Daniel Hindes

Continuing my examiniation of paragraphy 6 of Peter Staudenmaier's 'Anthroposophy and Ecofascism'::

It is stated that "Steiner changed his mind on many topics in the course of his career." This accusation is hardly new, and Steiner repeatedly addressed it during his lifetime. Writing in, An Outline of Occult Science (Hudson 1972, p. xxxii - Preface to the First edition, translation by Maud and Henry B. Monges, and revised by Lisa D. Monges) Rudolf Steiner said:

“ Many kinds of possible criticism could still be cited. There might be critics who have read the earlier writings of the author, for example, Views of the World and Life in the Nineteenth Century, or perhaps the brochure on Haeckel and his Opponents. Some such critic might say, 'It is incomprehensible how one and the same man can write these books and then, besides the already published book Theosophy also write this present book. How is it possible that someone can defend Haeckel and then turn around and discredit what results from Haekel's research as healthy 'monism'? It might be comprehensible had the author of this Occult Science combated Haeckel with 'fire and sword,' but, that he has defended him, indeed, has even dedicated Views of the World and Life in the Nineteenth Century to him, is the most monstrous thing imaginable. Haeckel would have unmistakenly declined this dedication had he been conscious of the fact that the dedicator might some day write such stuff as this Occult Science with its exposition of a more than crude dualism.” - The author of this book, however, is of the opinion that while it is possible to understand Haeckel very well, it is nevertheless, not necessary to believe that he is only to be understood by one who considers nonsensical everything that is not derived from Haeckel's own concepts and hypotheses. Furthermore, he is of the opinion that it is possible to come to an understanding of Haeckel only by entering upon what he has achieved for science and not by combating him with 'fire and sword.' Least of all does the author believe that Haeckel's opponents are right, against whom, for example in his brochure Haeckel and His Opponents he has defended the great philosopher. Indeed, if the writer of this brochure goes far beyond Haeckel's hypotheses and places the spiritual point of view of the world alongside Haeckel's merely naturalistic one, his opinion need not therefore coincide with the opinion of the latter's opponents. If the facts are looked at correctly, it will be discovered that the author's present day writings are in complete accord with his earlier ones.”

If Peter Staudenmaier feels that he can demonstrate Rudolf Steiner's statements to be untrue, I eagerly await such an article. However, to do so Staudenmaier would need to actually read whole books by Rudolf Steiner, and there is little evidence that he has done this.

Continuing my examiniation of paragraphy 6 of Peter Staudenmaier's 'Anthroposophy and Ecofascism':

Staudenmaier's obvious contempt for his subject is quite evident in his calling Steiner's various activities before age 36 "dabble[ing] in a number of unusual causes.” Steiner's seven meticulous volumes of Goethe's scientific writings completed while officially in the employ of the Goethe Archives were universally praised by the scholars of his day. On leaving the archives, he was praised with the following words: “His work, which combined critical acumen with actual achievement, has gained the commendation of all those best qualified to judge.” (Cited in Johannes Hemleben, Rudolf Steiner: An Illustrated Biography, London 2000, pages 70-71.) That Steiner's groundbreaking work on epistemology, both in his book Truth and Science (expanded from his PhD thesis) and A Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's Worldview certainly goes well beyond “dabbling” is evident to anyone who has actually read them. Likewise his book on Nietzsche was praised and criticized for its content, but no one leveled the accusation of dilettantism. For a discussion of the reception of Steiner's book Friedrich Nietzsche, Ein Kämpfer Gegen sein Zeit see Christoph Lindenberg, Rudolf Steiner: Eine Biographie, Stuttgart 1997 page 254. “In the press there appeared positive and negative reviews in large numbers. The book rather quickly required another printing.”)

Continuing my examiniation of paragraphy 6 of Peter Staudenmaier's 'Anthroposophy and Ecofascism'::

Steiner consistently maintained that his intellectual development was a gradual evolution. Steiner's view that his intellectual development represented a gradual evolution is demonstrated in the following:

"Anyone who has found my writings and lectures may gather all this from them; and I would not especially mention this matter were it not repeatedly said in error that I have departed from all that I wrote and said formerly and turned to the views represented in the works of Blavatsky and Besant. Whoever carefully studies, for example, my Theosophy, will find that everything contained in it is developed in accordance with and as a continuation of the direction of modern thought described above; you will find that the matters dealt with are presented in accordance with certain presuppositions contained in Goethe's conceptions of the world, and that only in certain places is mentioned that ideas which I had arrived at (etheric body, sentient body, etc.) are also to be found in the literature which I which is called Theosophical. I know that these explanations shall not be able to do away with certain attacks that are constantly made against me, for in many cases these attacks are not made in order to arrive at the actual facts of the matter but for in some entirely different reason. But what can be done in the face of ever recurring inaccuracies? Nothing can be done but to reiterate the truth!"
Rudolf Steiner. "Approaches to Anthroposophy." Sussex: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1992. Page 31. Translated by Simon Blaxland-de Lange. Lecture of January 11th, 1916 in Basel (GA 35).

It was at age 40 that Rudolf Steiner by his own account decided to go public with his spiritual insights. In The Course of My Life (New York 1951, page 297) Steiner writes:

“The decision to give public expression to the esoteric from my own inner experience impelled me to write for the Magazine for August 28, 1899, on the occasion of the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of Goethe's birth, an article on Goethe's fairy-tale of The Green Snake and the Beautiful Lily, under the title Goethes Geheime Offenbarung (Goethe's Secret Revelation). This article was, of course, only slightly esoteric. But I could not expect more of my public than I there gave. In my own mind the content of the fairy-tale lived as something wholly esoteric, and it was out of an esoteric mood that the article was written.”

Steiner goes on to describe how through a couple named Brockdorff and a circle of their friends he found people interested in Theosophy to whom he could speak of the esoteric knowledge that he had developed. It is of little wonder that, if Staudenmaier is unable to be accurate in the minor details of dates and years, his has such trouble with the far more difficult task of understanding Steiner's worldview and presenting it accurately.

Continuing my examiniation of paragraphy 6 of Peter Staudenmaier's 'Anthroposophy and Ecofascism':

Among the 95 works Steiner published during his time in Weimar was a book on Nietzsche, which Staudenmaier makes a great deal of later in this article. This period comprises about a quarter of Steiner’s autobiography that Staudenmaier will make a big deal of in a follow-up piece. (See Rudolf Steiner, The Course of My Life, New York, 1951. Chapters X to XXIII - chapters 10 through 23 of 38 total) deal with this period – pages 119 to 249 out of 358.) These were arguably very formative intellectual years, and would have taken only two words to include. Staudenmaier has repeatedly claimed that he is a true scholar and expert on anthroposophy (though he has backed off these claims recently). If he had read Steiner's autobiography before putting pen to paper for this “fair and balanced” (Staudenmaier's own words) study, he would also find that his next statement above factually incorrect: Steiner claims "he was able to see the spirit world” from early childhood, and not from age 36 as claimed above (though the phrase “and communicate with celestial beings" is a typical Staudenmaier slant and not Steiner's actual wording). This Steiner mentions very early in his autobiography . (Rudolf Steiner, The Course of My Life, New York 1951, page 12. Speaking of himself as an 8 year old: “For me the reality of the spiritual world was as certain as that of the physical.”)

Continuing my examiniation of paragraphy 6 of Peter Staudenmaier's 'Anthroposophy and Ecofascism'::

In Staudenmaier's single-paragraph overview of Steiner's life before 1900 we are missing two words: “and Weimar.” Steiner's years in Vienna and Berlin are mentioned, but the seven years in Weimar are neglected. Apparently they don't fit the thesis, as Berlin and Vienna can be easily shown to be a hotbed of German nationalism and other discredited theories; however, provincial Weimar is somewhat difficult. Up to age 29 Steiner lived in or near Vienna, and at age 36 moved to Berlin. However, from age 29 to 36 Rudolf Steiner worked in Weimar at the Goethe Archives editing Goethe's scientific papers, as well as finishing his doctorate and publishing a total of 95 titles.

Steiner moved to Weimar in the autumn of 1890 and left for Berlin in early 1897. For a very concise overview of Steiner's activity during this time see Johannes Hemleben, Rudolf Steiner: An Illustrated Biography, London 2000, pages 39 to 71. The summary of Steiner's written work from this period is on page 65. In addition to the many articles and the volumes of Goethe's scientific writings, Steiner wrote his doctoral thesis, published an expanded version as Truth and Science, wrote an epistemology, a book on Nietzsche and the book he considered to the end of his life to be his most important work: his Philosophie der Freiheit. Whether these books are inconsistent with Steiner's later “occult” work will be considered later in this piece. For a more in depth treatment of the period, see Christoph Lindenberg, Rudolf Steiner: Eine Biographie. Stuttgart: Verlag Freies Geistes Leben, 1997 pages 192-272.

Examining Paragraph 6 of Peter Staudenmaier's 'Anthroposophy and Ecofascism':

Who was Rudolf Steiner?
Like many quasi-religious groups, anthroposophists have a reverential attitude toward their founder. Born in 1861, Steiner grew up in a provincial Austrian town, the son of a mid-level civil servant. His intellectually formative years were spent in Vienna, capital of the aging Habsburg [sic]empire, and in Berlin. By all accounts an intense personality and a prolific writer and lecturer, Steiner dabbled in a number of unusual causes. At the age of 36, he reports, he underwent a profound spiritual transformation, after which he was able to see the spirit world and communicate with celestial beings. These ostensible supernatural powers are the origin of most anthroposophist beliefs and rituals. Steiner changed his mind on many topics in the course of his career; his early hostility toward Christianity, for example, gave way to a neo-christian version of spiritualism codified in anthroposophy. But interest in mysticism, occult legends and the esoteric was a constant throughout his life.

To the statement “Like many quasi-religious groups, anthroposophists have a reverential attitude toward their founder” I would like to point out that while the phrase attempts to impute that anthroposophists are quasi-religious by virtue of the fact that they generally have a reverential attitude toward their founder, it does not follow logically. That any group that has a reverential attitude towards its founder is not also thereby quasi-religious is evident when considering the attitude of many Americans towards the founders of their country. While often in many ways reverential, it does not make those Americans a quasi-religious group. And why does Mr. Staudenmaier employ the phrase “quasi-religious"? Are anthroposophists not religious enough for him? If Staudenmaier feels that anthroposophy is a religion, with Steiner as its prophet (or even God) it would be more honest to come out and say so.

Continuing my comments on the 5th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's 'Anthroposophy and Ecofascism'. The implication that anthroposophists attempt to hide their "highly esoteric doctrine" because they consider it only "suitable only for a spiritually enlightened elite" seems laughable in light of the fact that nearly every Waldorf School sells Rudolf Steiner's highly esoteric books openly in their bookstores. Has Peter Staudenmaier ever actually visited a Waldorf School? In actual fact Bloch did not oppose anthroposophy "from the beginning." The book cited to this effect ( Heritage of our Time, in German Erbschaft der Zeit) was first published in 1935. (I should note that the essay that mentions anthroposophy was written around 1923 according to the book’s editor. However, to actually "oppose" anthroposophy requires publishing, speaking publicly, or otherwise undertaking action on the subject.) Anthroposophy was at that point about 35 years old, and Steiner was already 10 years dead. By indulging in such rhetorical flourishes, Staudenmaier undermines his credibility as a historian.

Moving on to the 5th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's 'Anthroposophy and Ecofascism'.

Peter Staudenmaier writes inParagraph 5: In light of this broad public exposure, it is perhaps surprising that the ideological underpinnings of anthroposophy are not better known. Anthroposophists themselves, however, view their highly esoteric doctrine as an "occult science" suitable only for a spiritually enlightened elite. The very name "anthroposophy" suggests to many outsiders a humanist orientation. But anthroposophy is in fact a deeply anti-humanist worldview, which is why humanists like Ernst Bloch opposed it from the beginning.PS2 Its rejection of reason in favor of mystical experience, its subordination of human action to supernatural forces, and its thoroughly hierarchical model of spiritual development all mark anthroposophy as inimical to humanist values.

So let me summarize this absurd and illogical paragraph: Anthroposophists are doing a lot of work that is getting positive publicity in the world, but their evil ideology is somehow overlooked. Further, this evil ideology, this "highly esoteric doctrine" they consider "suitable only for a spiritually enlightened elite" (note the classic leftist tactic of decrying elitism). And even their name is misleading, suggesting humanism when in fact, because one Ernst Bloch "opposed it from the beginning," it must not be. And finally, because Peter Staudenmaier has now labeled it anti-reason, pro mystical experiential, subordinating of human action to supernatural forces, and hierarchical (without having offered any examples or even citations of primary of secondary sources to support these allegations) it must be "inimical to humanist values." Or the even shorter version: Ernst Bloch didn't like it, I called it names, and you must consider it evil. This type of writing seems more reminiscent of Pravda under Stalin than serious historical scholarship. (Pravda was the state-run party newspaper of the U.S.S.R. Under Stalin it published raving denunciations of those targeted by the state for elimination. Their supposed crimes were described in lurid detail. Mostly these crimes were fabricated to create the illusion of justice, though few people in or outside the country believed these accusations, either at the time or since.)

Howdy folks,

I've been on hiatus from my blog for a while; life has a way of filling up your time. My Defending Steiner is up for all to read, and some of the folks over at the WC (Waldorf Critics) have even been looking at it. It is a bit discouraging that they keep missing the point, but then, they don't have a history of critical reading that is critical in anything but attitude. Someone emailed me some of the WC postings, so I thought I'd respond here.

In one post, Walden writes:

Trying to slowly make my way through a web site that Serena pointed out and I have a question regarding something the writer (Daniel Hindes) states:

"Blavatsky did indeed originate the term "Root Race". And she did declare that indigenous peoples are dying out. However, Staudenmaier has misunderstood (or never read) the explanation for how this is to be accomplished. Contrary to what Staudenmaier would have you believe, Blavatsky did not declare that those indigenous people who were alive ought to die for karmic reasons. Rather, Blavatsky, accepting the scientific reports that indigenous peoples were dying out as a unique racial group due to sterility, declared that this sterility was due to the fact that souls no longer wished to be born into these races. The dying-out process she predicted would take another thousand years. The karmic necessity that Blavatsky talked about was that souls wishing to be born were choosing other races for karmic reasons, and not that indigenous peoples currently alive ought to die.26 Staudenmaier has treated Blavatsky with the same lack of scholarly care and accuracy that he brings to this study of Steiner."
http://www.defendingsteiner.com/refutations/ps01/Anthroposophy%20and%20Ecofascism.pdf

Does anyone know of these "scientific reports that indigenous peoples were dying out as a unique racial group due to sterility?"

I myself would be interested in learning the answer. Blavatsky has come under criticism over the years for improperly documented sources. So this claim of hers may stand, or may fall.

I should note that whether or not Blavatsky was correct about the sterility of indigenous peoples, this does not change my point one bit. My observation was firstly, that Blavatsky believed this (and I gave specific page numbers for where it could be found in "The Secret Doctrine") and second that Staudenmaier seriously misrepresented Blavatsky's beliefs in writing about them, much as he seriously misrepresents Steiner's beliefs when writing about Steiner. Should Blavatsky turn out to be misinformed about sterilization, my point about Staudenmaier's accuracy still stands.

Another writer on the WC list has accused me of failing to prove Blavatsky free of racism with an example that is clearly racist. I'm not sure why Barnaby supposes that I ever attempted to defend Blavatsky of charges of racism. I should also note that nowhere do I propose that Blavatsky is free of racism. That some of Blavatsky's concepts were blatantly racist is obvious and well established, and not a point that I would dispute. I am not a knee-jerk defender of all that is "occult". I try to look carefully at the facts of every case, and draw reasonable conclusions. And as a matter of fact, it was on the issue of the importance of race that Steiner differed most sharply with Blavatsky. And one of my major issues with Peter Staudenmaier is that he flagrantly conflates Anthroposophy with Theosophy where most other scholars see major differences between them. I would urge people over at the Waldorf Critics list to use a little more discernment and care in reading. Since they have an obvious bias they should be especially careful in reading things which they know they will automatically disagree with.

Ernst Bloch's ramblings are worth quoting at some length. The following is from Bloch's central book, a three volume philosophical work titled “The Principle Of Hope” (Die Prinzip der Hoffunung). It serves to give a little insight into Bloch's thinking. I find it telling that Staudenmaier relies on such insightful writing as this to establish his case: "And let us not forget what second-rate clairvoyance achieves here. … At the peak of 'Knowledge of Higher Worlds' the occult journalist Rudolf Steiner established himself, a mediocrity in his own right. A mediocre, indeed unbearable curiosity, yet effective, as if mistletoe were still being broken off here, as if something shoddily druidical were fermenting, soaking, murmuring and chattering an newspaper. Whether the chatter and the low level are necessary for this kind of 'initiation' or occult activation it is difficult to say. There are a few, a very few, serious writings from the Steiner circle, for example Poppelbaum's biosophical study 'Man and Animal' and several chemical-astrological boldnesses with imitations of alchemy; but everywhere else the mere chorus of a hundred thousand fools predominates. Nevertheless there sometimes also appears a dash of mediumistic disposition, an atavistic capacity for parapsychic phenomena, above all for atavistic clairvoyance. There can be no doubt that such phenomena and such dispositions still exist, nor that they rose extremely high in characters like Blavatsky and the somnambulistic Steiner. Atavistic clairvoyance was linked as it were sub¬terraneously with mythic customs and cults, with world-pictures constructed on a different state of consciousness from that of today. Thus Rudolf Steiner was after all able to touch an elements and secret teachings which from the outside are almost closed to modern consciousness, however great its philosophical empathy. Sometimes types such as these, shallow mermaids or minotaurs of tripod and journalism at the same time such as Blavatsky or Rudolf Steiner, had in their consciousness a feedpipe from the unconscious, from the long-past, not-past. Or, like deep-sea fish, deformed and flattened, but still in a twilight form scarcely accessible to mythological research, old under-, inter- and hinter¬worlds rose putrefied to the surface."