Mind Gambling for Beginners
From: Sune Nordwall
Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 4:56 am
Subject: Analysis of yet another 'PS mind game'
After a long discussion on this list about
the demagoguery of PS on anthroposophy since long, revealed in
a nut shell by his untruthful introduction to his first article
as solo writer on anthroposophy, and his repeated mind games
over years after its first publication, trying to cover up for
its untruthfulness, Detlef (Sun,
11 Apr 2004 00:10:31 +0200) tells that the only instance
in the lecture series 'Mission of Folk Souls' where RS uses the
word 'Hauptrasse' (then in its plural form) is lecture seven.
From the lecture, it is clear that RS is talking
of what anthropology at the time (1910) since long (1795) described
as the five main races of humanity, and not about what the theosophical
tradition refers to as the five (of seven) 'root races', referring
to humanity during the stages of the development of our solar
system. Detlef also writes that the lecture (seven) is not online
in English.
He also tells that RS in the text refers back
in the lecture series, and that the preceding lecture (six) also
mentions the five races in question in the anthropological sense,
there referring to them as 'Grundrassen'. Detlef also quotes
and translates the passages from the two lectures (six and seven),
where the words appear in the way he describes.
RS also in a second instance in lecture six
uses the word in the singular form 'Grundrasse'. In all three
instances it is clear that RS is talking about the anthropological
and not - as persistently and erroneously argued for by PS -
the theosophical concept. In no instance in the lecture series
does RS - as untruthfully argued by PS in the introduction to
his article AaE - use (or refer to) the theosophical concepts
'root race' or 'root races'.
Tue, 13 Apr 2004 20:42:58 -0000 Deborah
answers Detlef, writing:
I was the one who asked for the quotes.
Thank you very much for doing the tedious work of tracking them
down and translating the relevant passages.
(referring to the translated passages from
lecture six and seven).
I then answer Tue, 13 Apr 2004 23:37:49 +0200
in a posting 'On PS demagogical buzz',
telling that lecture seven actually is published online at my
site since long, and give the URL for it.
Wed, 14 Apr 2004 00:32:35 -0000 Deborah answers
my posting, thanking for giving the URL to lecture seven, and writes:
Thank you for the link to the lecture.
I just read it for the first time. Interesting picture of the
history of humanity over about 10,000 years. And no, it doesn't
support, in any way, Peter's description.
As answer to this posting by Deborah, PS returns
with a new and - again - untruthful mind game in a posting Sat,
17 Apr 2004 00:15:15 +0200 (CEST), titled 'reading
and falsehoods'.
He writes, diverting the discussion from the
issue at hand; his in full demonstrated untruthfulness in the
smashing and selling - and not to this day PS corrected - demagogical
and made up untruthful story about what RS actually says in the
lecture series 'Mission of Folk Souls in the introduction to
PS' article:
(PS, otherwise repeatedly in discussions trying
to excel in demonstrations of his capacity to read and understand
texts, connects to a thread on 'reading' and writes, playing
a new mind game:)
Last week
I wrote the following to Deborah
about Steiner's 1910 Oslo lectures on national souls...
If I understood the subsequent exchange
properly, then it sounds like Deborah hadn't actually read the
book. She now says, apparently referring to some part of this
text, that she has "just read it for the first time",
and that the published text "doesn't support, in any way,
Peter's description."
It isn't entirely clear what Debroah is getting at, but if this
is indeed a reference to the published version of the 1910 lectures,
then Deborah's claim is what she likes to call a "falsehood".
PS, self proclaimed 'scholar' and alleged
master of text comprehension, argues - as if everything on this
list refers specifically and directly to postings by him to this
list, referring to the lecture series in its totality:
1. Deborah says, apparently referring to
some part of this text, that she has "just read it for the
first time", and that the published text "doesn't support,
in any way, Peter's description."
and
2. It isn't entirely clear what Debroah
is getting at, but if this is indeed a reference to the published
version of the 1910 lectures, then Deborah's claim is what she
likes to call a "falsehood".
On 1:
As is clear from the description above - if
one actually reads the few postings involved - of the issue at
hand with regard to PS; his well demonstrated and documented
untruthfulness as con 'historical scholar' in the introduction
to his Major Opus demagoguery on anthroposophy and anthroposophical
activities during and after the second WW in Germany, what Deborah
refers to is not the lecture series in its totality.
As her posting Wed, 14 Apr 2004 00:32:35 -0000
clearly tells - if one cares to read it - it refers to lecture
seven, not the lecture series in its totality.
On 2:
It is entirely clear from Deborah's postings
on 13 and 14 April, mentioned above, what she is getting at -
except to PS as con 'master of text comprehension' and word manipulator
- being that lecture seven (and six) demonstrate(s) that PS'
introduction to his first solo demagoguery on anthroposophy is
untruthful.
It is also clear that what PS writes is just
another smoke screen mind game, trying to divert the discussion
from this well documented, by himself repeatedly defended and
never corrected untruthfulness in his repeated demagoguery on
anthroposophy by trying - with now the smooth and slick introduction
of an untruthful hypothesis, implying that Deborah is stating
a 'falsehood' in her posting
Wed, 14 Apr 2004 00:32:35 -0000 to this list - to divert the
attention and awareness in the discussion from his well documented
untruthfulness to other issues, that he - again - does not penetrate
more than to the surface of the text.
Correct your well and fully demonstrated untruths
in the introduction to your seemingly first solo article on anthroposophy,
Peter.
Write to all the places where your article
has been published and tell them about what not is true in the
introduction and ask them to publish corrections of it. Continue
with the rest of the article and your subsequent articles and
send corrections to all the places you know of where they have
been published (easily found out for the English and Swedish
versions) and then come back to this discussion.
I'm sure noone will hold a grudge against
someone demonstrating a serious strife to correct untruths that
one - for different reasons - has published, after they've been
corrected.
Why not start with PLANS and Dan Dugan, who
probably still lurks on this list, who put up your article in
the first place and has supported your defence of your untruthfulness
in it since then?
Sune
...................................................................................................................................
From: Deborah
Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 6:06 am
Subject: Analysis of yet another 'PS mind game'
Dear Sune,
Thank you for clearing that up. You are a
gentleman and a scholar. It is too bad you are in Sweden and
I'm in Montreal! I'd love to meet you as more than a disembodied
"voice."
Deborah
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 1:14 pm
Subject: mind gambling for beginners
Sune writes:
it is clear that RS is talking of what
anthropology at the time (1910) since long (1795) described as
the five main races of humanity, and not about what the theosophical
tradition refers to as the five (of seven) 'root races', referring
to humanity during the stages of the development of our solar
system.
[...]
In all three instances it is clear that
RS is talking about the anthropological and not - as persistently
and erroneously argued for by PS - the theosophical concept.
Stop the presses -- this may be the first time in three years
that any of Sune's replies to me has made the slightest bit of
sense. If I'm following him here, Sune is saying that my summary
of Steiner's blather about 'folk souls' is erroneous because
I relate Steiner's text to the theosophical tradition rather
than to the anthropology of the time. If that is indeed Sune's
point, it's an interesting one and worth exploring, in my view.
Steiner's racial doctrines did draw extensively, albeit selectively,
on nineteenth century anthropology, though he seems to have been
largely unaware of early twentieth century anthropology. The
problem with Sune's analysis is that it fails to take into account
Steiner's forthright rejection of 'materialist' science, which
included much of contemporary anthropology, in favor of his theosophically
derived conceptual framework.
In no instance in the lecture series does
RS - as untruthfully argued by PS in the introduction to his
article AaE - use (or refer to) the theosophical concepts 'root
race' or 'root races'.
Well, except for the inconvenient fact that lecture six is titled
"The Five Root Races of Mankind".....
He writes, diverting the discussion from
the issue at hand
Evidently we disagree about just what the issue at hand is. I
think the issue at hand is the content of Steiner's 'folk souls'
book. If you think that is not the issue, I invite you to clarify.
as if everything on this list refers specifically and directly
to postings by him to this list
That's silly. Deborah's remark, which I quoted, did refer quite
specifically to my posts to this list. Maybe you missed that?
It is also clear that what PS writes is
just another smoke screen mind game
Yes, I do get the impression that you and other listmates consider
quotations from Steiner's published texts to be some sort of
game, with an obscure set of unstated rules. But that's not the
game I'm playing, as I tried to explain to Dottie last week.
What I'm doing is reading what Steiner wrote and trying to discuss
it here. I very much encourage you to join me.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 3:14 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] mind gambling for beginners
Peter Staudenmaier:
Well, except for the inconvenient fact
that lecture six is titled "The Five Root Races of Mankind".....
Daniel:
Peter, you have told us previosly that the
lectures do not actually have titles in the original (and this
is correct). The chapter titles were added after the fact by
the editors of the 1962 German edition, and then mistranslated
for the 1970 English edition. I would expect someone of your
impeccable scholarship to be clear on a point like this, especially
since you brought it up yourself.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 6:57 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] mind gambling for beginners
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
Well, except for the inconvenient fact
that lecture six is titled "The Five Root Races of Mankind".....
Daniel responded:
Peter, you have told us previosly that
the lectures do not actually have titles in the original (and
this is correct). The chapter titles were added after the fact
by the editors of the 1962 German edition, and then mistranslated
for the 1970 English edition. I would expect someone of your
impeccable scholarship to be clear on a point like this, especially
since you brought it up yourself.
Peter Staudenmaier snipped this to: [in
the thread "Reading and Running"]
Peter, you have told us previosly that
the lectures do not actually have titles in the original (and
this is correct). [...] I would expect someone of your impeccable
scholarship to be clear on a point like this, especially since
you brought it up yourself.
Peter Staudenmaier:
If I told this to you previously, why wasn't
it clear to you? Did you forget your first sentence above while
writing the following one?
Daniel:
Peter, you are on the run tonight - running
away, dodging and avoiding - the points I am trying to raise.
Just look at your cowardly tricks. Just what are you babbling
about, pulling a smart-assed "If I told this to you previously,
why wasn't it clear to you?" Re-read the exchange! I am
accusing you of hypocrisy. You are making a big deal of something
that is irrelevant - claiming that there is significance in the
chapter titles of GA 121, when you previously informed us with
all snottyness that they are not actually originally in the text.
Try some intellectual consistency and honesty for once.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 3:04 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] mind gambling for beginners
Peter Staudenmaier: [from
the thread "questions and answers"]
I don't know what you think was inconsistent
in my argument about this book. I disagree with you that the
book does not preach Aryan superiority. I disagree with you that
it does not discuss "root races". I disagree with you
that it does not contain racist statements. I very much disagree
with you that I am making a big deal of all this; it seems to
me that this honor belongs to you, Detlef, and Sune, not to me.
Pretty much all I keep doing is pointing out how the text actually
reads in the two existing English translations, and telling you
what I think of its content. What exactly is hypocritical about
that?
Daniel:
Hypocritical for a self-professed historian
and soon-to-be doctoral candidate is to fixate on a faulty English
translation when you have the original German. If the only way
you can make you point is by relying on a bad translation over
and against the original, then you don't have much of a case.
You once assured me that the key to understanding Stiner's racism
lay in the formative Jupiter forces. I asked for explication,
but still have not gotten it. Nor have you backed away from the
claim. This is what I mean about running away from the argument.
You go on and on about how everyting is so simple, how it all
supports your contentions, but when asked for details, then it
gets all fuzzy, complicated, confusing. And then you drop the
discussion. I detect in this a lack of intellectual honesty,
and a failure to take responsibility for your work. Nor have
you ever publicly admitted to a single error in anything you
ever wrote.
Daniel Hindes
----- Original Message -----
From: at
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 9:57 PM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] mind gambling for beginners
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
Well, except for the inconvenient fact
that lecture six is titled "The Five Root Races of Mankind".....
Daniel responded:
Peter, you have told us previosly that
the lectures do not actually have titles in the original (and
this is correct). The chapter titles were added after the fact
by the editors of the 1962 German edition, and then mistranslated
for the 1970 English edition. I would expect someone of your
impeccable scholarship to be clear on a point like this, especially
since you brought it up yourself.
Peter Staudenmaier snipped this to: [in the thread "Reading
and Running"]
Peter, you have told us previosly that
the lectures do not actually have titles in the original (and
this is correct). [...] I would expect someone of your impeccable
scholarship to be clear on a point like this, especially since
you brought it up yourself.
Peter Staudenmaier:
If I told this to you previously, why wasn't
it clear to you? Did you forget your first sentence above while
writing the following one?
Daniel:
Peter, you are on the run tonight - running
away, dodging and avoiding - the points I am trying to raise.
Just look at your cowardly tricks. Just what are you babbling
about, pulling a smart-assed "If I told this to you previously,
why wasn't it clear to you?" Re-read the exchange! I am
accusing you of hypocrisy. You are making a big deal of something
that is irrelevant - claiming that there is significance in the
chapter titles of GA 121, when you previously informed us with
all snottyness that they are not actually originally in the text.
Try some intellectual consistency and honesty for once.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 6:31 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] mind gambling for beginners
Daniel wrote:
If the only way you can make you point
is by relying on a bad translation over and against the original,
then you don't have much of a case.
Peter Staudenmaier: [from
the thread "more questions, more anwers"]
It sounds like you think that the German
edition you've read is "the original". It is not. I
have a copy of the original German edition of the text, published
during Steiner's lifetime. It is not identical to the 1962 edition
you are relying on, particularly as far as Steiner's theosophical
vocabulary goes. The significance of this divergence in terminology
seems not to have dawned upon you.
Daniel:
Dodging the accusation again, I see. If the
only way you can make you point is by relying on a bad translation
over and against the original, then you don't have much of a
case.
Now you are quibbling about the original. As you very well know,
with this volume, the first edition published was an unrevised
stenographic reconstruction. In 1918 Rudolf Steiner revised it
personally, and this second edition, revised by Steiner himself,
is the basis for all subsequent German editions. Further, you
know that the differences are very minor - mostly relating to
changing the word "theosophical" to "anthroposophical"
and do not change any of the sentences we are discussing. You
are throwing a red hering here, Peter, making such a big deal
about these differences. Steiner was the person who clarified
his own text, in his lifetime. The "divergence" of
this terminology is something I am quite aware of (it comes up
in numerous contexts) and is not relevant to any of the passages
we have discussed.
Daniel Hindes
----- Original Message -----
From: at
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 6:04 PM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] mind gambling for beginners
Peter Staudenmaier: [from
the thread "questions and answers"]
I don't know what you think was inconsistent
in my argument about this book. I disagree with you that the
book does not preach Aryan superiority. I disagree with you that
it does not discuss "root races". I disagree with you
that it does not contain racist statements. I very much disagree
with you that I am making a big deal of all this; it seems to
me that this honor belongs to you, Detlef, and Sune, not to me.
Pretty much all I keep doing is pointing out how the text actually
reads in the two existing English translations, and telling you
what I think of its content. What exactly is hypocritical about
that?
Daniel:
Hypocritical for a self-professed historian
and soon-to-be doctoral candidate is to fixate on a faulty English
translation when you have the original German. If the only way
you can make you point is by relying on a bad translation over
and against the original, then you don't have much of a case.
You once assured me that the key to understanding Stiner's racism
lay in the formative Jupiter forces. I asked for explication,
but still have not gotten it. Nor have you backed away from the
claim. This is what I mean about running away from the argument.
You go on and on about how everyting is so simple, how it all
supports your contentions, but when asked for details, then it
gets all fuzzy, complicated, confusing. And then you drop the
discussion. I detect in this a lack of intellectual honesty,
and a failure to take responsibility for your work. Nor have
you ever publicly admitted to a single error in anything you
ever wrote.
Daniel Hindes
----- Original Message -----
From: at
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 9:57 PM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] mind gambling for beginners
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
Well, except for the inconvenient fact
that lecture six is titled "The Five Root Races of Mankind".....
Daniel responded:
Peter, you have told us previosly that
the lectures do not actually have titles in the original (and
this is correct). The chapter titles were added after the fact
by the editors of the 1962 German edition, and then mistranslated
for the 1970 English edition. I would expect someone of your
impeccable scholarship to be clear on a point like this, especially
since you brought it up yourself.
Peter Staudenmaier snipped this to: [in the thread "Reading
and Running"]
Peter, you have told us previosly that
the lectures do not actually have titles in the original (and
this is correct). [...] I would expect someone of your impeccable
scholarship to be clear on a point like this, especially since
you brought it up yourself.
Peter Staudenmaier:
If I told this to you previously, why wasn't
it clear to you? Did you forget your first sentence above while
writing the following one?
Daniel:
Peter, you are on the run tonight - running
away, dodging and avoiding - the points I am trying to raise.
Just look at your cowardly tricks. Just what are you babbling
about, pulling a smart-assed "If I told this to you previously,
why wasn't it clear to you?" Re-read the exchange! I am
accusing you of hypocrisy. You are making a big deal of something
that is irrelevant - claiming that there is significance in the
chapter titles of GA 121, when you previously informed us with
all snottyness that they are not actually originally in the text.
Try some intellectual consistency and honesty for once.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 6:45 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] mind gambling for beginners
Daniel wrote:
You once assured me that the key to understanding
Stiner's racism lay in the formative Jupiter forces.
Peter Staudenmaier: [from
the thread "more questions, more anwers"]
No, I didn't. You misunderstood that entire
exchange. You could excise every reference to Jupiter forces
in the Gesamtausgabe and the racist components of Steiner's teachings
would be unchanged.
Daniel:
If I misunderstood the exchange, why did you
only mention this now? For over a month you have been responding
as if I understood you perfectly well, for example with the thing
about "Jupiter consciousness" (quoted below). This
is just another Staudenmaier trick for avoiding discussion. It
is a sorry sight, you know. Several people have been asking you
for over a month for an explication of the heiarchy of planetary
forces - something you are obviously incapable of. You have ignored
them all. Now here you say that the whole exchange was misunderstood.
Sorry, I'm not buying it.
Daniel wrote:
but when asked for details, then it gets
all fuzzy, complicated, confusing.
Peter Staudenmaier: [from
the thread "more questions, more anwers"]
I can see that this gets confusing for
you. I have no idea why you hold me responsible for it.
Daniel:
No, Peter. The "fuzzy" "complicated"
and "confusing" are all quotes form your own description
of the issue, offered by you in discussion over the past months.
You seem to have a real problem with projection.
Daniel Hindes
Daniel asked: [from
the thread "Re: To Peter 2"]
I've read around, and I am having a hard
time finding any indication that the Jupiter-forces are somehow
superior to the Mercury forces, or the Venus forces, or the Saturn
forces, or the Mars forces.
Peter Staudenmaier, March 12th, 2004: [from the thread
"Re: To Peter 2"]
That's what we disagree about.
Daniel asked: [from
the thread "More Questions"]
I have become quite interested in the hierarchy
of planetary forces. Could you perhaps explain how I am missing
it in GA 121?
Peter Staudenmaier, March 14th, 2004:
I don't know how you are missing it. Maybe
you and I disagree about what hierarchy is. I think his description
of the "racial character" of black, yellow, brown,
and red people in relation to Europeans is obviously hierarchical.
In the same volume I recommended above, Aus den Inhalten der
esoterischen Stunden, Steiner designates Jupiter as "higher"
(pp. 302-307) and says that the goal of esoteric contemplation
is "to develop oneself into Jupiter consciousness"
("sich in das Jupiterbewusstsein hineinzuentwickeln",
p. 307).
----- Original Message -----
From: at
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 6:04 PM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] mind gambling for beginners
Peter Staudenmaier: [from
the thread "questions and answers"]
I don't know what you think was inconsistent
in my argument about this book. I disagree with you that the
book does not preach Aryan superiority. I disagree with you that
it does not discuss "root races". I disagree with you
that it does not contain racist statements. I very much disagree
with you that I am making a big deal of all this; it seems to
me that this honor belongs to you, Detlef, and Sune, not to me.
Pretty much all I keep doing is pointing out how the text actually
reads in the two existing English translations, and telling you
what I think of its content. What exactly is hypocritical about
that?
Daniel:
Hypocritical for a self-professed historian
and soon-to-be doctoral candidate is to fixate on a faulty English
translation when you have the original German. If the only way
you can make you point is by relying on a bad translation over
and against the original, then you don't have much of a case.
You once assured me that the key to understanding Stiner's racism
lay in the formative Jupiter forces. I asked for explication,
but still have not gotten it. Nor have you backed away from the
claim. This is what I mean about running away from the argument.
You go on and on about how everyting is so simple, how it all
supports your contentions, but when asked for details, then it
gets all fuzzy, complicated, confusing. And then you drop the
discussion. I detect in this a lack of intellectual honesty,
and a failure to take responsibility for your work. Nor have
you ever publicly admitted to a single error in anything you
ever wrote.
Daniel Hindes
----- Original Message -----
From: at
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 9:57 PM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] mind gambling for beginners
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
Well, except for the inconvenient fact
that lecture six is titled "The Five Root Races of Mankind".....
Daniel responded:
Peter, you have told us previosly that
the lectures do not actually have titles in the original (and
this is correct). The chapter titles were added after the fact
by the editors of the 1962 German edition, and then mistranslated
for the 1970 English edition. I would expect someone of your
impeccable scholarship to be clear on a point like this, especially
since you brought it up yourself.
Peter Staudenmaier snipped this to: [in the thread "Reading
and Running"]
Peter, you have told us previosly that
the lectures do not actually have titles in the original (and
this is correct). [...] I would expect someone of your impeccable
scholarship to be clear on a point like this, especially since
you brought it up yourself.
Peter Staudenmaier:
If I told this to you previously, why wasn't
it clear to you? Did you forget your first sentence above while
writing the following one?
Daniel:
Peter, you are on the run tonight - running
away, dodging and avoiding - the points I am trying to raise.
Just look at your cowardly tricks. Just what are you babbling
about, pulling a smart-assed "If I told this to you previously,
why wasn't it clear to you?" Re-read the exchange! I am
accusing you of hypocrisy. You are making a big deal of something
that is irrelevant - claiming that there is significance in the
chapter titles of GA 121, when you previously informed us with
all snottyness that they are not actually originally in the text.
Try some intellectual consistency and honesty for once.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 12:43 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] mind gambling for beginners
Daniel wrote:
If I misunderstood the exchange, why did
you only mention this now?
Peter Staudenmaier: [in
the thread "Races Disappearing - Steiner on Racial Evolution"]
Uh-oh. Do you mean that question seriously?
A strikingly large proportion of what you post to this list consists
primarily of your misunderstandings of what other people write,
in my estimation. I routinely ignore these instances, for the
sake of salvaging whatever little substance still might be had
from these exchanges.
Daniel:
Come, now, Peter, don't hold back, tell us
what you really think.
Just what is your purpose here anyway? It is apparently not to
hear anything new, as by your own admission you have learned
nothing from any of us. And it is apparently not to enlighten
us, since you now claim that you can't be bothered to correct
misunderstandings as they come up. So is it simply to enjoy the
opportunity to insult a bunch of strangers? To poke a stick in
an ant-hill, as it were? I for one am still amazed that for all
that has been said, not a single new idea ever resonated between
your eardrums (metaphorically, of course). You are amazingly
facile with argumentation, but I seldom get the feeling that
you have understood a thing of what you are arguing against.
You literally spend all your time making arguments - and none
listening. So I predict you will leave the list no wiser than
you were when you arrived.
Oh, and I don't for a minute buy your revisionist statements
about the Jupiter forces thing being a misunderstanding from
the begenning. Read your own writing - your statements are quite
clear. You are simply spinning the truth to come out looking
good - and it is quite pathetic in its lack of integrity. There
are still quite a few other questions you are running away from
- as usual. And I note you have not asked me anything, despite
claiming several times that I don't answer the questions you
put to me.
Daniel Hindes
----- Original Message -----
From: at
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 9:45 PM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] mind gambling for beginners
Daniel wrote:
You once assured me that the key to understanding
Stiner's racism lay in the formative Jupiter forces.
Peter Staudenmaier: [from
the thread "more questions, more anwers"]
No, I didn't. You misunderstood that entire
exchange. You could excise every reference to Jupiter forces
in the Gesamtausgabe and the racist components of Steiner's teachings
would be unchanged.
Daniel:
If I misunderstood the exchange, why did
you only mention this now? For over a month you have been responding
as if I understood you perfectly well, for example with the thing
about "Jupiter consciousness" (quoted below). This
is just another Staudenmaier trick for avoiding discussion. It
is a sorry sight, you know. Several people have been asking you
for over a month for an explication of the heiarchy of planetary
forces - something you are obviously incapable of. You have ignored
them all. Now here you say that the whole exchange was misunderstood.
Sorry, I'm not buying it.
Daniel wrote:
but when asked for details, then it gets
all fuzzy, complicated, confusing.
Peter Staudenmaier: [from
the thread "more questions, more anwers"]
I can see that this gets confusing for
you. I have no idea why you hold me responsible for it.
Daniel:
No, Peter. The "fuzzy" "complicated"
and "confusing" are all quotes form your own description
of the issue, offered by you in discussion over the past months.
You seem to have a real problem with projection.
Daniel Hindes
Daniel asked: [from
the thread "Re: To Peter 2"]
I've read around, and I am having a hard
time finding any indication that the Jupiter-forces are somehow
superior to the Mercury forces, or the Venus forces, or the Saturn
forces, or the Mars forces.
Peter Staudenmaier, March 12th, 2004: [from the thread
"Re: To Peter 2"]
That's what we disagree about.
Daniel asked: [from
the thread "More Questions"]
I have become quite interested in the hierarchy
of planetary forces. Could you perhaps explain how I am missing
it in GA 121?
Peter Staudenmaier, March 14th, 2004:
I don't know how you are missing it. Maybe
you and I disagree about what hierarchy is. I think his description
of the "racial character" of black, yellow, brown,
and red people in relation to Europeans is obviously hierarchical.
In the same volume I recommended above, Aus den Inhalten der
esoterischen Stunden, Steiner designates Jupiter as "higher"
(pp. 302-307) and says that the goal of esoteric contemplation
is "to develop oneself into Jupiter consciousness"
("sich in das Jupiterbewusstsein hineinzuentwickeln",
p. 307).
----- Original Message -----
From: at
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 6:04 PM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] mind gambling for beginners
Peter Staudenmaier: [from
the thread "questions and answers"]
I don't know what you think was inconsistent
in my argument about this book. I disagree with you that the
book does not preach Aryan superiority. I disagree with you that
it does not discuss "root races". I disagree with you
that it does not contain racist statements. I very much disagree
with you that I am making a big deal of all this; it seems to
me that this honor belongs to you, Detlef, and Sune, not to me.
Pretty much all I keep doing is pointing out how the text actually
reads in the two existing English translations, and telling you
what I think of its content. What exactly is hypocritical about
that?
Daniel:
Hypocritical for a self-professed historian
and soon-to-be doctoral candidate is to fixate on a faulty English
translation when you have the original German. If the only way
you can make you point is by relying on a bad translation over
and against the original, then you don't have much of a case.
You once assured me that the key to understanding Stiner's racism
lay in the formative Jupiter forces. I asked for explication,
but still have not gotten it. Nor have you backed away from the
claim. This is what I mean about running away from the argument.
You go on and on about how everyting is so simple, how it all
supports your contentions, but when asked for details, then it
gets all fuzzy, complicated, confusing. And then you drop the
discussion. I detect in this a lack of intellectual honesty,
and a failure to take responsibility for your work. Nor have
you ever publicly admitted to a single error in anything you
ever wrote.
Daniel Hindes
----- Original Message -----
From: at
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 9:57 PM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] mind gambling for beginners
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
Well, except for the inconvenient fact
that lecture six is titled "The Five Root Races of Mankind".....
Daniel responded:
Peter, you have told us previosly that
the lectures do not actually have titles in the original (and
this is correct). The chapter titles were added after the fact
by the editors of the 1962 German edition, and then mistranslated
for the 1970 English edition. I would expect someone of your
impeccable scholarship to be clear on a point like this, especially
since you brought it up yourself.
Peter Staudenmaier snipped this to: [in the thread "Reading
and Running"]
Peter, you have told us previosly that
the lectures do not actually have titles in the original (and
this is correct). [...] I would expect someone of your impeccable
scholarship to be clear on a point like this, especially since
you brought it up yourself.
Peter Staudenmaier:
If I told this to you previously, why wasn't
it clear to you? Did you forget your first sentence above while
writing the following one?
Daniel:
Peter, you are on the run tonight - running
away, dodging and avoiding - the points I am trying to raise.
Just look at your cowardly tricks. Just what are you babbling
about, pulling a smart-assed "If I told this to you previously,
why wasn't it clear to you?" Re-read the exchange! I am
accusing you of hypocrisy. You are making a big deal of something
that is irrelevant - claiming that there is significance in the
chapter titles of GA 121, when you previously informed us with
all snottyness that they are not actually originally in the text.
Try some intellectual consistency and honesty for once.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 7:03 pm
Subject: Re: mind gambling for beginners
Daniel to Peter:
Come, now, Peter, don't hold back, tell
us what you really think.
Just what is your purpose here anyway?
Please, have mercy, surely we are all, on
all sides of this debate, bored with the "what is your purpose
here" style of argumentation.
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: Deborah
Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 7:25 pm
Subject: Re: mind gambling for beginners
Dear, Dear Diana,
Please speak for yourself.
Deborah
Daniel to Peter:
Come, now, Peter, don't hold back, tell
us what you really think.
Just what is your purpose here anyway?
Please, have mercy, surely we are all,
on all sides of this debate, bored with the "what is your
purpose here" style of argumentation.
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 7:46 pm
Subject: Re: mind gambling for beginners
I stand corrected, we are not all bored with
it, apparently.
Diana
Dear, Dear Diana,
Please speak for yourself.
Deborah
Daniel to Peter:
Come, now, Peter, don't hold back, tell
us what you really think.
Just what is your purpose here anyway?
Please, have mercy, surely we are all,
on all sides of this debate, bored with the "what is your
purpose here" style of argumentation.
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 8:04 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: mind gambling for beginners
Diana:
Please, have mercy, surely we are all,
on all sides of this debate, bored with the "what is your
purpose here" style of argumentation.
Uh Diana, this is about the first question
that is asked by PLANS and continues on when they realize the
poster is not agreeing with their rants.
And I do not know how Daniel possibly continues
to debate with you when you keep acting out in such a know it
all way. You are all mouth and no ears it seems...I say that
in a good way :)d
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 6:33 pm
Subject: why are we here?
Hi Daniel, you wrote:
Just what is your purpose here anyway?
To fritter away countless hours at the keyboard when I should
be packing. Don't worry, I've only got a day or so left.
So is it simply to enjoy the opportunity to insult a bunch
of strangers? To poke a stick in an ant-hill, as it were?
Not really. I don't think I've been all that insulting, especially
by the standards of this list. But I suppose that's for the rest
of you to decide.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 8:33 pm
Subject: Re: why are we here?
Why are we here Peter? What on earth are we
doing here in the first place? How did this all come about do
you suppose? And for what reason? Pretty unbelievable isn't it?
All good things to you in your travels,
Dottie
p.s. I will reccommend a good book for your
trip: Philosophy of Freedom. Have you ever read this one by Dr.
Steiner?
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 8:06 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] why are we here?
Peter,
I asked simply because it is such a puzzel to me. Taking you
at your word, it is to test your theories to see how they hold
up to critical scrutiny. But you subsequent behavior belies this
claim, as you run away from any real criticism, and reassert
you original position at every turn. And so it is not to learn.
It is either to practice dodging and arguing, or it is to assert
your claims as many times as possible, in as many places as possible.
I really feel that there is a lost opportunity here. When you
showed up, I resolved to pre-judge nothing and simply take you
at your word. I asked questions and answered the questions put
to me - openly, honestly and accurately. For a few weeks this
went fairly well, but then I found that my questions were not
always anwered, even when they were repeated several times. Certain
topics seem taboo - questions are ignored or brushed off. And
now as you prepare to leave I have almost a dozen open questions,
points for discussion that go straight to the heard of the issue,
but you keep avoiding them.
I'd like to say that I wish you well in your studies (and you
never did answer what school it is you will be going to) but
instead I will express my wish that you find truth on your path.
Not the absolute truth of zealots and fanatics, but the type
of truth that is capable of growing.
Daniel Hindes
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 9:33 PM
Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] why are we here?
Hi Daniel, you wrote:
Just what is your purpose here anyway?
To fritter away countless hours at the
keyboard when I should be packing. Don't worry, I've only got
a day or so left.
So is it simply to enjoy the opportunity
to insult a bunch of strangers? To poke a stick in an ant-hill,
as it were?
Not really. I don't think I've been all
that insulting, especially by the standards of this list. But
I suppose that's for the rest of you to decide.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: Mike Helsher
Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 10:42 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] why are we here?
Daniel wrote:
I'd like to say that I wish you well in
your studies (and you never did answer what school it is you
will be going to) but instead I will express my wish that you
find truth on your path. Not the absolute truth of zealots and
fanatics, but the type of truth that is capable of growing.
Daniel Hindes
mike:
Me too.
And thanks for your work with the SEI. Seems like a very Michaelic
mission going on over there, for the most part.
Live long and prosper!
And my the words be with you :)
Mike
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
