Reading and Falsehoods
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 3:15 pm
Subject: reading and falsehoods
Last week
I wrote the following to Deborah about
Steiner's 1910 Oslo lectures on national souls:
Did you notice that in these lectures Steiner says that the
Negro race is substantially determined by childhood characteristics,
and that the American Indians died out because they were destined
to do so, not because of persecution by Europeans?
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".
In the book in question, Steiner does indeed write that the Negro
race is substantially determined by childhood characteristics,
and that the American Indians died out because they were destined
to do so, not because of persecution by Europeans. Here is Steiner
in his own words:
"The black or Negro race
is substantially determined by these childhood characteristics.
If we now cross over to Asia, we find a point or centre where
the formative forces of the earth impress permanently on man
the particular characteristics of later youth or adolescence
and determine his racial character. Such races are the yellow
and brown races of our time."
(Rudolf Steiner, The Mission of the Individual Folk Souls in
Relation to Teutonic Mythology, London 1970, p. 75)
"The forces which
determine man's racial character follow this cosmic pattern.
The American Indians died out, not because of European persecutions,
but because they were destined to succumb to those forces which
hastened their extinction." (ibid.
p. 76)
I once again encourage any and all listmates,
including those who consider critical public discussion of anthroposophy
a nuisance and an irritation, to explain why they find these
ideas congenial.
Peter
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.
[Continued
in "why me?"]
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 2:58 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] reading and falsehoods
So we're down to this alone now, the only
basis for calling Steiner a racist in the entire book is the
statement that the negro race evinces predominently the forces
of youth. No paens to the superiority of the Aryan race (not
even the word superiority in the entire book). Nothing about
the (non-existent) nodic-germanic sub-race. Indeed, no hatemongering
at all.
Notice how Mr. Staudenmaier loves to accuse others of not having
read the book, something he obviously had not done when he wrote
the article Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.
Let us look at another point. Steiner wrote:
"Nicht etwa deshalb,
weil es den Europäern gefallen hat, ist die indianische
Bevölkerung ausgestorben, sondern weil die indianische Bevölkerung
die Kräfte erwerben mußte, die sie zum aussterben
führten."
(GA 121, page 75 in the 1962 German edition).
Translated (by me):
"The Native American
population did not die out because this pleased the Europeans,
but because the Native American population had to acquire such
forces as lead to their dying out.""The Native American
population did not die out because this pleased the Europeans,
but because the Native American population had to acquire such
forces as lead to their dying out."
This sentence does not make a lot of sense
on it's own. It is part of a larger though of Steiner's, expressed
over several pages, on how the geography of the earth influenced
the formation of racial characteristics. In the west, said Steiner,
the forces that lead to the overcoming of the influence of racial
characteristics are strongest, and this he tied to the physical
weakness behind the death of so many Native Americans. Though
not explicitly mentioned in this context, this weakness was immunological,
as research from the last 40 years has indicated. Steiner strongly
deplored the behavior of the Europeans towards the Native Americans,
but the simple fact remains that most of the inhabitants of the
Americas in 1491 would not have survived the contact with Europe
even if not a single Indian was murdered directly at the hands
of a white man. Steiner intuited this even though the science
of his day had no concepts to express why. (For an excellent
summary on the issue, read the article below). The translator
(A.H. Parker) changed the sentence and added the word "persecutions",
yielding the quote Peter Staudenmaier bandies about. Steiner's
thought is no more racist than the article by Charles Mann or
the research of Henry Dobyns.
Daniel Hindes
1491 - by Charles C. Mann
(The Atlantic Monthly, March 2002)
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/03/mann.htm
"His argument was simple
but horrific. It is well known that Native Americans had no experience
with many European diseases and were therefore immunologically
unprepared—"virgin soil," in the metaphor of epidemiologists.
What Dobyns realized was that such diseases could have swept
from the coastlines initially visited by Europeans to inland
areas controlled by Indians who had never seen a white person.
The first whites to explore many parts of the Americas may therefore
have encountered places that were already depopulated. Indeed,
Dobyns argued, they must have done so."
"One reason is that Indians were fresh territory for many
plagues, not just one. Smallpox, typhoid, bubonic plague, influenza,
mumps, measles, whooping cough—all rained down on the Americas
in the century after Columbus. (Cholera, malaria, and scarlet
fever came later.) Having little experience with epidemic diseases,
Indians had no knowledge of how to combat them. In contrast,
Europeans were well versed in the brutal logic of quarantine.
They boarded up houses in which plague appeared and fled to the
countryside. In Indian New England, Neal Salisbury, a historian
at Smith College, wrote in Manitou and Providence (1982), family
and friends gathered with the shaman at the sufferer's bedside
to wait out the illness—a practice that "could only
have served to spread the disease more rapidly.""
"Indigenous biochemistry may also have played a role. The
immune system constantly scans the body for molecules that it
can recognize as foreign—molecules belonging to an invading
virus, for instance. No one's immune system can identify all
foreign presences. Roughly speaking, an individual's set of defensive
tools is known as his MHC type. Because many bacteria and viruses
mutate easily, they usually attack in the form of several slightly
different strains. Pathogens win when MHC types miss some of
the strains and the immune system is not stimulated to act. Most
human groups contain many MHC types; a strain that slips by one
person's defenses will be nailed by the defenses of the next.
But, according to Francis L. Black, an epidemiologist at Yale
University, Indians are characterized by unusually homogenous
MHC types. One out of three South American Indians have similar
MHC types; among Africans the corresponding figure is one in
200. The cause is a matter for Darwinian speculation, the effects
less so."
"In 1966 Dobyns's insistence on the role of disease was
a shock to his colleagues. Today the impact of European pathogens
on the New World is almost undisputed. Nonetheless, the fight
over Indian numbers continues with undiminished fervor. Estimates
of the population of North America in 1491 disagree by an order
of magnitude—from 18 million, Dobyns's revised figure, to
1.8 million, calculated by Douglas H. Ubelaker, an anthropologist
at the Smithsonian."
...................................................................................................................................
From: Mike Helsher
Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 4:09 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] reading and falsehoods
Daniel wrote:
<snip>
Though not explicitly mentioned in this
context, this weakness was immunological, as research from the
last 40 years has indicated. Steiner strongly deplored the behavior
of the Europeans towards the Native Americans, but the simple
fact remains that most of the inhabitants of the Americas in
1491 would not have survived the contact with Europe even if
not a single Indian was murdered directly at the hands of a white
man. Steiner intuited this even though the science of his day
had no concepts to express why. (For an excellent summary on
the issue, read the article below).
<snip>
Hi Daniel, and thanks for your summary and the article.
I remember reading about a very similar situation that happened
to the native Hawaiians. I think that it was around the time
that the US colonized it, so there is allot of actual documentation
available. It was a sad story. A major portion of what was described
as a well functioning egalitarian society, where most people
only had to work about two or four hours a day (this is all from
an old memory) was wiped out by diseases after contact with Europeans
or colonials.
Mike
...................................................................................................................................
From: holderlin66
Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 4:03 pm
Subject: Re: reading and falsehoods
at wrote:
Finally, finally some actual substance to
all this. Oh and feel free to ask about African Americans and
the infusion of new etheric forces in America, anytime. It is
easy to put this P.S. nonsense to bed. Thanks, thanks and thanks
again for at least getting off the word crumb method.
1491 - by Charles C. Mann
(The Atlantic Monthly, March 2002)
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/03/mann.htm
"His argument was
simple but horrific. It is well known that Native Americans had
no experience with many European diseases and were therefore
immunologically unprepared—"virgin soil," in the
metaphor of epidemiologists. What Dobyns realized was that such
diseases could have swept from the coastlines initially visited
by Europeans to inland areas controlled by Indians who had never
seen a white person. The first whites to explore many parts of
the Americas may therefore have encountered places that were
already depopulated. Indeed, Dobyns argued, they must have done
so."
"One reason is that Indians were fresh territory for many
plagues, not just one. Smallpox, typhoid, bubonic plague, influenza,
mumps, measles, whooping cough—all rained down on the Americas
in the century after Columbus. (Cholera, malaria, and scarlet
fever came later.) Having little experience with epidemic diseases,
Indians had no knowledge of how to combat them. In contrast,
Europeans were well versed in the brutal logic of quarantine.
They boarded up houses in which plague appeared and fled to the
countryside. In Indian New England, Neal Salisbury, a historian
at Smith College, wrote in Manitou and Providence (1982), family
and friends gathered with the shaman at the sufferer's bedside
to wait out the illness—a practice that "could only
have served to spread the disease more rapidly.""
"Indigenous biochemistry may also have played a role.
...................................................................................................................................
From: DByron
Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 5:13 pm
Subject: reading and falsehoods
I'm wondering if the immunological argument
by itself doesn't leave out the effect fear and terror had on
Native Americans during colonial times. There's the idea I've
read about somewhere that the fear engendered by Ghengis Khan's
exploits were directly responsible for he plague in Europe. Of
course we now know more about how powerfully stress affects the
immune system. I suppose that was a prime reason European colonists
were so sick themselves with smallpox, etc. But there also seems
to have been a mental or soul sickness as well that allowed such
inhumane actions towards Native people, even to the extent of
genocide.
DeborahB
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 6:59 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] reading and falsehoods
Daniel wrote:
Though not explicitly mentioned in this
context, this weakness was immunological, as research from the
last 40 years has indicated.
Peter Staudenmaier:
Sadly, this text was written more than
forty years ago, thus your interpretation makes no sense. Steiner
says nothing at all about immunology or about disease in the
passage you quoted. He says that Native Americans died out because
of their racial character and because they were destined to do
so.
Daniel:
Peter, I am forced to point out (for about
the 8th time) that you have snipped my post beyond recognition
and then in an immense display of obtuseness completely missed
the point. Sometimes I have to wonder if you purposely play dumb,
or if such stupidity is inadvertent. Here, again, you are simply
avoiding any substantive discussion of the issues you claim interest
you. Allow me to repost my argument:
-----------------------------------------------
Let us look at another point. Steiner wrote:
"Nicht etwa deshalb,
weil es den Europäern gefallen hat, ist die indianische
Bevölkerung ausgestorben, sondern weil die indianische Bevölkerung
die Kräfte erwerben mußte, die sie zum aussterben
führten."
(GA 121, page 75 in the 1962 German edition).
Translated (by me):
"The Native American
population did not die out because this pleased the Europeans,
but because the Native American population had to acquire such
forces as lead to their dying out."
This sentence does not make a lot of sense
on it's own. It is part of a larger though of Steiner's, expressed
over several pages, on how the geography of the earth influenced
the formation of racial characteristics. In the west, said Steiner,
the forces that lead to the overcoming of the influence of racial
characteristics are strongest, and this he tied to the physical
weakness behind the death of so many Native Americans. Though
not explicitly mentioned in this context, this weakness was immunological,
as research from the last 40 years has indicated. Steiner strongly
deplored the behavior of the Europeans towards the Native Americans,
but the simple fact remains that most of the inhabitants of the
Americas in 1491 would not have survived the contact with Europe
even if not a single Indian was murdered directly at the hands
of a white man. Steiner intuited this even though the science
of his day had no concepts to express why. (For an excellent
summary on the issue, read the article below). The translator
(A.H. Parker) changed the sentence and added the word "persecutions",
yielding the quote Peter Staudenmaier bandies about. Steiner's
thought is no more racist than the article by Charles Mann or
the research of Henry Dobyns.
Daniel Hindes
Post Scrip, I changed the thread title back
to the original for consistency.
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 1:32 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] reading and falsehoods
Daniel
was snipped to:
Peter, I am forced to point out (for about
the 8th time) that you have snipped my post beyond recognition
and then in an immense display of obtuseness completely missed
the point.
Peter Staudenmaier:
In that case, we apparently disagree about
what the point was. I thought the point was your proffered interpretation
of Steiner's sentence about American Indians dying out. You think,
following your usual practice of reading by inference, that Steiner
somehow implied or intuited some connection to immunology and
disease. I think that reading is absurd. Steiner says nothing
at all about either immunology or disease. He says that Native
Americans died out because of their racial character and because
they were destined to do so. If that wasn't the point you had
in mind, what was it?
Daniel:
My thought is as follows (and I know it might
be a bit difficult for someone who can only think in words, and
not concepts, so try to follow it):
A significant number of Native Americans died
of diseases brought from Europe (estimates vary widely).
Many of those who died did so without ever
seeing a white man.
Why did they die in such numbers?
If you lived in 1910, you had no concepts
such as immunology. You lacked the scientific fact of genetic
similarity and immune response. You had only the fact that many
more Native Americans died than would have if it were Europe
exposed to the same diseases. How do you explain this in 1910?
One possibility is that you say that the predisposition lived
within them as part of their being, as part of thier being of
Native American genetic stock rather than European. This actually
describes, in different words, the same reality that is acknowledged
50 to 90 years later with more detail as an immunological weakness
born of genetic similarity. There is no contradiction of concept,
only different words.
Daniel Hindes
more
questions, more anwers
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 2:51 pm
Subject: Re: reading and falsehoods
Daniel:
If you lived in 1910, you had no concepts
such as immunology.
No, but Steiner had something better, right?
Clairvoyance?
Steiner's thought is no more racist than
the article by Charles Mann or the research of Henry Dobyns.
Daniel, get a clue. To say they died out because
they didn't have immunity to diseases the Europeans brought is
not racist (and if one reads that entire article, this thesis
is a bit more complex than the passage cited would show). To
say that spiritually they had to "acquire forces"
that could only be acquired by their dying out in large numbers,
whether through purposely, karmically, sickening themselves or
through outright genocide, yup, hon, that's racist. Races don't
try to extinguish themselves on purpose, Daniel, and theories
that suggest this about particular races, again, yup, quite likely
to be racist.
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie
zold
Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 2:59 pm
Subject: Re: reading and falsehoods
[Diana:]
To say that spiritually they had
to "acquire forces" that could only be acquired by
their dying out in large numbers, whether through purposely,
karmically, sickening themselves or through outright genocide,
yup, hon, that's racist.
Bullshit.
Diana:
Races don't try to extinguish themselves
on purpose,
And you know this how Diana? ????
Diana:
and theories that suggest this about particular
races, again, yup, quite likely to be racist.
According to who Diana? You, Peter, PLANS????
Given any thought to this or is this just a proclamation of sorts
that you and Peter and PLANS know this to be true? Ever talked
to any Shamans??????? Maybe???
d
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 3:22 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: reading and falsehoods
Daniel:
If you lived in 1910, you had no concepts
such as immunology.
Diana:
No, but Steiner had something better, right?
Clairvoyance?
Daniel:
I don't know if it is better or not. I am
merely pointing out that there is no contradiction between immunology
and clairvoyance on this issue. Both explain the same phenomenon.
Daniel:
Steiner's thought is no more racist than
the article by Charles Mann or the research of Henry Dobyns.
Diana:
Daniel, get a clue. To say they died out
because they didn't have immunity to diseases the Europeans brought
is not racist
Daniel:
Indeed. Saying that they died out because
their bodies did not contain the ability to fight off diseases
is not racist.
Diana:
(and if one reads that entire article,
this thesis is a bit more complex than the passage cited would
show).
Daniel:
Which is precicely why I posted the link.
Diana:
To say that spiritually they had
to "acquire forces" that could only be acquired by
their dying out in large numbers,
Daniel:
You've misunderstood the argument (why is
this so depressingly frequent with you?). The forces they acquired
did not come from their dying in large numbers. According to
Steiner, the forces came from living in North America. The dying
was a side effect. Living in North America was necessary. Dying
was a side effect, and a regrettable one.
Diana:
whether through purposely, karmically,
sickening themselves or through outright genocide, yup, hon,
that's racist.
Daniel:
Well, it would be. But that is not what Steiner
claimed. Karma is not mentioned. Nor did Steiner say anything
about them sickening themselves. Where did you come up with that?
(You might want to read the book before talking so expertly about
its contents).
Diana:
Races don't try to extinguish themselves
on purpose, Daniel,
Daniel:
Who said anything about people extinguishing
themselves on purpose?
Diana:
and theories that suggest this about particular
races, again, yup, quite likely to be racist.
Daniel:
Likely would be. But that is not the theory
we are dealing with here.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 4:02 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: reading and falsehoods
At 23:51 22.04.2004, Diana wrote to Daniel:
To say that spiritually they had
to "acquire forces" that could only be acquired by
their dying out in large numbers, whether through purposely,
karmically, sickening themselves or through outright genocide,
yup, hon, that's racist. Races don't try to extinguish themselves
on purpose, Daniel, and theories that suggest this about particular
races, again, yup, quite likely to be racist.
You're beating a dead horse.
Tarjei
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 7:30 pm
Subject: Re: reading and falsehoods
Daniel said:
If you lived in 1910, you had no concepts
such as immunology.
I said:
No, but Steiner had something better, right?
Clairvoyance?
Daniel:
I don't know if it is better or not. I
am merely pointing out that there is no contradiction between
immunology and clairvoyance on this issue. Both explain the same
phenomenon.
You were saying he couldn't explain correctly,
merely hinted, at the reasons for the native Americans dying
out, that he was vague in this manner because, in 1910, immunology
was not a field of study. I'm saying, if he was clairvoyant,
why couldn't he know about immunology? Why would he express himself
so murkily if he really had all this insight?
I realize, in general, it's hard to reconcile
Steiner's clairvoyance with the serious sorta historical stuff
you picture yourself doing, Daniel. I'd be interested in a general
way if you'd care to share how you work that out, in your own
mind.
I said:
To say they died out because they didn't
have immunity to diseases the Europeans brought is not racist
Daniel:
Indeed. Saying that they died out because
their bodies did not contain the ability to fight off diseases
is not racist.
Okay, thanks for repeating what I just said.
[Diana:]
(and if one reads that entire article,
this thesis is a bit more complex than the passage cited would
show).
Daniel:
Which is precicely why I posted the link.
Yes, and thanks. I had read it before, it's
in a yearly collection of "Best of" science essays
from 2003. Believe it or not, when I read that essay, I'd never
have dreamed there'd by any way an anthroposophist could read
it as something Rudolf Steiner foretold. You'd think I'd get
this by now!
[Diana:]
To say that spiritually they had
to "acquire forces" that could only be acquired by
their dying out in large numbers,
Daniel:
You've misunderstood the argument (why
is this so depressingly frequent with you?). The forces they
acquired did not come from their dying in large numbers. According
to Steiner, the forces came from living in North America. The
dying was a side effect. Living in North America was necessary.
Dying was a side effect, and a regrettable one.
You may be right this time I didn't get the
argument. I do not in fact have the whole context here. But what
your translated quote above says, and what you say here, don't
quite seem to mesh. The quote says:
Translated (by
Daniel):
"The Native American
population did not die out because this pleased the Europeans,
but because the Native American population had to acquire such
forces as lead to their dying out."
This is to explain why they died. They
died not for this reason, but for that one. Right? It does not
say they lived in North America to acquire these forces. It says
they died to acquire these forces. That is the point of
that sentence. Now what good did dying out do them, in terms
of acquiring forces, if they got these forces from living in
this particular land. (Can't relate much to this notion of acquiring
"forces" from the land you live on, but okay, accepted
for purposes of argument.) Wouldn't they acquire more forces
from living there than from dying there? Or am I missing something?
I read this as a spiritual statement. I am assuming he means
that these individualities were acquiring forces for future incarnations.
Obviously acquiring forces and then promptly dying is not much
use in life. It only makes sense in the context of reincarnation.
So it does look to me like the point is about acquiring forces
by dying, yes. And he is referring to "the Native American
population" per se. It sure looks to me like it's about
a race dying out on purpose – isn't that what karma is.
Isn't that what "acquiring forces" is. It is phrased
as an active thing, a thing they did on purpose on some higher
"I Am" level, yes? Which they might not have chosen
as individualities, as none of us wants to die, but on a higher
level where we are all choosing the events of our lives and deaths,
this was chosen. The notion that someone did this to them, is
specifically rejected in favor of the proposal that they did
it to themselves, for a reason.
To me, yes, it's racist. Entire peoples do
not choose to die out, bring it on themselves on purpose. When
you claim this for an individual, it can perhaps be accepted
or rejected, it makes sense in a very particular worldview (one
I don't share, obviously). When you claim about an entire race
or people that they needed and chose to die out, is likely to
be suspected of working from a racist framework, of justifying
the actions of those whose interests it served that that people
die out. Hate to break it to you, but this isn't just the views
of a couple of bitter people who don't like Rudolf Steiner, it's
a common understanding.
Diana:
whether through purposely, karmically,
sickening themselves or through outright genocide, yup, hon,
that's racist.
Daniel:
Well, it would be. But that is not what
Steiner claimed. Karma is not mentioned. Nor did Steiner say
anything about them sickening themselves. Where did you come
up with that? (You might want to read the book before talking
so expertly about its contents).
"the Native American
population had to acquire such forces as lead to their dying
out." That's what you said it says.
So who did it to them then? Remember that
the point is to exonerate the Europeans. The Europeans didn't
do this to them, Steiner says. And (you say) he also says they
didn't do it to themselves. I think that's what it does say,
but if neither of these is true, then . . . what? They "had
to acquire such forces." Steiner said we choose our misfortunes,
often exactly to "acquire forces" for things we need
to do either in this life or in future lives. Now, presumably,
if they acquired these forces and then died, it must be for a
future life. If we aren't talking about karma and reincarnation
here, I'll eat my hat. You really don't have to condescend to
me, I do know what Steiner's basic theories consist of,
Daniel.
Yo – karma is not mentioned. Karma is
understood - context yes? You know, "immunology"
is not mentioned either!
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 8:06 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: reading and falsehoods
Diana:
To say they died out because they didn't
have immunity to diseases the Europeans brought is not racist
Daniel:
Indeed. Saying that they died out because
their bodies did not contain the ability to fight off diseases
is not racist.
Diana:
Okay, thanks for repeating what I just
said.
Daniel:
Glad you got it this time. That is exactly
what Steiner said, too. Clear now?
Diana:
You were saying he couldn't explain correctly,
merely hinted, at the reasons for the native Americans dying
out, that he was vague in this manner because, in 1910, immunology
was not a field of study. I'm saying, if he was clairvoyant,
why couldn't he know about immunology? Why would he express himself
so murkily if he really had all this insight?
Daniel:
First read the book in question. Get clear
on what Steiner did and did not say. This will facilitate things
greatly. Perhaps you will understand it better than when I present
it. You seem not to really get anything I say, so perhaps the
original will help.
Diana:
I realize, in general, it's hard to reconcile
Steiner's clairvoyancewith the serious sorta historical stuff
you picture yourself doing, ...
Daniel:
I haven't had much difficulty. This statement
seems to represent a preconception of yours. If that is how you
want your reality, then I'm sure everything you see and hear
will only ever support this.
Diana:
...Daniel. I'd be interested in a general
way if you'd care to share how you work that out, in your own
mind.
Daniel:
I'm not clear on what you're missing here,
Diana. I thought I had explained it rather clearly. Not once,
not twice, but three times. But you are asking me to explain
it again?
Diana:
(and if one reads that entire article,
this thesis is a bit more complex than the passage cited would
show).
Daniel:
Which is precicely why I posted the link.
Diana:
Yes, and thanks. I had read it before,
it's in a yearly collection of "Best of" science essays
from 2003. Believe it or not, when I read that essay, I'd never
have dreamed there'd by any way an anthroposophist could read
it as something Rudolf Steiner foretold. You'd think I'd get
this by now!
Daniel:
Clarity, Diana, seems not to be your forte.
Steiner did not "fortell" anything. He described a
past event, and offered an explanation. The explanation he offered
is exactly the same as the one Dobyns puts forth, only worded
slightly differently. You seem to be deliberately misunderstanding
every aspect of this.
Diana:
To say that spiritually they had
to "acquire forces" that could only be acquired by
their dying out in large numbers,
Daniel:
You've misunderstood the argument (why
is this so depressingly frequent with you?). The forces they
acquired did not come from their dying in large numbers. According
to Steiner, the forces came from living in North America. The
dying was a side effect. Living in North America was necessary.
Dying was a side effect, and a regrettable one.
Diana:
You may be right this time I didn't get
the argument. I do not in fact have the whole context here. But
what your translated quote above says, and what you say here,
don't quite seem to mesh.
Daniel:
You are correct that you do not have the entire
context. You have to read the entire leture, or at the very least
several paragraphs before and after the sentence in order to
properly understand it. On its own, the sentence does not make
a lot of sense. I have said this several times, but you persist
in jumping to conclusions about it without trying to understand
things first. This is curious, to say the least.
Diana:
So who did it to them then? Remember that
the point is to exonerate the Europeans.
Daniel:
Since when is the point to exonerate the Europeans?
This is nowhere in Steiner or in Dobyns. Both are simply describing
the causes of a past event. Really, Diana, I don't know where
you come up with this stuff! If you want to pontificate on Steiner's
views, it would help to read them first.
Diana:
The Europeans didn't do this to them, Steiner
says.
Daniel:
This is also not what Steiner said. I gave
you the exact quote. It is delicatly phrased, and very precice.
The Europeans did a lot to destroy the Native Americans, and
Steiner spoke out strongly against this (in other books). He
is saying that regardless of the Europeans intentions (which
were, to a large degree bent on eliminating the Native Americans)
the Natice Americans possessed a weakness in their physical bodies
that would lead to their dying out either way. Whose fault is
it? Steiner never assigned blame. If you want to play the blame
game, you are speculating.
Since you know Steiner so well, you know that
in Steiner's view, not everything that befalls you is deserved
- the result of past karma. Many things are undeserved, and will
be repaid in the future. There is no reason in Anthroposophy
why a Native American who died from an epidemic "deserved"
it or "earned" it. It could just as well have been
accidental, in which case karmic recompense is due in a future
life. Every death, like every life, is individual. Each cause
is unique. I don't think you will get very far trying to generalize
the causes of millions upon millions of deaths. Just my 2 cents.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 1:30 am
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: reading and falsehoods
[Diana:]
No, but Steiner had something better, right?
Clairvoyance?
[Daniel:]
Steiner's thought is no more racist than
the article by Charles Mann or the research of Henry Dobyns.
[Diana:]
Daniel, get a clue. To say they died out
because they didn't have immunity to diseases the Europeans brought
is not racist (and if one reads that entire article, this thesis
is a bit more complex than the passage cited would show). To
say that spiritually they had to "acquire forces"
Is it so difficult to understand that this
RS's picture is only the other side of the coin of the topic
that today we call "immunology desease " precisely
concerning the links between the "I" and the physical
body ? (It'd be enough to pick up some "Anthro-medicine"
book., maybe V.Bott's ones to realize it) But the "critics"
got no time to study with open mind and HEART any Anthro-issue......
or through outright genocide,
Oh yes we all know that Steiner was a genocides'
supporter !!!
A.
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 5:05 am
Subject: Re: reading and falsehoods
Daniel, I see you decline to speculate on
why, if Steiner was clairvoyant, he couldn't have already known
all about immunology. Oh well.
I said:
To say they died out because they didn't
have immunity to diseases the Europeans brought is not racist
Daniel:
Indeed. Saying that they died out because
their bodies did not contain the ability to fight off diseases
is not racist.
Diana:
Okay, thanks for repeating what I just
said.
Daniel now says:
Glad you got it this time. That is exactly
what Steiner said, too. Clear now?
I truly must be missing something, Daniel.
He said nothing at all about their dying of disease! I understand
you think that's what he meant but surely it is obvious
even to you that to claim it's "exactly what Steiner said
too" is preposterous.
Daniel:
Clarity, Diana, seems not to be your forte.
Steiner did not "fortell" anything.
Not clear, I agree. I meant "foretell"
that it would someday be theorized that it was disease that caused
their deaths in great numbers.
He described a past event, and offered
an explanation. The explanation he offered is exactly the same
as the one Dobyns puts forth, only worded slightly differently.
You seem to be deliberately misunderstanding every aspect of
this.
You can't be serious. You go on and on about
historical acccuracy, use of sources, etc., and you seriously
want me to agree that he is saying the same thing only worded
slightly differently. Wow. Steiner never said nothin'
about the native Americans and disease, Daniel.
Daniel:
Since when is the point to exonerate the
Europeans?
Because the sentence says they didn't die
because of the Europeans, they died because they had to "acquire
forces." It was not the Europeans' fault therefore. Not
really, if you have spiritual vision, you realize that even if
the Europeans were fairly brutal to the people they encountered
on this continent, actually these events had a deeper meaning
and purpose and the usual suspects, the Europeans, therefore
aren't truly to blame if one sees beyond superficial events
to spiritual causes blah blah. If you have spiritual sight you
will see. If you accept "materialistic" explanations
you will blame the Europeans.
This is nowhere in Steiner or in Dobyns.
I'm sorry if you don't see it right there
in that sentence, Daniel. The point of the sentence is that it
was not the Europeans' fault!
Both are simply describing the causes of
a past event.
No. The syntax of the sentence suggests not
description of an event, but a refutation of a prevailing theory
about the cause of an event, a theory which, apparently, the
audience is presumed to hold, in favor of a new theory which
the speaker will now put forth. Prevailing theory: Europeans
did it, or were at least pleased by it. New theory: a spiritual
one, acquiring of "forces," presumably meaning spiritual
forces, if one has, in fact, read much Steiner.
Really, Diana, I don't know where you come
up with this stuff! If you want to pontificate on Steiner's views,
it would help to read them first.
Oh, really, really, Daniel. Don't be such
a jerk.
I said:
The Europeans didn't do this to them, Steiner
says.
Daniel:
This is also not what Steiner said.
Okay, not quite, he says it didn't happen
because it pleased the Europeans. That's your translation. I
don't know how else to read that except to exonerate the Europeans.
If something happened because it pleased them would it
not mean they had arranged for it to happen? That it served their
ends? This is what he is refuting. If it did not happen
in order to please them does it not mean they are not responsible?
Who thought they were responsible? Obviously, Steiner
is expecting at least some in the audience to hold the opinion
that the Europeans did this, and he is setting them straight,
that that is not why it happened. Do you have some other interpretation
for the statement that they did not die out because it pleased
the Europeans? Please tell.
I gave you the exact quote. It is delicatly
phrased, and very precice. The Europeans did a lot to destroy
the Native Americans, and Steiner spoke out strongly against
this (in other books).
Yes, very nice, but he takes it all apart
with one blow, with statements like this. This negates that anything
they did, no matter how brutal, actually caused any problem.
Spiritual causes on some other plane are the explanation, you
may think genocide is a terrible thing, I'm sure Steiner agreed
genocide is a terrible thing, but in fact, these things happen
for a reason, this is a spiritual explanation. Spiritual causes
are the ultimate explanation and trump historical observations.
Yes?
Excuse me, Daniel, but this is the kernel
of the entire worldview, practically, and I am not the slightest
confused on this point. I know that anthroposophists do not like
to see this spelled out when it applies to messy little points
like genocide, it is considered tacky, it is better to be discreet
etc. Please refrain from any more of your condescending crap
about how I should read before pontificating etc.
He is saying that regardless of the Europeans
intentions (which were, to a large degree bent on eliminating
the Native Americans) the Natice Americans possessed a weakness
in their physical bodies that would lead to their dying out either
way. Whose fault is it? Steiner never assigned blame.
Oh, very open minded of Steiner. And is a
physical weakness not also a spiritual weakness? (If you're confused
on this point, see my lengthy discussions with Tarjei about why
it was necessary for Jesus to have a healthy body. An unhealthy
body would indicate spiritual weakness. Tarjei found any claim
to the contrary very distressing. Again, understandably, since
this claim is fundamental in anthroposophy.) In other words,
the point is to blame the native Americans themselves, and let
those who committed atrocities against them off the hook. Nobody
can commit atrocities against you and get away with it if your
gig isn't up, karmically. Y'all are always on and on about how
critics miss the context. Y'all are missing "context"
so big it fills the room. The context of announcing that native
Americans died becuase they needed to acquire spiritual forces
is that it lets the Europeans off the hook for genocide. And
the context of claims about people dying to acquire needed spiritual
forces is karma. Yet you want to needle me that this isn't about
karma. Of course it's about karma.
Since you know Steiner so well, you know
that in Steiner's view, not everything that befalls you is deserved
- the result of past karma. Many things are undeserved, and will
be repaid in the future. There is no reason in Anthroposophy
why a Native American who died from an epidemic "deserved"
it or "earned" it.
Whoa. Talk about dragging in stuff that is
not there. Did I say that? Did I say they deserved or earned
it, or even that Steiner said so? Wow. This looks like your way
out of the karma thing, which you know darn well is crucial to
what Steiner is saying here, and is exactly the point of "acquiring
forces" – for future lives, future tasks or missions
or something. Actually, it is you who has forgotten what karma
means in Steiner. It does include things that befall you that
will be repaid later. That is not something separate from karma.
It could just as well have been accidental,
in which case karmic recompense is due in a future life.
Now there's a breathtakingly confused statement,
from someone advising me that I don't have my Steiner straight.
Accidents are karma. You don't get repaid later for an
"accident" outside of karmic accounting. It's all
karma.
Anyone want to back me up here? I'm suspecting
sadly once again virtually every anthroposophist reading this
knows I've got it right but isn't going to say so.
Now surely you don't want me to take from
this that the genocide of the native Americans was "accidental."
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: VALENTINA
BRUNETTI
Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 5:37 am
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: reading and falsehoods
----- Original Message -----
From: winters_diana
Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: reading and falsehoods
Daniel, I see you decline to speculate
on why, if Steiner was clairvoyant, he couldn't have already
known all about immunology. Oh well.
Oh well??? Oh bad (for ya)
(Apologize to Daniel for jumpin' in)
If you or somebody else had an idea about
Anthoposophical medicine, especially about its development, you
should also been aware how RS gave basic indication how to treat
diseases from the standpoint of the investigations on the links
of the different "bodies" of Human Being. Inside these
standpoints many physicians found several insights in order to
heals also the so-called "immunological" diseases.
For instance there are studies that gave good results about the
capacity of "Viscum Album" to enforce the "immunitary"
defenses. But, I'm sure, all the nominalism-obsessed wished to
find out the "word" immunology 40 years before its
specific use...........,.
Well if someone wants the example of some
"performances" of "Steiner as a prophet"
he has only to get a a look, for instance, at the Gospels-Essenes.
Qumran-Nag Hammadi matter..........
Oh Didimos how many followers you have had
till today!!
A.
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 5:29 am
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: reading and falsehoods
[Diana:]
Daniel, I see you decline to speculate
on why, if Steiner was clairvoyant, he couldn't have already
known all about immunology. Oh well.
Andrea:
If you or somebody else had an idea about
Anthoposophical medicine, especially about its development, you
should also been aware how RS gave basic indication how to treat
diseases from the standpoint of the investigations on the links
of the different "bodies" of Human Being.
Steiner was a master at phrasing things in
mysterious vague generalities that could be interpreted by his
followers, of his own time or ages to come, in virtually any
way the listener liked. It's hard to imagine a scientific or
historical development that Steiner's followers today wouldn't
believed is hinted at in vague phrases like "they had to
acquire forces." This is not, in fact, intellectually inconsistent,
since karma means that whatever happens was meant to happen.
The beauty of is that anything that did happen you are
free to declare was obviously what Steiner thought was going
to happen. (And anything he missed, you can always just say the
time was not right then for him to speak about such things.)
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 5:57 am
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: reading and falsehoods
: Friday, April 23, 2004 2:29 PM
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: reading and falsehoods
[Diana:]
Daniel, I see you decline to speculate
on why, if Steiner was clairvoyant, he couldn't have already
known all about immunology. Oh well.
Andrea:
If you or somebody else had an idea about
Anthoposophical medicine, especially about its development, you
should also been aware how RS gave basic indication how to treat
diseases from the standpoint of the investigations on the links
of the different "bodies" of Human Being.
[Diana:]
Steiner was a master at phrasing things
in mysterious vague generalities that could be interpreted by
his followers, of his own time or ages to come, in virtually
any way the listener liked. It's hard to imagine a scientific
or historical development that Steiner's followers today wouldn't
believed is hinted at in vague phrases like "they had to
acquire forces."
Pls can I ask you what is your knowledge about
the Anthroposophical Medicine? BTW I live in a country that,
on a specific Anthop. standpoint got a strange feature. About
150 of the "official members" of GAS in Italy (1850
individuals) are physicians. If you need some help I can give
you some good address.
This is not, in fact, intellectually inconsistent,
since karma means that whatever happens was meant to happen.
If this is YOUR idea of Karma, I can only
complain you, madame.
The beauty of is that anything that did
happen you are free to declare was obviously what Steiner thought
was going to happen. (And anything he missed, you can always
just say the time was not right then for him to speak about such
things.)
This is only dialectical bullshit, madame.
Again. Why an individual who is unable to
grasp anything about a matter goes on and on and on and on and
on to dicsuss about it???
A.
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 6:21 am
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: reading and falsehoods
Andrea:
Pls can I ask you what is your knowledge
about the Anthroposophical Medicine?
I'm afraid I will have to decline an invitation
to discuss anthroposophical medicine. Life is short. Perhaps
I will be told I've "run away" from an argument, on
the other hand you've already announced I know nothing about
it, so I suggest we drop it there. I'll just note that the lecture
we were discussing makes no mention of any topic pertaining to
anthroposophical medicine, it was Daniel's clever idea that that's
what it was really about. In fact, Daniel has now convinced himself
that that's "exactly what Steiner said" (immunological
explanation for native Americans dying out) and seems genuinely
amazed that I don't see anything about immunologic weaknesses
mentioned.
This is not, in fact, intellectually inconsistent,
since karma means that whatever happens was meant to happen.
If this is YOUR idea of Karma, I can only
complain you, madame.
Whatever you say, Andrea. No, it is not my
idea of karma.
This is only dialectical bullshit, madame.
I agree it's bullshit, though it is not my
bullshit. I've been trying to figure out the idiosyncratic meaning
that the term "dialectical" has taken on on this list.
Somebody apparently remembers Marx used the term, and it's paired
with "materialism," so it must be bad, and Peter's
some kind of communist/Marxist something or other, we're not
sure what only we know it's scary, so we can always say he's
doing something dialectical. So probably other critics are dialectical/diabolical
too. Or perhaps you think it means replying point by point. (That
would be "dialogue.") Any reply that is specific to
the point that was actually made is dismissed as "dialectical."
Replies that include poetry, song lyrics, or general rude statements
about critics of anthroposophy are considered automatically to
show a greater spiritual understanding, so it doesn't matter
if they address the point that was made, in fact it is preferable
if they don't.
Again. Why an individual who is unable
to grasp anything about a matter goes on and on and on and on
and on to dicsuss about it???
I don't know. Why do you go on and
on about it?
Sorry. Couldn't resist. :)
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: VALENTINA
BRUNETTI
Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 8:48 am
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: reading and falsehoods
----- Original Message -----
From: winters_diana
Andrea:
Pls can I ask you what is your knowledge
about the Anthroposophical Medicine?
I'm afraid I will have to decline an invitation
to discuss anthroposophical medicine. Life is short. Perhaps
I will be told I've "run away" from an argument, on
the other hand you've already announced I know nothing about
it, so I suggest we drop it there. I'll just note that the lecture
we were discussing
Well, there is the kernel. You ignore again
and again that Anthroposophy is a "Symphony" and you
can't discuss on and on only a single note or movement without
a true knowledge of the whole!!
makes no mention of any topic pertaining
to anthroposophical medicine, it was Daniel's clever idea
The cleverness (actual cleverness, no idiot
irony about it pls, ask a certain PS whipped every day by Daniel)
of Daniel is rooted also on his basic knowledge of the "Symphony"
(see above)
If this is YOUR idea of Karma, I can only
complain you, madame.
Whatever you say, Andrea. No, it is not
my idea of karma.
No? And whose is, now ?
Again. Why an individual who is unable
to grasp anything about a matter goes on and on and on and on
and on to dicsuss about it???
I don't know. Why do you go on and
on about it?
Wow people here we see "WC's twist"
in action !! So Diana's problem (bla bla about Anthro matters
) becomes mine! And you ask me "why I go about it "
? Well , if you wish.....
I said that I live in a country off Anthro
physicians. and you ACTUALLY seem to me to need some medical
help about such a strange disease (No joke at all and no Scaccabarozzi
's therapy)
Andrea
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 9:00 am
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: reading and falsehoods
Andrea:
The cleverness (actual cleverness, no idiot
irony about it pls, ask a certain PS whipped every day by Daniel)
of Daniel is rooted also on his basic knowledge of the "Symphony"
(see above)
Well then, why when I suggested karma was
also relevant to the discussion, did he act like that was the
craziest thing he ever heard - why, karma is not even mentioned
in that lecture! (Immunology isn't either, of course . . .)
You guys say critics don't understand enough
about anthroposophy, broadly, to address small points. When we
demonstrate that we do, you say, that's not what that lecture
is about, Steiner doesn't mention that in that lecture. Hard
to imagine a topic in anthroposophy where karma wouldn't be relevant,
wouldn't be part of the background understanding Steiner assumed
in his audience. (Many of the lecture transcriptions say
he assumed such background understanding in his audience.)
I don't know. Why do you go on and
on about it?
Wow people here we see "WC's twist"
in action !! So Diana's problem (bla bla about Anthro matters
) becomes mine!
Calm down, dearie, it was a little joke. You
can really dish it out, Andrea, but don't seem to enjoy it returned,
even in mildest form! :) Enjoy your day, or evening, or whatever
time it is in Rome!
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 9:51 am
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: reading and falsehoods
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 6:00 PM
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: reading and falsehoods
The cleverness (actual cleverness, no idiot
irony about it pls, ask a certain PS whipped every day by Daniel)
of Daniel is rooted also on his basic knowledge of the "Symphony"
(see above)
- why, karma is not even mentioned in that
lecture!
Excuse me, but the topic here is not about
"karma" in its overall meaning, but about your untruthful
statement about a quite determinist concept of the word!
You guys say critics don't understand enough about anthroposophy,
broadly, to address small points. When we demonstrate that we
do,
Pls can you help me? I actually missed a "demonstration"
like this. PS "himself" told on and on to be interested
only in a little slice of the apple (the invented topic of "racism")
you say to know nothing about Medicine (that is , in itself,
a real synthesis of the Whole) and I see no use to ask you more
infos about your practice of KOHW or about Philosophy Cristology,
Angelology, Evolution and History, Architecture,Byofrarming,
Eurythmy and so on-. Sorry but I have to say again that I believe
that the basic problem lies in the fact that the WC knows really
nothing of Anthroposophy in spite of the fact that somebody here
and there got some smattering of different single topic.
you say, that's not what that lecture is
about, Steiner doesn't mention that in that lecture. Hard to
imagine a topic in anthroposophy where karma wouldn't be relevant,
wouldn't be part of the background understanding Steiner assumed
in his audience. (Many of the lecture transcriptions say
he assumed such background understanding in his audience.)
I don't know. Why do you go on and
on about it?
Wow people here we see "WC's twist"
in action !! So Diana's problem (bla bla about Anthro matters
) becomes mine!
Calm down, dearie, it was a little joke
Uhu I like to joke via both words and pictures
as you know. (On Rome there is now a "sinefiasmeni paraskevi"
evening, tks:)
A.
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 11:05 am
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: reading and falsehoods
Excuse me, but the topic here is not about
"karma" in its overall meaning, but about your untruthful
statement about a quite determinist concept of the word!
Uh-oh, more untruths, slippery, slippery those
critics! Good thing you are vigilant. :)
you say to know nothing about Medicine
I didn't say that. oh no! Untruths from your
side now.
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 11:48 am
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: reading and falsehoods
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 8:05 PM
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: reading and falsehoods
Excuse me, but the topic here is not about
"karma" in its overall meaning, but about your untruthful
statement about a quite determinist concept of the word!
Uh-oh, more untruths, slippery, slippery
those critics! Good thing you are vigilant. :)
Yes I'm paid a lot for this
you say to know nothing about Medicine
I didn't say that. oh no!
True you said a different thing (no time to
discuus it) and I apologize.
Andrea
...................................................................................................................................
From: holderlin66
Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 12:02 pm
Subject: reading and falsehoods
"All this suggests that,
although the causes of collapse or decline may seem to be quite
obvious, there is really an important distinction to be made
between cause and effect.
Although the first dark age
of the ancient near east has a clear association with invading
barbarians, the question still to be answered is whether they
initiated the dark age or whether economic and political retrenchment
occurred for other reasons and created the conditions that allowed
them in.
And in ancient Greece, the
enervating philosophies of people like the Sophists, who taught
that notions such as truth and justice are merely relative, have
sometimes been blamed for the loss of ideals and noble commitment
which is associated with the failure of classical civilisation.
Yet it has also been argued
that teachings of this nature could only succeed where people
were ready to receive them. In Kipling's parable The Mother Hive,
the son says that you cannot blame the bees because their hive
is infested with wax moth. The Bee Master replies, "Aren't
you confusing post hoc with propter hoc? Wax moth only succeed
when weak bees let them in"."
http://website.lineone.net/~marc.widdowson/Part1/Chapter03.html
"If the stock had not
been old and overcrowded, the Wax-moth would never have entered;
but where bees are too thick on the comb there must be sickness
or parasites. The heat of the hive had risen with the June honey-flow,
and though the farmers worked, until their wings ached, to keep
people cool, everybody suffered. A young bee crawled up the greasy
trampled alighting-board. "Excuse me," she began, "but
it's my first honey-flight. Could you kindly tell me if this
is my--"
"--own hive?" the
Guard snapped. "Yes! Buzz in, and be foul-brooded to you!
Next!"
"You hear?" said
the Queen. "I know the Hive!"
"Quite between ourselves,
I taught them that," cried the Wax-moth. "Wait till
my principles develop, and you'll see the light from a new quarter."
"You speak truth for
once," the Queen said suddenly, for she recognized the Wax-moth.
"That Light will break into the top of the Hive. A Hot Smoke
will follow it, and your children will not be able to hide in
any crevice."
"Is it possible?"
Melissa whispered. "I-we have sometimes heard a
legend like it."
"It is no legend,"
the old Queen answered. "I had it from my mother, and she
had it from hers. After the Wax-moth has grown strong, a Shadow
will fall across the gate; a Voice will speak from behind a Veil;
there will be Light, and Hot Smoke, and earthquakes, and those
who live will see everything that they have done, all together
in one place, burned up in one great fire." The old Queen
was trying to tell what she had been told of the Bee Master's
dealings with an infected hive in the apiary, two or three seasons
ago; and, of course, from her point of view the affair was as
important as the Day of Judgment.
http://www.geocities.com/nuelow/ficbees.html
Bradford comments;
Evolution and decline of cultures and the
changing aspects of the karma of groups, languages and races
are deeper than we suppose. But we suppose to ourselves that
we don't have to go deeper than our swollen, phlegm coated intellects.
That sloshing sound when we shake our heads is not water on the
brain, there isn't enough thinking here to call it a brain. Go
to Oz or do something to bring thinking into your dumb souls.
Once again, a new civilization of the Breath
arose. We must needs discover if the old civilization of materialism
isn't sentenced for extinction as well. I offer you once again
something strange. It must be remembered that by merely breathing
on a culture that had not experienced the type of etheric infections,
and immune system confrontatons that Europe had, the Hawaiians,
Polynesians, Easter islanders, Aztecs and Mayans had test tube
and isolated immune systems that had no etheric memory or white
cell defense against what was carried as disease by merely breathing
on someone.
Now here I present again the case of a new
breath and a new culture which carries a different kind of healing.
Materialistic culture and thinking should look at this statement
and marvel, that something new has entered as breath of the Holy
Ghost and with it a different kind of infection. An infection
and healing of the I AM. What I present requires people to think,
and think what such a walking breathing forces of the Holy Ghost
means, in contrast to the walking breathing smallpox carrier
of Pizzaro and the Conquestidors. What if the modified Holy Ghost
Breath that wafts in Spiritual Science is already destroying
the civilization of materialism? You should really, really examine
this carefully for profound meaning is here and it ain't even
hidden.
"Again, a passage which Luke omits, but
which John presents, may next be connected with these words.
It is to the following effect: "Then were the disciples
glad when they saw the Lord. Then said Jesus to them again, Peace
be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
And when He had said this, He breathed on
them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever
sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever
sins ye retain, they are retained."
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 5:07 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: reading and falsehoods
Diana,
Thank you for your thoughts on this. I think
I understand well where you are coming from, and what you are
trying to say. I won't waste your time any further by repeating
what I have already said. I doubt we will ever agree on this,
so perhaps we can agree to disagree.
Daniel
----- Original Message -----
From: winters_diana
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 8:05 AM
Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: reading and falsehoods
Daniel, I see you decline to speculate
on why, if Steiner was clairvoyant, he couldn't have already
known all about immunology. Oh well.
I said:
To say they died out because they didn't
have immunity to diseases the Europeans brought is not racist
Daniel:
Indeed. Saying that they died out because
their bodies did not contain the ability to fight off diseases
is not racist.
Diana:
Okay, thanks for repeating what I just
said.
Daniel now says:
Glad you got it this time. That is exactly
what Steiner said, too. Clear now?
I truly must be missing something, Daniel.
He said nothing at all about their dying of disease! I understand
you think that's what he meant but surely it is obvious
even to you that to claim it's "exactly what Steiner said
too" is preposterous.
Daniel:
Clarity, Diana, seems not to be your forte.
Steiner did not "fortell" anything.
Not clear, I agree. I meant "foretell"
that it would someday be theorized that it was disease that caused
their deaths in great numbers.
He described a past event, and offered
an explanation. The explanation he offered is exactly the same
as the one Dobyns puts forth, only worded slightly differently.
You seem to be deliberately misunderstanding every aspect of
this.
You can't be serious. You go on and on
about historical acccuracy, use of sources, etc., and you seriously
want me to agree that he is saying the same thing only worded
slightly differently. Wow. Steiner never said nothin'
about the native Americans and disease, Daniel.
Daniel:
Since when is the point to exonerate the
Europeans?
Because the sentence says they didn't die
because of the Europeans, they died because they had to "acquire
forces." It was not the Europeans' fault therefore. Not
really, if you have spiritual vision, you realize that even if
the Europeans were fairly brutal to the people they encountered
on this continent, actually these events had a deeper meaning
and purpose and the usual suspects, the Europeans, therefore
aren't truly to blame if one sees beyond superficial events
to spiritual causes blah blah. If you have spiritual sight you
will see. If you accept "materialistic" explanations
you will blame the Europeans.
This is nowhere in Steiner or in Dobyns.
I'm sorry if you don't see it right there
in that sentence, Daniel. The point of the sentence is that it
was not the Europeans' fault!
Both are simply describing the causes of
a past event.
No. The syntax of the sentence suggests
not description of an event, but a refutation of a prevailing
theory about the cause of an event, a theory which, apparently,
the audience is presumed to hold, in favor of a new theory which
the speaker will now put forth. Prevailing theory: Europeans
did it, or were at least pleased by it. New theory: a spiritual
one, acquiring of "forces," presumably meaning spiritual
forces, if one has, in fact, read much Steiner.
Really, Diana, I don't know where you come
up with this stuff! If you want to pontificate on Steiner's views,
it would help to read them first.
Oh, really, really, Daniel. Don't be such
a jerk.
I said:
The Europeans didn't do this to them, Steiner
says.
Daniel:
This is also not what Steiner said.
Okay, not quite, he says it didn't happen
because it pleased the Europeans. That's your translation. I
don't know how else to read that except to exonerate the Europeans.
If something happened because it pleased them would it
not mean they had arranged for it to happen? That it served their
ends? This is what he is refuting. If it did not happen
in order to please them does it not mean they are not responsible?
Who thought they were responsible? Obviously, Steiner
is expecting at least some in the audience to hold the opinion
that the Europeans did this, and he is setting them straight,
that that is not why it happened. Do you have some other interpretation
for the statement that they did not die out because it pleased
the Europeans? Please tell.
I gave you the exact quote. It is delicatly
phrased, and very precice. The Europeans did a lot to destroy
the Native Americans, and Steiner spoke out strongly against
this (in other books).
Yes, very nice, but he takes it all apart
with one blow, with statements like this. This negates that anything
they did, no matter how brutal, actually caused any problem.
Spiritual causes on some other plane are the explanation, you
may think genocide is a terrible thing, I'm sure Steiner agreed
genocide is a terrible thing, but in fact, these things happen
for a reason, this is a spiritual explanation. Spiritual causes
are the ultimate explanation and trump historical observations.
Yes?
Excuse me, Daniel, but this is the kernel
of the entire worldview, practically, and I am not the slightest
confused on this point. I know that anthroposophists do not like
to see this spelled out when it applies to messy little points
like genocide, it is considered tacky, it is better to be discreet
etc. Please refrain from any more of your condescending crap
about how I should read before pontificating etc.
He is saying that regardless of the Europeans
intentions (which were, to a large degree bent on eliminating
the Native Americans) the Natice Americans possessed a weakness
in their physical bodies that would lead to their dying out either
way. Whose fault is it? Steiner never assigned blame.
Oh, very open minded of Steiner. And is
a physical weakness not also a spiritual weakness? (If you're
confused on this point, see my lengthy discussions with Tarjei
about why it was necessary for Jesus to have a healthy body.
An unhealthy body would indicate spiritual weakness. Tarjei found
any claim to the contrary very distressing. Again, understandably,
since this claim is fundamental in anthroposophy.) In other words,
the point is to blame the native Americans themselves, and let
those who committed atrocities against them off the hook. Nobody
can commit atrocities against you and get away with it if your
gig isn't up, karmically. Y'all are always on and on about how
critics miss the context. Y'all are missing "context"
so big it fills the room. The context of announcing that native
Americans died becuase they needed to acquire spiritual forces
is that it lets the Europeans off the hook for genocide. And
the context of claims about people dying to acquire needed spiritual
forces is karma. Yet you want to needle me that this isn't about
karma. Of course it's about karma.
Since you know Steiner so well, you know
that in Steiner's view, not everything that befalls you is deserved
- the result of past karma. Many things are undeserved, and will
be repaid in the future. There is no reason in Anthroposophy
why a Native American who died from an epidemic "deserved"
it or "earned" it.
Whoa. Talk about dragging in stuff that
is not there. Did I say that? Did I say they deserved or earned
it, or even that Steiner said so? Wow. This looks like your way
out of the karma thing, which you know darn well is crucial to
what Steiner is saying here, and is exactly the point of "acquiring
forces" – for future lives, future tasks or missions
or something. Actually, it is you who has forgotten what karma
means in Steiner. It does include things that befall you that
will be repaid later. That is not something separate from karma.
It could just as well have been accidental,
in which case karmic recompense is due in a future life.
Now there's a breathtakingly confused statement,
from someone advising me that I don't have my Steiner straight.
Accidents are karma. You don't get repaid later for an
"accident" outside of karmic accounting. It's all
karma.
Anyone want to back me up here? I'm suspecting
sadly once again virtually every anthroposophist reading this
knows I've got it right but isn't going to say so.
Now surely you don't want me to take from
this that the genocide of the native Americans was "accidental."
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 5:18 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: reading and falsehoods
Daniel wrote:
If you lived in 1910, you had no concepts
such as immunology. You lacked the scientific fact of genetic
similarity and immune response. You had only the fact that many
more Native Americans died than would have if it were Europe
exposed to the same diseases. How do you explain this in 1910?
Peter Staudenmaier:
If you're Rudolf Steiner, you explain it
by reference to the ostensible racial character of Native Americans
themselves and by claiming that they had to die out. That's what
a lot of people consider racist nonsense. How about you?
Daniel:
And if you're a biologist, ethnologist or
medical doctor, you explain it by reference to the actual racial
character of Native Americans themselves and by claiming that
they had to die out.
I suppose this is racist as well?
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 6:04 am
Subject: Re: reading and falsehoods
Daniel dismisses me:
Diana,
Thank you for your thoughts on this. I
think I understand well where you are coming from, and what you
are trying to say. I won't waste your time any further by repeating
what I have already said. I doubt we will ever agree on this,
so perhaps we can agree to disagree.
Oh, I don't feel my time is being wasted.
I still have questions for you. These points are unresolved.
Please explain:
1) How the statement: "The Native American
population did not die out because this pleased the Europeans,
but because the Native American population had to acquire such
forces as lead to their dying out" can be read as saying
"exactly the same thing" as the thesis of the Atlantic
Monthly article describing the possibility that the Native Americans
succumbed to European germs rather than European genocide
2) How karma is not relevant, in Steiner,
to a people dying out (whether by genocide or germs); I ask because
when I mentioned karma in this context, you dismissed it as simply
not mentioned in the article, as if that was enough said. And
since you see immunology as relevant, "not mentioned in
the article" is obviously not a strong enough criterion
to dismiss karma
3) How you can interpret the statement "The
Native American population did not die out because this pleased
the Europeans, but because the Native American population had
to acquire such forces as lead to their dying out" as not
exonerating the Europeans for their dealings with the native
Americans
4) How the statement that "native Americans
possessed weaknesses in their physical bodies" can be interpreted,
in anthroposophy, as not also a statement describing their
spiritual condition or describing a spiritual situation
5) Whether in anthroposophy, accidents are
karma or not (not directly relevant to the native American question,
since certainly Steiner does not think either epidemics or genocide
are "accidents"; but relevant tangentially, since this
seemed to be an argument with which you hoped to convince me
that karma was not necessarily relevant to our discussion)
Thanks,
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 7:30 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: reading and falsehoods
--- winters_diana wrote:
Daniel dismisses me:
You know what Diana, this is not a game. Patrick
is interacting with you as a person interested in checking something
out and you keep taking on this confrontational tone. Okay if
you want to continue this but it is really getting old. Why not
just do a one on one versus snide comments like the above when
Patrick has been since the beginning been on the up and up without
any kind of ignorance.
There really is no reason for Patrick to continue
debating or relating to you if all you are looking for is what
you can debate against. I get that gets more of a rise from your
critic fans but does nothing towards loooking for a little true
understanding. Why not just wait on the critics list for people
to join and jump on them if you want to continue in this manner.
Or maybe just maybe you may want to engage in some real dialogue
versus the Staudenameir tricks.
Really this is just getting ridiculous. Maybe
it is what you know after so many years over at the critics.
Why not try to get some information from here agree or debate
or disagree or whatever but to continue this nastiness is just
not right.
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 7:36 am
Subject: Re: reading and falsehoods
Dottie, you're a laugh a minute considering
your interactions with Raymon this morning :) Do you realize
that you asked Raymon for the information that you are
now jumping all over him for providing?
Incidentally, you're in the middle of a discussion
betw/ me and Daniel there, that wasn't Patrick.
Diana
You know what Diana, this is not a game.
Patrick is interacting with you as a person interested in checking
something out and you keep taking on this confrontational tone.
Okay if you want to continue this but it is really getting old.
Why not just do a one on one versus snide comments like the above
when Patrick has been since the beginning been on the up and
up without any kind of ignorance.
There really is no reason for Patrick to
continue debating or relating to you if all you are looking for
is what you can debate against. I get that gets more of a rise
from your critic fans but does nothing towards loooking for a
little true understanding. Why not just wait on the critics list
for people to join and jump on them if you want to continue in
this manner. Or maybe just maybe you may want to engage in some
real dialogue versus the Staudenameir tricks.
Really this is just getting ridiculous.
Maybe it is what you know after so many years over at the critics.
Why not try to get some information from here agree or debate
or disagree or whatever but to continue this nastiness is just
not right.
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 7:50 am
Subject: Re: reading and falsehoods
Diana:
Dottie, you're a laugh a minute considering
your interactions with Raymon this morning :) Do you realize
that you asked Raymon for the information that you are
now jumping all over him for providing?
Hey Diana, I am not jumping all over Raymond.
I am asking him to provide this doctrine he is speaking about
that he says Dr. Steiner asks us to accept. Do you know what
he is talking about maybe?
And, I am talking to him and not the 'crowd'
as in your 'Patrick dimisses me' comment. You are doing the same
thing you and I commented about Bradford earlier. It's funny
isn't it, just a round about. Whew.
Diana:
Incidentally, you're in the middle of a
discussion betw/ me and Daniel there, that wasn't Patrick.
Oooh then I will have to apologize if this
is correct. You have been rude with Daniel since the beginning.
You two have a special relationship going on :) and I really
thought it was to Patrick you responded. I will have a look see.
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter
Staudenmaier
Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 9:05 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: reading and falsehoods
I second Diana's questions to Daniel (or was
that Patrick?), but I also have my own question for both of them.
Diana referred to
the thesis of the Atlantic Monthly article
describing the possibility that the Native Americans succumbed
to European germs rather than European genocide
This is not how I read the Charles Mann article, and I'm wondering
what others made of it. I don't see any "rather than"
argument in his piece, or certainly in Henry Dobyns' work. To
my mind, there is no question that enormous numbers of Native
Americans died from diseases that arrived with European settlers,
particularly smallpox and typhus. But this scarcely means that
there was no genocide, much less that Native Americans "had
to die out". Enormous numbers of Europeans died during the
Black Plague, for example, but European populations then recovered,
rather than being forced off their lands by invading colonists
who weren't shy about relying on tactics of wholesale slaughter.
Obviously terrible epidemics do not mean that specific ethnic
or racial groups "had to die out". More to the point,
it is hard to see what any of this might have to do with "racial
character".
Peter
[Bradford's response in "Peter on Race/Bradford
on I AM"]
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 2:02 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: reading and falsehoods
1) How the statement: "The Native
American population did not die out because this pleased the
Europeans, but because the Native American population had to
acquire such forces as lead to their dying out" can be read
as saying "exactly the same thing" as the thesis of
the Atlantic Monthly article describing the possibility that
the Native Americans succumbed to European germs rather than
European genocide
Diana, I have written three posts on the subject.
If you don't understand what I am saying, that is your perogative.
I have mentioned several times that you would be helped in you
understanding by reading the original concept as printed in Steiner's
book. This should clarify greatly the mysterious "forces"
and their role in the issue. Once you understand Steiner's thesis,
look at the Atlantic article again, then re-read my posts on
the subject. If you still don't get it, I can't help you.
2) How karma is not relevant, in Steiner,
to a people dying out (whether by genocide or germs); I ask because
when I mentioned karma in this context, you dismissed it as simply
not mentioned in the article, as if that was enough said. And
since you see immunology as relevant, "not mentioned in
the article" is obviously not a strong enough criterion
to dismiss karma
See my answer to number 5.
3) How you can interpret the statement
"The Native American population did not die out because
this pleased the Europeans, but because the Native American population
had to acquire such forces as lead to their dying out" as
not exonerating the Europeans for their dealings with
the native Americans
Let me reverse the question. How does that
exonerate the Europeans? The Europeans did terrible things. I
deplore their acts, and Steiner did too. Steiner also mentioned
a second, unrelated fact, that many Native Americans would have
died anyway. This does not excuse killing under any moral code.
4) How the statement that "native
Americans possessed weaknesses in their physical bodies"
can be interpreted, in anthroposophy, as not also a statement
describing their spiritual condition or describing a spiritual
situation
Not all aspects of the present are inherited
from the past. Some are, some are not. Also, see answer to number
5.
5) Whether in anthroposophy, accidents
are karma or not (not directly relevant to the native American
question, since certainly Steiner does not think either epidemics
or genocide are "accidents"; but relevant tangentially,
since this seemed to be an argument with which you hoped to convince
me that karma was not necessarily relevant to our discussion)
Not everything in the present is determined
by the past. If this were not true then there would be no free
will. The individual human being has to be free to do both good
and evil to be truly free. If he or she chooses evil, they may
very well harm another person who did not "deserve"
to be harmed. Karma only states that they must make it right
in a future life. If something bad happens to you, there are
two possibilities: One: you deserved it - you did bad things,
and this misfortune is the past coming back to you. Two: you
are the victim of someone elses bad choices (bear you fate as
best you can, and rest assured that no bad deed goes unpunished).
Unless you are a clairvoyant, you will never know what caused
a particular misfortune - the past (karma) or the free will of
the present. Finally, forgiveness is the highest spiritual good;
if someone owe's you for a past misdeed and you forgive them
- either by forgoing your natural revenge or by renouncing the
recompense that is due to you (so that it may be used for those
who need it more) - then you are performing one of the most powerful
deeds a free human being can accomplish. In Anthroposophy there
is simply no excuse for harming others (weakness is an explanation,
but not an excuse - and yes, we are all weak). Steiner would
never condone genocide or war.
This is the picture of karma that Steiner
repeated numerous times. In anthroposophy karma is not some cheap
excuse for ignoring other people's suffering. Nor is it an easy
answer for all of life's questions. Life retains as much mystery
with karma as without it.
Natural epidemics are more likely to have
spiritual causes because they happen without human will causing
them. Genocide, in as much as it is the result of conscious human
actions, are human responsibility. Everything a European did
to a Native American is the full responsibility of the European
(and vice versa). We are all, always, responsible for our own
actions. We are not always responsible for our circumstances,
but we are responsible for how we respond to our circumstances.
I hope this helps,
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 2:23 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: reading and falsehoods
Please, Peter. I really suspect you haven't
read the article or the quotes I selected from it. The plague
killed up to 30% of the European population. The other 60% survived
and recovered. The Native Americans were hit with multiple infectious
diseases, simultaneously, and did not know how to deal with them
- their treatment methods spread the infection. Further, the
MHC types were considerably more homogeneous - dramatically increasing
all the diseases' vectors. Some estimates figure that these diseases
alone killed up to 95% of the North American population - all
this before the Europeans finished off the other 5%. Mann cites
conjecture that the entire Atlantic seaboard, the south, midwest
and plains were virtually depopulated between 1500 and 1600 (before
the European settlements) - with almost all Native Americans
who died there not having seen a European. None of this is to
in any way excuse what the Europeans did to the remaining 5%
- I'm sure we both agree it was horrible.
Read the article again.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 6:56 pm
Subject: Re: reading and falsehoods
I referred to:
the thesis of the Atlantic Monthly article
describing the possibility that the Native Americans succumbed
to European germs rather than European genocide
Peter:
This is not how I read the Charles Mann
article, and I'm wondering what others made of it. I don't see
any "rather than" argument in his piece, or certainly
in Henry Dobyns' work. To my mind, there is no question that
enormous numbers of Native Americans died from diseases that
arrived with European settlers, particularly smallpox and typhus.
But this scarcely means that there was no genocide, much less
that Native Americans "had to die out". Enormous numbers
of Europeans died during the Black Plague, for example, but European
populations then recovered, rather than being forced off their
lands by invading colonists who weren't shy about relying on
tactics of wholesale slaughter. Obviously terrible epidemics
do not mean that specific ethnic or racial groups "had to
die out". More to the point, it is hard to see what any
of this might have to do with "racial character".
No you're quite right, that is not the thesis
of the article, and no theory is put forward on what caused the
population decimation, though various possibilities are mentioned.
The article is about the arguments over "what the Western
Hemisphere was like before Columbus," "how many people
lived in the Americas at the time of contact" and their
impact on their environment, and the significance of disputes
about these questions for ecological battles today. If the numbers
of Indians and the impact of their agricultural and other practices
on the landscape were greater than previously recognized, some
see this as calling into question the "pristine myth"
of the Americas before Columbus. (Or some people are afraid some
other people will see it that way. something like that) So it
became an ideological battle. If we are not morally obligated
to restore some "long-ago, putatively natural state,"
"developers will be told they are entitled to operate without
restraint." This is the context in which the article discusses
what decimated the native Americans. (Decimated is the wrong
word too, isn't it?)
There is certainly no discussion of "racial
character" as contributing to the lives or deaths of the
populations of the Americas, before or after contact with Europeans.
I don't think there are many academics today earnestly discussing
"racial character" as a factor in either genocide or
epidemics of disease, or their impact on history. Daniel is confused
about this only because he believes that genetics and race and,
apparently, immunological constitution are synonymous or at least
tightly linked causally. It hasn't been possible, so far, to
get anywhere near this belief of Daniel's with facts or logic.
He simply believes that if you don't see that these things are
synonymous, you just didn't read the article. Daniel, however,
missed every single point made in the anthropological position
papers you referred us to, including the point of citing them.
He does not, apparently, take in the information that there's
no such thing, scientifically, as race. (Race doesn't predict
immunologic status or predispositions, and it doesn't predict
"genetic make-up" either.)
On these points the paper provides the following
tidbits (which are not summed into an argument to explain
the epidemics):
"It is well known that Native Americans
had no experience with many European diseases and were therefore
immunologically unprepared — "virgin soil," in
the metaphor of epidemiologists. What Dobyns realized was that
such diseases could have swept from the coastlines initially
visited by Europeans to inland areas controlled by Indians who
had never seen a white person. The first whites to explore many
parts of the Americas may therefore have encountered places that
were already depopulated."
I guess this is the sort of thing our friends
read as saying the native Americans "had to die." There
is nothing resembling a claim that this "immunologic unpreparedness"
pertained to their "race," and certainly not that "immunologic
unpreparedness" meant they "had to die." Genetics
is a component of immunological preparedness, but only that,
a component. (Simple exposure to pathogens is a large part of
it.) Immunological unpreparedness, in turn, does not mean you
will get a disease; does not mean you will die of a disease;
does not mean someone with a greater degree of immunological
preparedness will not get the disease; does not mean someo