RS
about Racial Evolution
Anthroposophy can't be racist because
it's about the "I Am"?
From: winters_diana
Date: Sat Apr 3, 2004 6:24 am
Subject: Anthroposophy can't be racist because it's about the
"I Am"?
I've once again lost the actual post I'm replying
to, which is from a couple of days ago, it's an exchange between Bradford
and Peter:
[Bradford:]
Well let me rephrase it for you. Spiritual
Science is I AM core history and I AM core education, with a
full focus on I AM development, and, therefore, Spiritual Science
cannot be racist.
[PS:]
That is an obvious non-sequitur, Bradford,
as I pointed out yesterday. The "therefore" is nonsensical,
because the premise and the conclusion have nothing to do with
one another. If somebody writes, "spiritual science is about
epistemology and esotericism and, therefore, spiritual science
cannot be racist", competent readers will laugh at this.
If you want to know what other people think is racist about Steiner's
doctrines, you'll have to take a look at his published works
on race.
This seems to sum it up for me. You guys think
"racism" means saying something not nice about a person,
or maybe not liking someone because of their race. Racism means
saying something not nice about races. You can think and
say all kinds of bad or stupid things about races - and
thus be a racist - and still think individual members of those
races are nice and like them as people and believe in brotherhood
and be very spiritual and feel deep concern for their "I
AM" and hold the sincere belief that we are all progressing
spiritually, etc. It's just so very simple. Do you guys think
all racists are not nice people? Many racists are very nice people
who will do anything for you, or anything even for someone of
a race they have a poor opinion of in general. (In fact they
are almost always trying to do the "lower races" a
favor - employing them, educating them, offering them "spiritual"
guidance for instance? Maybe you think it is not racism unless
you actually set about to exterminate them?)
Racist doctrines are doctrines about races
and not necessarily about individuals - so all this garbage about
your "Michael School" and the idealistic vision of
the "I Am" is just that, garbage. Even little children
on the playground recognize that there are no meaningful differences
between other humans marked by such superficialities as skin
color. Once you have discarded the basic and humane notion of
human equality (an understanding I believe we are born with)
in favor of some scheme in which race or skin color "means
something," other than how much sunblock to bring on vacation,
your thinking is racist. All you folks telling yourselves this
is deep and complicated and you need some spiritual syllabus
to "learn the meanings of races" from some guru are
kidding yourselves and it's a sorry sight.
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Sat Apr 3, 2004 6:37 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Anthroposophy can't be
racist because it's about the "I Am"?
Diana:
All you folks telling yourselves this is
deep and complicated and you need some spiritual syllabus to
"learn the meanings of races" from some guru are kidding
yourselves and it's a sorry sight.
All hail the Queen! Diana is right with her
politically correct lingo mingo and the rest of us who wish to
actually penetrate a thing are racist. Diana and Peter are the
last word. All hail Diana and Peter.
Diana do you not see how ridiculous your argument
is in its politically word looking correct way. Can you not contemplate
past your nose on a thing? All this hubris about what is right
and what is wrong no wonder you are having such trouble with
certain people on this list. They refuse to have 'you' dictate
to them your personal politically correct view on life that does
not look past the physical world.
The judgements coming from you are just unbelievable
in their pompasity and show a clear lack of willingingess of
going deeper than your skin.
Dottie
p.s. and as to the you and Peter care to help
Dr. Steiner students get past their terrible beginning history
so we can move on: nice try
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sat Apr 3, 2004 7:02 am
Subject: Garbage (was: Anthroposophy can't be...)
At 16:24 03.04.2004, Diana wrote:
so all this garbage about your "Michael
School" and the idealistic vision of the "I Am"
is just that, garbage.
Thank you for your candor, Diana. It obviously
means that anthroposophists are garbage eaters, and all this
constant garbage-eating makes them sick. So we are very sick,
and you are here to cure us, as a missionary of sorts. You have
expressed a sincere interest in garbology and claim that you
have tried hard to chew, swallow, and digest it. And now it's
making you barf again.
Try Nietzsche instead :)
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Sat Apr 3, 2004 7:17 am
Subject: Re: Garbage (was: Anthroposophy can't be...)
Thank you for your candor, Diana. It obviously
means that anthroposophists are garbage eaters,
LOL! Oh yes, "obviously," Tarjei.
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Sat Apr 3, 2004 7:44 am
Subject: Re: Anthroposophy can't be racist because it's about
the "I Am"?
All hail the Queen! Diana is right with
her politically correct lingo
Oh, please, Dottie. I am not trying to be
"the Queen." It's just simple. You don't need an education
and you don't need to worry about being "political correct."
(Though I plead guilty to political correctness where it means
a simple assumption that the races are equal and that no races
are "declining" spiritually.)
Kindergarteners know that race doesn't mean
anything, that all people are the same under the skin. They recognize
the "I Am" very simply and do not hold theories about
each other's "sheaths." I do believe we are born with
this understanding. If only we could hold onto it, and not feel
a need to "explain" things which don't need explaining
any more than the different colors of the flowers need "explaining."
I maintain that this is in fact a spiritual world view.
I think little children are very spiritual, I think the rigmarole
and rigid rituals imposed on them in Waldorf schools is the exact
opposite of spirituality and goes a long way to destroying children's
natural innocence and awe of the world and preparing them for
spiritual "theories" that are often very, very twisted.
It's a guru thing. If "Dr. Steiner"
had told you race didn't mean anything, that's what you'd be
preaching. Think for yourself and realize that preachers of racial
doctrines have always been with us and probably always will be.
It may not even have been a big deal to Rudolf Steiner, it was
just part of his worldview. Fancy mystical theories are meant
to mystify you and make you a sheep, telling you there are so
many supposedly "deep" things you don't get about this
or that which is as obvious as the nose on your face.
What kind of sicko God would make us different colors (or give
us different body types to choose from when we incarnate!) according
to spiritual progress?! What, does this god want to start
wars? This is not a good God, Dottie. I'm tired of taking
crap from Tarjei that I call his God "racist." I think
it is his views that are offensive to God.
Incidentally, I always mean to write back
when you reply to me, but your posts are so long. I copy them
and start replying and get too weary :) Then after a day or two
I can't remember what it was about. I wanted to at least tell
you that when you wrote "I DO get it" or smg like that
and I wrote "I dont't think you DO" I was not being
a smart aleck by capitalizing "DO." I was just being
a sheep and capitalized it because you did. :) Also awhile ago
we were talking about that quote about the preacher stopping
people going through the door to heaven. You wrote that it means
the preacher has the knowledge you need and won't share it. I
think it means you ought to question whether the preacher has
the knowledge in the first place, and I read it as a critique
of institutionalized religion, or alternatively, heavily embroidered,
artificially complex doctrines promulgated by so-called spiritual
"leaders"; it is these things perhaps blocking the
door. Don't assume the guy knows more than you know. He perhaps
just doesn't want to make it too easy for you.
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Sat Apr 3, 2004 9:07 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Anthroposophy can't be
racist because it's about the "I Am"?
Hi Dottie, you wrote to Diana:
Diana do you not see how ridiculous your
argument is in its politically word looking correct way. Can
you not contemplate past your nose on a thing? All this hubris
about what is right and what is wrong no wonder you are having
such trouble with certain people on this list. They refuse to
have 'you' dictate to them your personal politically correct
view on life that does not look past the physical world.
I don't see what any of this has to do with political correctness.
What Diana outlined is a very widely held understanding of the
concept of racism. It is not a politically correct understanding,
and it is shared by many, many people who have absolutely no
use for political correctness and its attendant narrowing of
public discourse. Also, why the silliness about hubris and dictating
and so on? When somebody else makes their views public, and you
think those views are wrong, you owe it to them to tell them
so. Not telling them so won't do them any favors. Alot of what
we do in discussions like this is try to figure out what is right
and what is wrong in other's peoples ideas.
Peter
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
April/May
2004
The Uncle
Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files
Anthroposophy & Anarchism
Anthroposophy & Scientology
Anthroposophical
Morsels
Anthroposophy,
Critics, and Controversy
