, but a spiritualistic-atavistic
one. They did claim that there was no contradiction between their
spiritual reality and the reality of natural science, but they
did not use the scientific method and did not claim to do so.
Steiner, on the other hand, abandoned the old theosophical approach
with spiritualistic seances, crystal balls, awakening of atavistic
faculties and so on, and introduced a revolutionary method based
upon an epistemology that chose Darwinism as its point of departure.
Staudenmaier:
Steiner adopted this contradictory
approach,
False. Steiner did not adopt any approach.
He invented a new approach and abandoned the old one.
Staudenmaier:
and added his own anthroposophical
spin to it, while sometimes virtually equating "science"
and "materialism".
The only "spin" involved here is
the "Staudenmaier approach," which is pure nonsense
and deliberate falsehood.
Staudenmaier:
Here are a few selections
from Steiner's less approving remarks on modern science.
In a 1915 lecture on "Preparing for the Sixth Epoch"
Steiner warned that "Beginning with the fourteenth, fifteenth
and sixteenth centuries, science and materialistic consciousness
have laid hold of the human being." At times he associated
this unwelcome development with the British national soul, which
was inappropriate for Central Europeans, and at other times he
associated it with Ahriman. Two of his favorite targets were
Darwin and Einstein. In a 1918 lecture in Zurich he declared:
"Ahriman is in truth the teacher par excellence of materialistic
Darwinism." He considered Einstein's theories a prime example
of "extreme abstraction" which has "deviated from
actuality". A number of Steiner's observations along these
lines can be found in the text "Man: Hieroglyph of the Universe",
which can be read at the online Steiner archive; in particular,
see here:
http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Lectures/19200424p01.html
and
http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Lectures/19200515p01.html
Is this supposed to be an example of Steiner
speaking against science? Think again. When it comes to Darwinism,
for instance, Steiner endorsed its approach and used it as his
own point of departure when developing a new epistemology in
"Philosophy of Freedom." But even Charles Darwin himself,
albeit probably the greatest scientist who ever lived, an assessment
that was certainly shared by Rudolf Steiner, was led to theoretical
conclusions that are highly disputable and challengeable, especially
when we take into consideration that his "survival of the
fittest" idea may have been a reflection of his own times,
the Industrial Revolution and the rule of capitalism. Steiner
recognized Darwin's greatness and his pioneering work as a scientist
while at the same time taking a critical approach to the philosophical
consequences of a thoroughly materialistic approach to biological
evolution. There is a difference between criticizing materialistic
thinking connected with biological evolution and criticizing
the science of biological evolution - a science that was
also amplified by Goethe.
When it comes to Einstein, the situation was
slightly different due to the fact that Steiner evidently misunderstood
his theory of relativity in spades when it was first published
in 1905. That's why he called it pure nonsense. Darwin is fairly
easy to understand; he had a great gift as a writer; he wrote
voluminously and meticulously, explaining every single step of
his research in a way that any student can follow him. Einstein
was more of a riddle. Everybody talked about his theory, but
very few people understood it. And Steiner did not understand
it until much later. In "The Riddles of Philosophy,"
however, Steiner acknowledges Einstein to the point of giving
him a prominent place in the history of philosophy. I don't know
whether or not Steiner ever reached the point of a proper understanding
of Einstein, but some of his criticism of Einstein was based
upon a misunderstanding of his theory, not an opposition to modern
science.
Without Ahriman, there would be no science,
no logic, no rationality, no intellect. Steiner did not suggest
a rejection of the Ahrimanic influence, but of the Ahrimanic
deception, which is the trap of the thinking that is purely intellecttual.
The "thinking of the heart" must be added; moral thinking
and moral imagination.
Staudenmaier:
On other occasions Steiner
offered a more sweeping negative assessment of the "scientific
attitude"; here is one example from 1912:
"Modern science, recognising only those abstract laws which
it calls the “laws of Nature,” will certainly be prone,
where these laws prove inapplicable, to speak of “mere chance,”
of something, that is to say, in regard to which conformity to
law cannot be admitted. When modern science speaks of “chance”
in cases to which its laws do not apply, it really puts a ban
upon any suggestion of conformity to law. Both generally and
in particulars, there is hardly anything more intolerant in human
life than the “scientific attitude.” I do not, of course,
refer to scientific facts, for they are presented in a way which
does science the very highest credit, and intolerance does not
come into question here. I am speaking of the “scientific
attitude” which arises on the foundation of these facts.
The attitude of materialistic thought today is an example of
almost the greatest intolerance to be found in history."
The full lecture can be found here:
http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Festivals/Easter/19120326p01.html
The intolerance of the modern "scientific
attitude" can be corroborated by many Nobel Prize winners.
I recently listened to a group of ten or twelve such Nobel Prize
winnners being interviewed by the BBC in Stockholm. They were
all unique contributors to innovations in physics, biology, medicine
and so on, and most of them had experienced the prejudice and
intolerance described by Steiner. The success of their ventures
put the scientific community to shame.
Staudenmaier:
At times Steiner extended
this negative verdict to "the whole of modern science",
declaring in a 1919 lecture on "The Ahrimanic Deception":
"A right attitude
in regard to the whole of modern science, insofar as it thinks
along these lines, will recognize that its knowledge is illusion.
Now, in order that his incarnation may take the most profitable
form, it is of the utmost interest to Ahriman that people should
perfect themselves in all our illusory modern science, but without
knowing that it is illusion. Ahriman has the greatest possible
interest in instructing men in mathematics, but not in instructing
them that mathematical-mechanistic concepts of the universe are
merely illusions. He is intensely interested in bringing men
chemistry, physics, biology and so on, as they are presented
today in all their remarkable effects, but he is interested in
making men believe that these are absolute truths, not that they
are only points of view, like photographs from one side. If you
photograph a tree from one side, it can be a correct photograph,
yet it does not give a picture of the whole tree. If you photograph
it from four sides, you can in any case get an idea of it. To
conceal from mankind that in modern intellectual, rationalistic
science with its supplement of a superstitious empiricism, one
is dealing with a great illusion, a deception - that men should
not recognize this is of the greatest possible interest to Ahriman.
It would be a triumphant experience for him if the scientific
superstition which grips all circles today and by which men even
want to organize their social science, should prevail into the
third millennium. He would have the greatest success if he could
then come as a human being into Western civilization and find
the scientific superstition."
Steiner goes on to say,
somewhat incongruously, that such illusions are nevertheless
necessary and that the natural sciences are worthy of study.
The full lecture can be found here
http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Lectures/AhrDec_index.html
"The Ahrimanic Deception" is one
of my personal favorites among Steiner's lectures. The idea that
physical existence is in reality maya (illusion) is not unique
for anthroposophy. The same concept is expressed in Buddhism,
Hinduism, and also in Christianity. It is a philosophical-epistemological
position that stands in contrast to the notion that physical
existence is the one and only reality, and that life, existence,
consciousness, cannot exist independently of a "biological
unit" (to borrow an expression from an old Star Trek episode).
Physical existence is subject to its own laws: the laws of natural
science. Rudolf Steiner stood on the very ground of this principle,
which he expanded into the spiritual realm to enable us to move
from faith to knowledge concerning things previously attributed
only to religion. For this reason, he was a cultural heretic
and therefore challenging to understand for those who cling to
the notions of fundamentalistic materialism.
Staudenmaier:
Another of Steiner's favorite
tropes was to juxtapose "scientific thought" to "the
spirit", as in this comment from 1909:
"Today it is in every
sense an ideal to explain the world from the mechanical standpoint,
as a mechanism, from which all spirit is eliminated. This is
due to the fact that those portions of the human brain which
are the instrument and organ of scientific thought are today
so deadened that they are unable to convey new life to the conceptions
they form, and the latter becomes ever poorer and poorer. As
things are, it is a fact that science has not grown richer in
ideas. The ideas of antiquity are far more replete with life,
far loftier and grander. The ideas of Darwinism are like a squeezed
lemon. Darwin merely collected data and connected these with
the now impoverished concepts. This trend of science distinctly
points to a process of gradual atrophy. There is a part of the
human brain in process of decay - namely, the part which functions
in modern scientific thought. And this is due to the fact that
the part of the etheric body which should enliven this atrophied
brain has not yet attained the Christ-impulse. Science will remain
lifeless until the Christ-impulse flows into this part of the
human brain also, whose function it is to serve science. This
is grounded in the great laws of the universe. If science continues
as heretofore, it will become increasingly poor in ideas. Ideas
will die out more and more."
The full text can be found
here:
http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Lectures/19090705p01.html
This does indeed call for a redemption of
science from the pitfall of materialism.
Staudenmaier:
In an attempt to overcome
the inconsistencies and incompatibilities in Steiner's contradictory
claims about science, some latter day anthroposohists draw a
distinction between "Baconian science" and "Goethean
science"; they consider the former, based on empirical observation
and the various methodologies typically associated with mainstream
scientific inquiry, to be essentially Ahrimanic in inspiration.
As previously mentioned, all scientific endeavor
is ahrimanically inspired. We wouldn't have working brains without
Ahriman. Here is another quote from the lecture "Exoteric
and Esoteric Christianity" (Dornach, 2 April, 1922, GA 211)
which can be read in full at http://www.uncletaz.com/exoeso.html
:
It is not possible for us,
higher hierarchies, to form the Earth in such a way that it is
able to supply the forces which lead man towards the intellect.
We must rely, for this, on an entirely different being, on a
being who comes from another direction than our own - The Ahrimanic
Being. Ahriman is a being who does not belong to our hierarchy.
Ahriman comes into the stream of evolution from another direction.
If we tolerate Ahriman in the evolution of the Earth, if we allow
him a share in it, he brings us death, and with it, the intellect,
and we can take up in the human being death and intellect. Ahriman
knows death, because he is at one with the Earth and has trodden
paths which have brought him into connection with the evolution
of the Earth. He is an initiate, a sage of death, and for this
reason he is the ruler of the intellect. The gods had to reckon
with Ahriman - if I may express it in this way. They had to say:
the evolution cannot proceed without Ahriman. It is only a question
of admitting Ahriman into the evolution. But if Ahriman is admitted
and becomes the lord of death and, consequently, of the intellect
too, we forfeit the Earth, and Ahriman, whose sole interest lies
in permeating the Earth with intellect, will claim the Earth
for himself. The gods faced the great problem of losing to a
certain extent their rule over the Earth in favour of Ahriman.
There was only one possibility - that the gods themselves should
learn to know something which they could not learn in their godly
abodes which were not permeated by Ahriman - namely, that the
gods should learn to know death itself, on the Earth, through
one of their emissaries - the Christ. A god had to die on earth,
and he had to die in such a way that this was not grounded in
the wisdom of the gods, but in the human error which would hold
sway if Ahriman alone were to rule. A god had to pass through
death and he had to overcome death.
Thus the Mystery of Golgotha
meant this for the gods: a greater wealth of knowledge through
the wisdom of death. If a god had not passed through death, the
whole Earth would have become entirely intellectual, without
ever reaching the evolution which the gods had planned for it
from the very beginning.
Staudenmaier:
Steiner's "occult
science", on the other hand, is concerned with precisely
those phenomena that are inaccessible to sensory perception,
and its methods are at odds with the basic parameters of what
is usually called "modern science".
Only if you ignore the most indispensable
tool of all for all scientific inquiry: Thinking. If this mode
of thinking and inquiry is applied to the spiritual realm in
the right way, you get anthroposophically oriented spiritual
science.
Staudenmaier:
For a critical overview
of these issues, I recommend the article "Is Anthroposophy
Science?" by Sven Ove Hansson, which can be found at the
waldorfcritics site:
http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/Hansson.html
Perhaps someone on this list would be kind
enough to write a critical review of this article.
Staudenmaier:
In the hope of someday
achieving a meaningful dialogue with anthroposophists about the
published views of their founder, I commend Diana for her fortitude.
Peter S may be lamenting the fact that most
anthroposophists have found it wise to stay away from the WC
list and let the "critics" talk to themselves in their
own den.
I would however second Staudenmaier's applause
for Diana's fortitude in participating on this list.
Peter S has endeavored to establish that Steiner
spoke against science, but he has been very unsuccessful. Steiner
always endorsed science, but he spoke against modern superstitions
and prejudices arising from the poinions and the worldview that
many people create in its name.
Cheers,
Tarjei Straume
http://www.uncletaz.com/anthrocritics.html
"The worst readers are
those who proceed like plundering soldiers: they pick up a few
things they use, soil and confuse the rest, and blaspheme the
whole." - Friedrich Nietzsche, Mixed
Opinions and Maxims
...................................................................................................................................
From: Sune Nordwall
Date: Fri Jan 23, 2004 7:18 pm
Subject: On Sven Ove Hansson's 'Is Anthroposophy Science'?
In a posting [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Peter
S trying to talk, Tarjei quotes
Peter S:
For a critical overview
of these issues, I recommend the article "Is Anthroposophy
Science?" by Sven Ove Hansson, which can be found at the
waldorfcritics site:
http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/Hansson.html
and writes:
(Tarjei:)
Perhaps someone on this list would be kind
enough to write a critical review of this article.
For some comments on the article by Sven Ove
Hansson, see http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/Hanson-commented.htm
The comments do not include a comment on the
argument by SOH about the treatment of syphilis with mercury,
and RS' comment on it in 1922/23 as showing RS' alleged inability
to understand and judge contemporary medical issues in his time.
http://www.nobel.se/medicine/laureates/1939/press.html describes some of the context for the comment by
Steiner in 1922/23 on the value of mercury treatment in relation
to other new treatments of syphilis, with one possibly being
Salvarsan, containing arsenic.
http://www.freewebs.com/scientific_anti_vivisectionism9/antibiotics.htm describes the situation regarding the treatment of
syphilis with Salvarsan few years before the comment by RS.
It tells about the serious side effects of
the new 'Magic Bullet' Salvarsan in the treatment of syphilis:
"Some expressed doubts
as to Salvarsan`s value as a treatment of syphilis, and some
medical opinions questioned whether it was a valid substitute
for mercury - a view shared in the `Journal of the American Medical
Association` in 1914(8). An estimated 274 people died as a result
of Salvarsan (9)."
The pages show that Steiner's comment on the
value of mercury in the treatment of syphilis in relation to
probably at least partly Salvarsan was quite reasonable at the
time and in the context it was made.
While Stokes in his classic textbook in 1926
on Modern Clinical Syphilology: Diagnosis, Treatment, Case Studies
(http://www.imsdocs.com/syphilis.htm)
praises the use of arsenicals like arsphenamine and neoarsphenamine
in the treatment of syphylis, the article describing the treatment
of syphilis at the Mayo Clinic, 1916-1955 writes:
*arsenical therapy represented
a major advance, it proved expensive, difficult to administer,
time consuming (especially in the case of the intravenous drip
method or intrathecal therapy) and unavoidably toxic. Moreover,
the deficiencies of the standard therapies in improving the outcome
in neurosyphilis further encouraged continued searching by investigators
worldwide.*
Stokes himself wrote:
*The use of mercurial rubs
for early (primary) syphilis and for "vascular and visceral"
syphilis was advocated: "In eight years of systematic use
of the inunction as interim treatment by some ten thousand patients
who have taken an aggregate of hundreds of thousands of rubs
I can personally testify to this really extraordinary factor
of safety combined with therapeutic effectiveness."*.
Only some 10 years after the comment by Steiner,
on the probably contemporary debate on the value of mercury treatment
in relation to arsenicals, were sulphonamide and penicillin introduced.
In general, a closer analysis of the article
by SOH on the question 'Is Anthroposophy Science?' shows that
it is superficial and distorting of the sources it quotes in
its argumentation to the extent of very much lacking value as
an alleged 'scientific' argument about the subjects it purports
to be a discussion of, in spite of the impressive title of the
Austrian journal in which it was published in 1991.
It reveals that it primarily has the character
of not a serious discussion of the philosophical scientific aspects
of the concept of science at the core of anthroposophy as a strife
to develop spiritual scientific research (http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/SCIENCE/Science.htm),
but of a piece of ideological rhetoric as part of his efforts
and work in his role of one of the, if not the main initiator
of the Swedish branch of CSICOP in 1982 (http://www.physto.se/~vetfolk/presentation.html#start).
Sune
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Sat Jan 24, 2004 9:22 am
Subject: Re: Peter S trying to talk
Tarjei:
On the WC list in a thread entitled, "trying
to talk with anthroposophists," Peter Staudenmaier writes:
Staudenmaier continues:
In a post from January
18, Diana remarked in passing that "Steiner, of course,
spoke against modern science frequently". This elicited
a couple of posts from Tarjei Straume and Daniel Hindes about
Steiner's skepticism toward materialistic thinking within modern
science, pretty much standard anthro fare. But then something
peculiar happened: each time Diana replied with a more nuanced
and specific explanation of her original remark, Tarjei's and
Daniel's responses got less nuanced and less specific.
Dottie
Oi vey!!! Peter S. once again trying to teach
the critics how to think!!! Somehow Diana and the critics can't
seem to understand the discussion without Peter stomping in to
make it 'clear' to others. As if he has the low down on "Anthro
speak" as he calls it. He should open a school: "Let
me interpret for you" And one of the first subjects he would
probably speak on if given a wide open forum is that Christianity
is a racist doctrine. Steiner is a small fish compared to the
big one he is after.
Staudenmaier:
Instead of clarifying the
dispute, however, this simply lead to further misunderstanding;
in his next post, Daniel said "I would like to see the quotes
that show Steiner to be against science." Thus within the
space of a few days, the topic had shifted from 'Steiner frequently
spoke against modern science' to 'Steiner was against science
pure and simple'.
Dottie
Staudenmaiers favorite way of avoiding facts:
no quotes available in English: Hit the guy with how hes trying
to avoid a subject instead of providing anything tangible.
Are the critics as hard headed as Peter S
seems to be? I think it is inevitable when having a master twister
on your list who thinks he knows better than the one having the
conversation. I don't think Diana needs to have Peter be interpreting
for her. Step aside Peter, Diana can handle herself much better
than you. And I am sure the critics know how to interpret a thing
being said here on this list without your stupid twisted insinuations.
I find him to be so arrogant to think others can not think for
themselves and in this was the phrase "Cult of Peter"
formed: Let Peter explain it for you who are too stupid to get
it.
Staudenmaier:
To top it all off, Daniel
went on to give Diana a little lecture on choosing one's words
carefully, admonishing her that "Simply stating that "Steiner
was against science" is a misrepresentation of Steiner's
own position."
Dottie
If Peter knew how to speak English, he might
not be embarrasing himself to the extent he does. He seems to
not be able to have a 'regular' debate. How hard it must be for
one like him to listen in to honest debates where people ask
questions where one is asked to back up what they have found
with quotes. Come on Peter we know you hate verifiable quotes
but let others point to them if they can.
It almost feels like you do not trust Diana
can come up with those quotes. I have more faith in the fact
that she realizes Daniel is not bullying her as has happened
to most of us when in your company, nor that he is trying to
find a way out of the science conversation by changing the subject.
Admonishing her???? Puhleasse. You must get
a grip on yourself with this kind of interpretation of other
peoples words. You are making such a fool of yourself can you
clearly not see this. If you even step outside the coccoon Dan
Dugan has helped you hide in you would be torn to shreds by real
criticle thinkers of the world not to mention historians. Thank
God they make you go to a real school to claim that kind of title
and not some lefty, aethistic, blow up in your face credentials
as the one you attended.
Staudenmaier:
This was the standard paradigm
among Theosophists, who often praised the achievements of the
contemporary natural sciences and insisted that their own doctrines
were entirely compatible with scientific methods, while simultaneously
disparaging the materialistic assumptions and mechanistic methodologies
which supposedly afflict the scientific mindset.
Dottie
Has he even read any of the Theospist works?
If so how could he make this kind of clearly ignorant statement
that Theosophy insisted on scientific methods. He's kidding right?
Staudenmaier:
Steiner adopted this contradictory
approach,
Dottie
Okay this is kind of getting ridiculous. Even
Sharon could show him wrong on this point I am sure. Steiner
brought this method forth. Really, what is Peter thinking?
Staudenmaier:
and added his own anthroposophical
spin to it, while sometimes virtually equating "science"
and "materialism".
Dottie
Oh okay. I am so glad this man can be seen
for how ignorant he is of these studies. Truly. He is just making
my day.
Tarjei
Is this supposed to be an example of Steiner
speaking against science? Think again.
Dottie
I don't think he can Tarjei, he is stuck on
the same ol same ol record that plays over and over and over
again.
What I would like to know is since when did
Peter become the collective conscience of the critics to the
point he has to explain to others what is being said here. It's
a John the Baptist nightmare:)
Enough of this twisted business for a Saturday,
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sat Jan 24, 2004 10:42 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Peter S trying to talk
At 00:10 24.01.2004, I wrote the following
comment to Staudenmaier's recommended link:
Staudenmaier:
For a critical overview
of these issues, I recommend the article "Is Anthroposophy
Science?" by Sven Ove Hansson, which can be found at the
waldorfcritics site:
http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/Hansson.html
Tarjei:
Perhaps someone on this list would be kind
enough to write a critical review of this article.
Sune was kind enough to snort the following
all the way from Stockholm:
For some comments on the article by Sven Ove
Hansson, see
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/Hanson-commented.htm
The comments do not include a comment on the
argument by SOH about the treatment of syphilis with mercury,
and RS' comment on it in 1922/23 as showing RS' alleged inability
to understand and judge contemporary medical issues in his time.
http://www.nobel.se/medicine/laureates/1939/press.html describes some of the context for the comment by
Steiner in 1922/23 on the value of mercury treatment in relation
to other new treatments of syphilis, with one possibly being
Salvarsan, containing arsenic.
http://www.freewebs.com/scientific_anti_vivisectionism9/antibiotics.htm describes the situation regarding the treatment of
syphilis with Salvarsan few years before the comment by RS.
It tells about the serious side effects of
the new 'Magic Bullet' Salvarsan in the treatment of syphilis:
"Some expressed doubts
as to Salvarsan`s value as a treatment of syphilis, and some
medical opinions questioned whether it was a valid substitute
for mercury - a view shared in the `Journal of the American Medical
Association` in 1914(8). An estimated 274 people died as a result
of Salvarsan (9)."
The pages show that Steiner's comment on the
value of mercury in the treatment of syphilis in relation to
probably at least partly Salvarsan was quite reasonable at the
time and in the context it was made.
While Stokes in his classic textbook in 1926
on Modern Clinical Syphilology: Diagnosis, Treatment, Case Studies
(http://www.imsdocs.com/syphilis.htm)
praises the use of arsenicals like arsphenamine and neoarsphenamine
in the treatment of syphylis, the article describing the treatment
of syphilis at the Mayo Clinic, 1916-1955 writes:
*arsenical therapy represented
a major advance, it proved expensive, difficult to administer,
time consuming (especially in the case of the intravenous drip
method or intrathecal therapy) and unavoidably toxic. Moreover,
the deficiencies of the standard therapies in improving the outcome
in neurosyphilis further encouraged continued searching by investigators
worldwide.*
Stokes himself wrote:
*The use of mercurial rubs
for early (primary) syphilis and for "vascular and visceral"
syphilis was advocated: "In eight years of systematic use
of the inunction as interim treatment by some ten thousand patients
who have taken an aggregate of hundreds of thousands of rubs
I can personally testify to this really extraordinary factor
of safety combined with therapeutic effectiveness."*.
Only some 10 years after the comment by Steiner,
on the probably contemporary debate on the value of mercury treatment
in relation to arsenicals, were sulphonamide and penicillin introduced.
In general, a closer analysis of the article
by SOH on the question 'Is Anthroposophy Science?' shows that
it is superficial and distorting of the sources it quotes in
its argumentation to the extent of very much lacking value as
an alleged 'scientific' argument about the subjects it purports
to be a discussion of, in spite of the impressive title of the
Austrian journal in which it was published in 1991.
It reveals that it primarily has the character
of not a serious discussion of the philosophical scientific aspects
of the concept of science at the core of anthroposophy as a strife
to develop spiritual scientific research (http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/SCIENCE/Science.htm),
but of a piece of ideological rhetoric as part of his efforts
and work in his role of one of the, if not the main initiator
of the Swedish branch of CSICOP in 1982 (http://www.physto.se/~vetfolk/presentation.html#start).
Thank you, Sune.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Mike Helsher
Date: Sat Jan 24, 2004 11:24 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Peter S trying to talk
----- Original Message -----
From: dottie zold
To: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 12:22 PM
Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Peter S trying to talk
Tarjei:
On the WC list in a thread entitled, "trying
to talk with anthroposophists," Peter Staudenmaier writes:
Staudenmaier continues:
In a post from January
18, Diana remarked in passing that "Steiner, of course,
spoke against modern science frequently". This elicited
a couple of posts from Tarjei Straume and Daniel Hindes about
Steiner's skepticism toward materialistic thinking within modern
science, pretty much standard anthro fare. But then something
peculiar happened: each time Diana replied with a more nuanced
and specific explanation of her original remark, Tarjei's and
Daniel's responses got less nuanced and less specific.
Dottie
Oi vey!!! Peter S. once again trying to
teach the critics how to think!!! Somehow Diana and the critics
can't seem to understand the discussion without Peter stomping
in to make it 'clear' to others. As if he has the low down on
"Anthro speak" as he calls it. He should open a school:
"Let me interpret for you" And one of the first subjects
he would probably speak on if given a wide open forum is that
Christianity is a racist doctrine. Steiner is a small fish compared
to the big one he is after.
Mike:
Well said Dottie!
I appreciate Dianna's telling us a bit of her story, and at times
even saying nice things. I do not want to go into "psychologizing
the Other" with her because 1)she types and spells better
than me. 2)I have some respect for what I see as her Motives
for criticizing RS and especially Waldorf.
What I see as Peter S's Motives for his Prosaic nonsense, as
to Anthroposophy being rotten to the core, are elusive and quite
suspect at best. And he has not proven to me that he has any
real respect for the people that he disses all the time
with his passive-aggressive snake-in-the-grass word-smithing.
It sounds like a bunch of intellectual masturbation to me.
Text and Analysis
Mike
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sat Jan 24, 2004 11:32 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Peter S trying to talk
At 20:24 24.01.2004, Mike wrote:
What I see as Peter S's Motives for his
Prosaic nonsense, as to Anthroposophy being rotten to the core,
are elusive and quite suspect at best. And he has not proven
to me that he has any real respect for the people that
he disses all the time with his passive-aggressive snake-in-the-grass
word-smithing.
It sounds like a bunch of intellectual masturbation to me.
Peter Staudenmaier is reminiscent of Christopher
Rocancourt posing as 'Christopher Rockefeller', described in
a 60 Minutes feature documented April 20, 2003 at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/18/60minutes/main550070.shtml
We asked him if he was familiar
with the Seventh Commandment? Thou Shalt Not Steal.
"I never steal,"
claims Rocancourt. "Never."
So how does Rocancourt explain
what he's doing in prison?
"It's like I say to you,
'Let me borrow your tie right now.' Well, you say, 'Okay, that
is my tie. I'll let you borrow it.' But today, I don't give back
your tie. I broke a promise, yeah? That makes me a thief,"
he asks.
"I did borrow it, but
that doesn't mean I'm a thief. I didn't grab it. I didn't take
it. I didn't steal it."
But he admits he lied, even
though he didn't steal.
Peter S is a teller of fables who plays games
with his readers.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
