'higher' and 'lower'
From: raymon_ford
Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 10:57 am
Subject: 'higher' and 'lower'
Gidday Peter,
Take a passage such as
Even the savage is affected
by nature, but the laws of nature reveal themselves only to the
thoughts fructified by intuition of the more highly developed
man
from the book `Theosophy'. This sentence sends
a chill into the hearts of some. Others see it as innocuous,
reflecting the true nature of things.
Your arguments point to the juxtaposed terms
`savage' and `highly developed man' as lending themselves to,
indeed inviting, invalid generic judgments, hence racist in character.
That the laws of nature reveal themselves differently to different
people, and there is no one legitimate way to rank these people
based on their differing perceptions. And maybe that the terms
are imposing doubtful external standards, ie the `savage' may,
from another perspective, have some worthy knowledge of nature
overlooked in the belief system of the `highly developed man'
- though I am not sure of your view here. Have I got any of this
right?
I forgot to ask earlier – what will you
be teaching this summer?
See ya, Raymon
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 12:06 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] 'higher' and 'lower'
Hi again Raymon, you wrote:
Take a passage such as
Even the savage is affected
by nature, but the laws of nature reveal themselves only to the
thoughts fructified by intuition of the more highly developed
man
from the book `Theosophy'. This sentence
sends a chill into the hearts of some. Others see it as innocuous,
reflecting the true nature of things.
Yes, that's well put. I think that there is something of a basic
confusion embedded in the second stance: whether a particular
statement reflects the true nature of things and whether it is
innocuous are two very different issues, in my view. Failure
to distinguish these two issues is, I think, what leads some
anthroposophists to ask with incredulity whether critics of Steiner's
racial doctrines believe that the gods are racist.
Your arguments point to the juxtaposed
terms `savage' and `highly developed man' as lending themselves
to, indeed inviting, invalid generic judgments, hence racist
in character. That the laws of nature reveal themselves differently
to different people, and there is no one legitimate way to rank
these people based on their differing perceptions.
Yes, that's a big part of it. I also think there is little sense
in attributing differing cultural perceptions to racial character
in the first place, regardless of the particular ranking one
assigns to a given racial or ethnic group.
And maybe that the terms are imposing doubtful
external standards, ie the `savage' may, from another perspective,
have some worthy knowledge of nature overlooked in the belief
system of the `highly developed man' - though I am not sure of
your view here. Have I got any of this right?
I haven't said much about my views on cultural differences, for
the simple reason that they have nothing to do with racial character
or racial evolution, but yes, I agree with much of what you say
above. I think that "highly developed people" come
from all cultures and all races.
I forgot to ask earlier – what will
you be teaching this summer?
I teach at the Institute for Social Ecology
in Vermont (a very un-academic place, for those distracted by
credentials). This sumer I'm teaching an introductory course
called "Understanding Capitalism" and an advanced course
called "Antisemitism: Historical Roots, Contemporary Relevance".
Thanks for your perspectives on race and anthroposophy,
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: raymon_ford
Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 2:31 pm
Subject: Re: 'higher' and 'lower'
Gidday Peter,
OK I am with you in your argument. You say
I think that there is something of a basic
confusion embedded in the second stance: whether a particular
statement reflects the true nature of things and whether it is
innocuous are two very different issues, in my view.
This is an important point, at the root of
some of the differences expressed here. Please elaborate. You
see, if a given instance of the doctrine is seen to be the truth,
then statements regarding it as harmful can appear to be rather
beside the point, when the larger picture is taken into account.
See ya, Raymon
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 8:41 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: 'higher' and 'lower'
Hi Raymon, you wrote:
This is an important point, at the root
of some of the differences expressed here. Please elaborate.
You see, if a given instance of the doctrine is seen to be the
truth, then statements regarding it as harmful can appear to
be rather beside the point, when the larger picture is taken
into account.
That doesn't make much sense to me. Whether something is true
and whether it is harmful are fundamentally different questions,
in my view. I also think that the notion of taking the larger
picture into account can sometimes serves as a euphemism for
basic errors in reasoning. It is always important to assess the
context within which specific doctrinal statements are made,
but to imagine that the doctrine as a whole determines the status
of its constituent elements is rather backwards. This is especially
the case when the doctrine in question developed and changed
over time, as an accretion of disparate statements on a wide
variety of topics, rather than a fully-formed system given all
at once. Thus when different analysts disagree about particular
statements that Steiner made, invoking the "larger picture"
will often simply shift the disagreement onto broader terrain,
but in itself it won't resolve (or even necessarily clarify)
the disagreement. Everybody has their own conception of just
what this "larger picture" is and what its prominent
contours are. As far as anthroposophical racial theories go,
I think that the "larger picture" includes the work
of people like Wachsmuth, Karutz, Heise, Thieben, Uehli, and
so forth. It seems to me that we need to keep the work of these
students of Steiner in mind if we're trying to gain a more comprehensive
view of the whole.
Thanks for your thoughts,
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: raymon_ford
Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 12:41 am
Subject: Re: 'higher' and 'lower'
Gidday Peter,
You wrote
Whether something is true and whether it
is harmful are fundamentally different questions, in my view.
etc.
Thanks for the reply. I think I'll leave it
there, in view of your coming departure.
I came here in order to gain a better understanding
of your (and the WC's) thinking on the `race' question. Something
I started on a few years ago. I believe I have substantially
`got it' now, thanks to the concentrated barrage you put forth
recently, along with examples from Diana.
Thanks for helping me gain an additional perspective.
See ya, Raymon
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 6:54 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: 'higher' and 'lower'
But Raymon, aren't you going to give me this
doctrine you are talking about that needs to be accepted? I am
sincere in my asking as it seems you say you have been an AP
for over thirty years and that you support AP groups that support
your views. And this seems somehow to be connected with some
doctrine.
On the WC list they as well say that students
of Steiner follow a doctrine, which makes AP a religion. Something
like the tenents of Anthroposophy. Do you hold that AP is a religion
and that Dr. Steiner set out to create a doctrine to be followed
as in a religious organization?
Thanks for your speedy reply, :)
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: holderlin66
Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 8:04 am
Subject: Re: 'higher' and 'lower'
dottie zold wrote:
Do you hold that AP is a religion and that
Dr. Steiner set out to create a doctrine to be followed as in
a religious organization?
Thanks for your speedy reply, :)
Dottie
Good Question! Really good Question!
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 8:19 am
Subject: Re: 'higher' and 'lower'
Bradford:
Good Question! Really good Question!
Bradford, do you realize we have a fundamentalist
army for over 160 years now that has been taught that all they
do is for God. Do you realize this?
The case at VMI is blasting the top off of
the uncercurrent that keeps our men and women beholden to the
armed forces even after they have left the service. It's a God
thing. They are being brainwashed in a way to believe all they
do and the ultimate price they may pay is all for God.
Now, not all of them as a few cats in the
school have decided to fight the 'you must stand and pray to
our God before you pray to yours when you are sitting down'.
They have institutionalized God in the armed service. Now, this
is where it gets really really ugly and sad for the many mothers
and fathers who thought their children were going off and doing
what they wanted, unaware of the indoctrination of God as an
armed watchamacallit fighting off all the bad mamajambas that
refuse to come under our idea of 'freedom'...more like 'freedom'
to believe in our God and to hell with yours. It's a cruscade
we have going on. And it is the brotherhood....
Yup, you never know where that brotherhood
is going to show up. One never knows sometimes they are right
in our backyard and if we did not put our intuitive caps on we
might never know that which is trying to hold us back.
Come on Sophia,
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: holderlin66
Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 9:09 am
Subject: Re: 'higher' and 'lower'
dottie zold wrote:
fighting off all the bad mamajambas that
refuse to come under our idea of 'freedom'...more like 'freedom'
to believe in our God and to hell with yours. It's a cruscade
we have going on. And it is the brotherhood....
Yup, you never know where that brotherhood
is going to show up.
Come on Sophia,
Dottie
Village Voice:
"Who can dispute that
Americans of all political and personal beliefs can now see that
the nation is at a turning point in its history. It is hard to
think otherwise.
The president has led us into
a war of civilizations and cultures. He says he is guided in
all decisions by "the Almighty." He has done nothing
that would give us reason to doubt that he truly believe this
in his bones. Eerie, is it not, that the Al Qaeda killers who
follow Osama bin Laden and seek to destroy the United States
claim they have God on their side, too.
Is this an argument for moral
equivalence? Absolutely not. Moreover, moral equivalency is not
the grave issue before the American citizenry today. The state
of our presidency — and perhaps the future of our country
— is.
The president, who was led
to born-again religion by Texas evangelists some years ago, after
a wayward youth, spoke again of the will of God at his recent
speech-cum-press conference. Referring to the war in Iraq, he
said, "[F]reedom is not this country's gift to the world.
Freedom is the Almighty's gift to every man and woman in this
world." Then he added: "And, as the greatest power
on the face of the earth, we have an obligation" to carry
out the Lord's mission.
Some of Mr. Bush's own supporters
have grown increasingly anxious about Iraq and its ramifications.
In part, this is because of the continuing accumulation of documentary
evidence that the president and his coterie of more secular hawks
took the nation into a pre-emptive war against Iraq on the basis
of hyped intelligence and false claims. The claims were that
Iraq (1) was linked to the September 11, 2001, suicide-plane
attacks on New York and Washington, (2) possessed large stockpiles
of weapons of mass destruction, and (3) posed a serious, urgent
threat to the United States.
Many presidents have invoked
God in speeches and policy decisions, especially during times
of war when soldiers were dying for country. And most presidents
have told lies of various kinds during their tenures. But I know
of no president, certainly no modern president, who said he was
acting in God's name while telling lies in order to prod the
country into a war against an adversary that, though a vile dictatorship,
was no real threat to our security — and had no significant
link to the bin Laden forces that attacked us in 2001.
Bob Woodward, the chronicler
of official Washington, whose new book, Plan of Attack, is out
this week, writes that Bush told him in an interview that during
the buildup to the war, "I was praying for strength to do
the Lord's will. . . . I'm surely not going to justify war based
on God. Understand that. Nevertheless, in my case, I pray that
I be as good a messenger of His will as possible."
Our Good friend Mark Twain:
"I come from the Throne
-- bearing a message from Almighty God!... He has heard the prayer
of His servant, your shepherd, & will grant it if such shall
be your desire after I His messenger shall have explained to
you its import -- that is to say its full import. For it is like
unto many of the prayers of men in that it asks for more than
he who utters it is aware of -- except he pause & think.
"God's servant &
yours has prayed his prayer. Has he paused & taken thought?
Is it one prayer? No, it is two -- one uttered, the other not.
Both have reached the ear of Him who heareth all supplications,
the spoken & the unspoken....
"You have heard your
servant's prayer -- the uttered part of it. I am commissioned
of God to put into words the other part of it -- that part which
the pastor -- and also you in your hearts -- fervently prayed,
silently. And ignorantly & unthinkingly? God grant that it
was so! You heard these words: 'Grant us the victory, O Lord
our God!' That is sufficient. The whole of the uttered prayer
is completed into those pregnant words.
"Upon the listening spirit
of God the Father fell also the unspoken part of the prayer.
He commandeth me to put it into words. Listen!
"O Lord our Father, our
young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle -- be
Thou near them! With them -- in spirit -- we also go forth from
the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe.
"O Lord our God, help
us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help
us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their
patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the
wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble
homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of
their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn
them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended
through wastes of their desolated land in rags & hunger &
thirst, sport of the sun-flames of summer & the icy winds
of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee
for the refuge of the grave & denied it -- for our sakes,
who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives,
protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water
their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood
of their wounded feet! We ask of one who is the Spirit of love
& who is the ever-faithful refuge & friend of all that
are sore beset, & seek His aid with humble & contrite
hearts. Grant our prayer, O Lord & Thine shall be the praise
& honor & glory now & ever, Amen."
(After a pause.) "Ye
have prayed it; if ye still desire it, speak! -- the messenger
of the Most High waits.
It was believed, afterward,
that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what
he said.
[Mark Twain, 1905]
...................................................................................................................................
From: raymon_ford
Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 8:42 am
Subject: Re: 'higher' and 'lower'
Gidday Dottie,
You said, of me,
you support AP groups that support your
views
No Dottie, I said those involved RESPECT me
and my views. One can respect someone, and their views, without
agreeing with them.
See ya, Raymon
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 9:04 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: 'higher' and 'lower'
At 17:42 28.04.2004, Raymon wrote:
Gidday Dottie,
You said, of me,
you support AP groups that support your
views
No Dottie, I said those involved RESPECT
me and my views. One can respect someone, and their views, without
agreeing with them.
Frankly, I cannot respect the view that Steiner's
philosophy resembles Hitler's ideology, or that Anthroposophy
and Nazism are two sides of the same coin. If you compare the
attitudes towards handicapped people, for instance, where
the Nazis murdered them systematically to "cleanse the fatherland"
while the Anthroposophists nurtured and cared for such people
with love and understanding and respect, you must realize that
the propagation of such a view is obscene, immoral, dishonest,
and malevolent, deserving no respect whatsoever.
Perhaps you don't hold such a view, but you
keep kissing the ass of someone who does.
(Sorry about expressing myself in such an
uneducated way; English is my second language, and academic turns
of phrase have been giving me a bad taste lately.)
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 11:23 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: 'higher' and 'lower'
Hey Raymon,
I am hoping this is just a short sweet note
before the bigger one on the questions I asked about Dr. Steiner
and your views?
Thanks, Dottie
No Dottie, I said those involved RESPECT
me and my views. One can respect someone, and their views, without
agreeing with them.
...................................................................................................................................
From: raymon_ford
Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 4:35 pm
Subject: Re: 'higher' and 'lower'
Gidday Dottie,
We could, as you request, discuss whether
and where anthroposophy is being treated as a doctrine or as
a religion, what we believe Steiner's intentions were here, and
further discuss why the various parties view it one way or the
other, and so on. But these are sensitive questions. And from
what I have seen here, discussion will likely deviate from topic
- and emotional personal attacks will occur. Why would I be interested
in such an exchange?
See ya, Raymon
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 5:30 pm
Subject: Re: 'higher' and 'lower'
I don't believe you Raymon. You are copping
out. Why not get back to the subject as to whether you believe
Dr. Steiner was a racist or if he created some doctrine that
his students are supposed to follow. Do you or do you no. I have
no issue if you do have this opinion I would like to see what
it is back up by. I take no issue if you believe in God or don't,
like Dr. Steiner or do not. What I do take issue is misinterpreting
a mans words and deeming them to mean what you say they mean
and calling that 'Truth'.
So, care to dip your foot in a little deeper
or do you just want to pull a Staudenamier and throw the daggers
and run from real debate and hide behind 'oh why would I do that.
Put up Raymon.
And, I have to say your manner of operation
has definitely got my heebee jeebies blinking on and off...hard
to believe a man who says he has followed Steiners work for thirty
years would have a hard time in discussion of his views. Unless
he sits on the fringe and interprets Dr. STeiners work in a subjective
versus objective manner.
Put up Raymon,
Dottie
Gidday Dottie,
We could, as you request, discuss whether
and where anthroposophy is being treated as a doctrine or as
a religion, what we believe Steiner's intentions were here, and
further discuss why the various parties view it one way or the
other, and so on. But these are sensitive questions. And from
what I have seen here, discussion will likely deviate from topic
- and emotional personal attacks will occur. Why would I be interested
in such an exchange?
See ya, Raymon
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 8:07 pm
Subject: Re: 'higher' and 'lower'
Raymon:
We could, as you request, discuss whether
and where anthroposophy is being treated as a doctrine or as
a religion, what we believe Steiner's intentions were here, and
further discuss why the various parties view it one way or the
other, and so on.
Raymon, I am not asking us to discuss the
we part of anyone else other than your self and your particular
views of Dr. Steiners work.
People may or may not treat something as a
doctrine and or a religion this does not mean this was Dr. Steiners
intent for his work. And I am not interested in discussing 'various
parties' rather your particular party and view on Dr. Steiners
work.
What are your views Raymon on Dr. Steiner
and race. And what of this doctrine you speak of? I mean why
not just state what book or work you comment to be such a thing?
The Steiner students have debated with Staudenamier for over
two months now. They have not had a problem debating the ideas
and the fact that others think different rather the problem has
been similar to how you are handling yourself on this subject:
make a comment with nothing to back it up.
Now, obviously, you have nothing to prove
to anyone, we are discussing something you specifically brought
up as a doctrine and principles the Doctor asks his students
to follow. I would just like a straight answer if you can as
to what these are. I have to admit I'd be a little incredulous
and most likely would debate ideas with you on these points as
I have up until now not detected any specific doctrine nor anything
I sensed as being asked to adhere to.
I would at least hope you could be more sincere
in your debate after studying Steiner for 30 years than Mr. Staudenmaier
has been able to. We can all respect differences but not dillusions
of ones ego as we have had to deal with Mr. Staudenmaier. I have
differences with Diana on certain things and at least she is
willing to bring it on and make her views known. She doesn't
need to agree and most here understand she feels and thinks differently
than we do regarding Dr. Steiner. And she debates her ideas and
the Steiner students debates their ideas. There are clashes but
we are all trying to find a way to have the good conversation.
Sometimes we do good and sometimes we do not so very good:) But
we try.
Give it a shot Raymon, it's your point that
was put on the table. Does it have any deeper thinking attached
to it other than 'me and my views'.
Ramon
Why would I be interested in such an exchange?
You want to throw a point out there such as
you have in agreement with Staudenmaier or so it seems and you
want to say there is some doctrine the students are following
then it is your duty to back it up I think. That's the honest
thing to do.
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: raymon_ford
Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 1:01 am
Subject: Re: 'higher' and 'lower'
Gidday Dottie,
Sorry, but I am simply not interested. If
my `manner of operation' gives you the heebie-jeebies, well,
I get the heebie-jeebies when I see people demonizing their opponents.
But since you persevere, perhaps I can settle some of this quickly:
I do not believe Steiner intended for his
doctrine to become dogma. I did not say that Anthroposophy is
something that Steiner `asks his students to follow' – these
are your words not mine.
You say I `misinterpret a man's words and
deeming them to mean what you say they mean and calling that
truth'. Perhaps I do misinterpret Steiner, after all I am not
clairvoyant. And I did not call anything `truth'. You can treat
anything I say as hypotheses in the process of change, or perhaps
as perspectives on one or another aspect of `truth'.
As for interpreting Steiner's work in a `Subjective
vs Objective' manner, these are not black and white terms the
way I see them. My views here are probably in accord with those
of Bertoft. He is perhaps today's foremost Goetheanist, though
he is not an Anthroposophist, and he specifically no longer lectures
to Anthroposophists, so maybe yes my views are not in accordance
with Anthroposophy here. I am not an expert, I don't know.
See ya, Raymon
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 7:44 am
Subject: Re: Doctrine ( was higher and lower)
Raymon:
I get the heebie-jeebies when I see people
demonizing their opponents.
You lack utter credibility in this Raymon.
Nobody demonized Staudenamier we debated him
in the beginning until it became really clear that in Andreas
words he 'own goaled himself. And that he did literally.
Raymon:
I do not believe Steiner intended for his
doctrine to become dogma.
WHAT IS HIS DOCTRINE Raymon? And that is not
caps for excitement or screaming or what have you it is to bring
attention once again to this thing I have been asking you to
unmask for the list. What doctrine are you speaking of?
Raymon:
I did not say that Anthroposophy is something
that Steiner `asks his students to follow' – these are your
words not mine.
Raymon, what are these principles and what
is this doctrine? Can you not answer these two points you brought
up a while back?
And it seems to me at this point, you can
not point to the idea that they might not exist but in your own
interpretation.
Raymon:
You say I `misinterpret a man's words and
deeming them to mean what you say they mean and calling that
truth'.
You told us there was a doctrine and a set
of principles. Where are they? I am not being facitious here
Raymon I am being very sincere in my question. There might be
a some heat underneath because you keep not answering the question.
You are saying one thing but not bringing the goods. This is
how Staudenmaier operates. He just brings his own made up dictionary
and applies it in a very distinct manner that defies logic and
discernment.
Raymon:
Perhaps I do misinterpret Steiner, after
all I am not clairvoyant.
Hey Raymon, neither am I for the most part.
Well sometimes. But this is besides the point. Where is this
doctrine and why have you not stated it and the principles?
Noone is asking if you are clairvoyant I am
asking you to put up and show your point clear. There may be
others that agree with you that there is a doctrine and principles.
(that's why it is so ridiculous when I hear the PLANS critics
speak of a cult) I do not know. Students of the Doctor are varied
in their take on things and are pretty open minded to debating
ideas and their concepts of Steiners work. There are great differences
in many points) I am the weak link in this from an intellectual
level but not from an intuitive heart mind level. We come in
all shapes and sizes. And no one dares tell another Anthroposophists
what he or she must think. It gets heated but we all have our
own opinions of what his work means for us.
Raymon:
And I did not call anything `truth'.
You stated earlier and again in this post
there is a doctrine. Where is it? That sounded like a statement
of what you believe to be true. Is it?
Raymon:
You can treat anything I say as hypotheses
in the process of change, or perhaps as perspectives on one or
another aspect of `truth'.
DOCTRINE? We are looking for a doctrine Raymon
that you say exists and also principles set by the Doctor. So,
is there a doctrine Raymon or not? And if so what book are you
speaking of.
Raymon:
As for interpreting Steiner's work in a
`Subjective vs Objective' manner, these are not black and white
terms the way I see them. My views here are probably in accord
with those of Bertoft. He is perhaps today's foremost Goetheanist,
though he is not an Anthroposophist, and he specifically no longer
lectures to Anthroposophists, so maybe yes my views are not in
accordance with Anthroposophy here. I am not an expert, I don't
know.
Okay Raymon, who is Bertoft? And it doesn't
matter if your views concur with Anthroposophists here. We can
debate ideas and there are so many various takes because as I
see it there is no specific doctrine or set of principles or
laws to follow. We all have different life experiences and they
help shape who we are. I for one am respectful of this and always
try to keep it at the forefront of my mind when relating with
others or reading up on others.
I am wondering if you care to share in what
manner the differences exist between Bertoft and that of Steiners
work. And what are this man Bertofts references. What is his
background? Why has he stopped speaking to Steiner students?
Maybe they disagree with his take on Goethe?
I apologize if you are offended by my words
and my intenseness. I have heard, when on the critics, that the
Doctor formed a cult and that is what it is today. They also
say there is a doctrine of sorts. And that Steiners group indoctrinates
people by stealth. I ask you how can that be true when there
is no specific doctrine. People are not asking others 'hey you
wanna be an Anthroposophist? I fear these people are too willy
nilly when it comes to helping others to see the values Anthroposophy
has to offer the world. At times they remind me of the American
Democrats in their approach of things: too nicey nicey and not
enough back bone to carry the work through. Everyone wants to
be comfortable. And yeah that is my judgement. Sorry if it offends
anyone.
So, the point of a doctrine is important.
And the point of the Doctor being racist is important as this
is what Staudemaeir is using to say that Steiner was the forerunner
to the nazi ideology. He was not. Staudenmaier mixed up, on purpose
or not I have no clue although I do have a thought on it, ARIOSOPHY
and Anthroposophy. Ariosophy is riddled with racist language
and thoughts and is indeed the forerunner, in my opinion, to
Mein Kemph:( by Hitler. One can not mistake this point when reading
up on both works.
The doctors work has a few comments, that
probably do not even register on the scale if one was to take
his work in hand, that can be construed to be racist if one so
wishes to make them so. If we look at the work of this man and
contemplate it seriously I do not know how one can come to the
conclusion he was a racist or even spoke on a racist ideology.
And for me when looking at your thirty years of a student of
the Doctor I can not understand how you come to this conclusion,
not saying you have as you have not stated it, unless you are
wont to be subjective in your thinking and how your world experiences
have helped to shape this.
Sincerely,
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: raymon_ford
Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 12:58 pm
Subject: Re: Doctrine
Gidday Dottie,
Thanks for your post. I think I understand
you better now. Sorry, I did not intend to avoid the `doctrine'
question; I thought your issue was with `dogma'. I use the word
`doctrine' simply to mean `something that is taught' (entry 2a
in Merriam-Webster Online), and I am referring to Steiner's entire
body of teaching. Your concern is perhaps with method, rather
than teachings per se. Though after all the method is something
he taught too.
I see I misspelled `Bortoft' as `Bertoft'.
A Google search will bring it up for you. For my part I cannot
see any disagreement between what he says, and Steiner's take
on Goethean science. Bertoft worked in quantum physics, but his
field is philosophy of science.
I understand that the word `racist' can have
very negative overtones, especially in the US as you told me
once, and that it is unpleasant to feel that Steiner's work is
consequently smeared. But look at it this way: if you shine a
bright light, there will inevitably be shadows.
See ya, Raymon
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 1:08 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Doctrine
At 21:58 29.04.2004, Raymond wrote:
I understand that the word `racist' can
have very negative overtones, especially in the US as you told
me once, and that it is unpleasant to feel that Steiner's work
is consequently smeared.
Are you saying that Steiner's work is smeared
as a consequence of the word "racist" having
very negaive overtones? I'm also curious about why you hold an
obvious deliberate smearer of RS and his works in such a high
esteem, and how you made that fortune of yours that you're sharing
so generously with anthroposophical projects.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 4:32 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Doctrine
Raymon:
I use the word `doctrine' simply to mean
`something that is taught' (entry 2a in Merriam-Webster Online),
and I am referring to Steiner's entire body of teaching.
Well then according to your understanding
of doctrine, our history books in school would be such a document
as well, correct? When you say doctrine, I understand it as a
religious document or a set of rules that one would have to abide
by in order to be considered a true part of the group.
I do not have the dictionary on my person,
can you please state it on line for me so I can have a better
understanding where you are coming from?
Are you aware that PLAN critics say that Dr.
Steiner has a specific doctrine in the very same manner as you
do above. YET, they hold his work to be a set of religious tenents
that have to be followed by his students which they call followers
in the religious cult sense.
Raymon:
Your concern is perhaps with method, rather
than teachings per se. Though after all the method is something
he taught too.
I do not understand what you mean by this
above? My concern, if you want to call it that, is that I am
looking for objectivity based on a reflective contemplation of
the Doctors work. I find too much subjectivity and misunderstandings
do to either personal world views coloring the Doctors work or
a thoughtless commenting that bears no resemblance to what the
Doctor was intending.
Raymon:
Bertoft worked in quantum physics, but
his field is philosophy of science.
And why would you suppose he no longer speaks
to the Doctors students? What in your opinion is the splitting
point? In being a student of Dr. Steiner for thirty years as
you say where are their differences in understanding Goethe?
Do you think, in your contemplations of Dr. Steiner, he would
agree with the differences his students find or that Bertoft
disagrees with the Doctors stance on Goethean science?
Raymon:
I understand that the word `racist' can
have very negative overtones,
That is totally besides the point. I am not
worried about the connotations/overtones rather the truth of
the matter. I care not a wink if one views it negatively or positively
I care about the truth as best as it can be seen.
So, this aside, again I ask do you view Dr.
Steiner as a racist? This is not a fighting point Raymon, this
is a fact finding question. We can not go on and have your views
heard by stepping over this point. You think he is a racist or
you do not. I am not going to bite your head off, rather I would
like to understand if you do believe so, how you come to this
conclusion.
Raymon:
especially in the US as you told me once,
and that it is unpleasant to feel that Steiner's work is consequently
smeared.
Excuse me? Heebie jeebies going off again
here. You are way putting words in my mouth here and in a very
funky manner. I so do not trust you and it feels like a Staudenmaier
twist you got going on. I see where you are heading with this
and again, I get the feeling you are not who you say you are.
I am trying to avoid this particular point and bring it on irregardless
but you have such a slippery feel that I can not help but be
reminded of Staudenmaier.
Raymon:
But look at it this way: if you shine a
bright light, there will inevitably be shadows.
Hey Raymon look at this: we all have shadows.
Doesn't mean because we all do Dr. Steiner was a racist. And
again you have not answered my question about whether you think
the Doctors work add up to a racist man and a nazi forerunner
in your opinion.
You are slipping and sliding all over the
place. You do or you do not. Stand up and be counted with truthful
works or sit down Raymon. The deeper you get in this without
and thoughtful comments towards what you think the more your
credibility is at stake. And less you mistake this for hurt feelings
about the racist possibilty, lets be clear, you have shown absolutely
no thinking power of your own apart from agreeing with Staudenmaier
you have shown nothing but baloney. State the facts man.
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 4:34 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Doctrine
Good Raymon, you got no doctrine. I didn't
think so. It's your personal opinion and a narrow reading of
the word. Great. I am dealing again with a Staudenmaier sound
alike. Not only do we have Screwtapes uncle, we have Screwtape
himself. Whew.
Dottie
Raymon:
I use the word `doctrine' simply to mean
`something that is taught' (entry 2a in Merriam-Webster Online),
and I am referring to Steiner's entire body of teaching.
...................................................................................................................................
From: Harvey Bornfield
Date: Tue May 4, 2004 9:55 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: 'higher' and 'lower'
Raymon,
Dialogue is higher, Exchange, Lower....
Someone whose hope was downsized, their moral
corroded, anaesthetized by mechanistic, trivializing influences
of arrogance, cynicism and rebellion would use the word "Exchange".
A word which betrays an indifference to the possibility of engaging
proactive healing as the ultimate human intent. Everywhere you
look you see those who prefer Triumph to Reverence, people entrenched
in slaved addiction, carving notches on their weapons and their
history books, seeking like Pharoahs before them to immortalized
themselves in Pyramids, a heaven with square-footage, those who
by such actions continue to subscribe to the legions of the Already
Dead, such as, for example the boasting, seething PS, drunk on
the wine of malice, and looking for a kill.
On Tevye's other hand, consider someone who
was interested in contributing solutions, sourcing optimism,
kindling the lift of good will and energy, who would employ the
term "Dialogue". Exchange is the husk of once vibrant
dialogue, dialogue which has been robbed, de-winged of the Thriving
Presence of the Christ, and degenerated into argument; and in
this sorry state, infatuated with "proof", another
word for conquest, goes hunting in search of the plunder of human
applause and homage and material spoils, utterly unaware of its
sheer worthlessness in the cosmic scheme of things. For which
reason, the Jews have a saying "Man plans, and God Laughs"
And explains perfectly well, if one has eyes to see, why Antisemitism
exists, as if it had to be mentioned that striving is an insult
to the complacent, like integrity the Achilles Heel of a braggert.
So by way of suggesting a semblance of a response
to this post, consider indulging the honor of swapping ideas,
of operating out of the box of foregone conclusions, and instead
indulging open-ended, mysterious, elastic ideas, in order to
present, rather than hide your vulnerability. To imagine yourself
aloof from the human condition, is to refuse to acknowledge the
necessity of a love-based, rather than a power-based response
to Most Untheoretical Death. To build a psychic Great Wall of
China or a Berlin Wall in order to avoid the possibility of derision
and martyrdom could perhaps be construed either as a token of
the achievement of wisdom, yet at the same time a glaring manifestation
of cowardice.
The person who decides to refuse others the
opportunity to judge this, chooses to withold their talents from
the process of dialogue. Anthroposophy is not a press release
or a done deal to be repeated in lip-synch of syndicated rerun,
but like medicine, like art, like all work which deserves the
honor of being associated with the Progressive Stream of Humanity
regardless of the exterior label, it is practiced. The process
of transforming the wood and brick churches of human belief systems
into the living, breathing, glowing temples of human heart speech
is Open-endedness, whose "enemy" is drawing conclusions.
All Intents blossom or fester into Fruits, by which we come to
realize their value to human growth. Tyranny loves the square
table, one king and the rest subjects, but Dialogue, where all
are gathered in His Name, places king and peasant alike on the
rim of Arthur's Round table, and no man inhabits the center,
but his offerings are spokes offered into the center, and which
strengthen the wheel........
In this light your hasty dualistic analysis
of Doctrine "vs." Religion as a polar scaffolding,
an "either/or" constellation, a cobra/mongoose scenario,
seems a bit cramped, unmajestic, uninteresting and lacking in
imagination as an entrance to fruit-bearing, metabolizable thought.
And so we whisper: Sparring is ok for cretins and adolescents,
for the Waldorf critics carping and sniping their way to Nirvana,
but leads to self-assertions, target-markets, resentments, and
the infatuation with conquest, pursuits which steal time from
acquiring and perfecting the capacity to indulge and mature the
marvels and wonders of reflectively-powerful activity, such as
that self-evidenced truth which throughout all of history has
resulted in the expression of Mythology, Religion, Philosophy
and the Arts. All these, including Anthroposophy, have been created
through first-hand experience rather than inherited in old-wives-tales.
But by the time the intuitions, imaginations and inspirations
which penetrated the heart of courageous individuals who author
these manifestations of connectivity between the real and the
spiritual realms,'txixt rock and stars, were codified, published,
as it were, in soarless dogmas and veloured professions which
fractured Truth into a splinter of various archived Sunday-Service
denominations, each contending for Prime Time on the stage of
human allegiance, patriotism and other blindly-magnetic genres
of loyalty, they were dumbed down for the sake of audiences.
Therein lies the tragedy of popularization, that the responsibilities
of self-transformation and the uphill climb to excellence which
invites seekers to reverse priorities from the focus of ambitions,
contaminated with the inventoried dust of tangible rewards to
aspirations to ethereal traits and imperishable talents of angels,
properties which are accessed, harbored, rather than possessed,
that religion is sold on the auction block of desire, made desirable,
offered sirenlike as a seduction, rather than bestowed as a noble
responsibility.
Whenever two or more are gathered in His name,
the universe entrusts its secrets and bestows the fixings of
worthy game plans for the remediation, for the raising up of
humanity. Why would you want to be cut out of this loop? Band-Aids
for bruised egos are far less expensive than the price of acquiring
a Cancer of Indifference to Suffering, 'yours' or 'others', it
matters not to the God who is on everyones side of a well-rounded
humanity............. : )
Warm Regards,
Harvey
On Wednesday, April 28, 2004, at 04:35 PM,
raymon_ford wrote:
Gidday Dottie,
We could, as you request, discuss whether
and where anthroposophy is being treated as a doctrine or as
a religion, what we believe Steiner's intentions were here, and
further discuss why the various parties view it one way or the
other, and so on. But these are sensitive questions. And from
what I have seen here, discussion will likely deviate from topic
- and emotional personal attacks will occur. Why would I be interested
in such an exchange?
See ya, Raymon
And to Solomon the power of the swiftly-blowing Wind.....
and it sped at his bidding to the lands We had blessed, for We
know all things........
Quran
...................................................................................................................................
From: raymon_ford
Date: Thu May 6, 2004 12:59 am
Subject: Re: 'higher' and 'lower'
Gidday Harvey,
Thanks for your post.
You say `Someone whose hope was downsized,
their moral corroded, anaesthetized by mechanistic, trivializing
influences of arrogance, cynicism and rebellion would use the
word "Exchange" …'.
My use of `exchange', in the context of the
message you quoted, referred to a dialog in which personal attacks
form part of the content. This was my main thrust, though it
may not have been clear.
I was not really able to see where your post
addressed this, though perhaps your references to `cowardice'
and `aloof from the human condition' referred to my reluctance
to participate in such `dialog'; and you seem to suggest I should
front up to such attacks rather than be `left out of the loop'.
Have I got you right?
There may well be an element of cowardice
and aloofness in my attitude, but mostly I simply have better
things to do with my time than deal with that sort of thing (I'm
somewhat tired of the topics now anyway). Thanks, but no thanks.
The excellence of dialog that you advocate
is not, in my view, served by belittling those with whom one
is conversing. People here can post negative personal criticism
if they want to, that's fine. They can see the justification.
These days I prefer not to, that's all.
You said `…your hasty dualistic analysis
of Doctrine "vs." Religion as a polar scaffolding…'
etc, and went on to mention cretins, carping and sniping. I wasn't
making an analysis; read the earlier post from Dottie –
she had said to me `…Do you hold that AP is a religion and
that Dr. Steiner set out to create a doctrine…' (same thread,
Apr 27). I naturally used these terms in my short and declining
reply, in which I tried to say that we could talk about these
two things, but I was not interested in view of the personal
attacks that would likely surface from wherever.
See ya, Raymon
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
