Steiner's definitions
Staudenmaier's reading comprehension
From: Detlef Hardorp
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 3:16 am
Subject: Staudenmaier's reading comprehension
Daniel recently wrote that the reading
comprehension of PS is at the level of 10th graders. I disagree.
With the reading comprehension shown in post 4099, he wouldn't
pass an elementary school reading comprehension test!
Have a look at these examples!
__________________________
PS wrote:
Since you admit that Hauptrasse can
mean root race, and since you admit that it is not true that
Hauptrasse must mean main race, everything you have said
so far on the topic is nonsense.
"..it is not true that Hauptrasse
*must* mean main race.."?!? Of course "Hauptrasse"
must mean "main race"! That is the direct translation
of the word.
Anyone who "admits" "that it is not true that
Hauptrasse *must* mean main race" either doesn't have an
elementary comprehension of German and English or can't think
straight!
I certainly never claimed that "it is not true that Hauptrasse
*must* mean main race". The guy can't read!
_______________________________________
DH wrote:
Thus "root races" and "principal
races" (in the sense of "coloured races") are
two quite different concepts.
PS responded:
Yep. They're just not two quite different
terms.
Fascinating! Here someone agrees
that "root races" and "principle races" are
two quite different concepts, but are "not two quite different
terms". This is beginning to sound like gibberish to me.
________________________________________
DH wrote:
We have also agreed that they can both
be referred to as "main races": the former are "main
races" in the Theosophical tradition, the latter are "main
races" in the sense that races were written about in high
school textbooks around 1910.
PS responded:
Sure. And they're also both 'root races'.
Is that a little too complex for you?
"Sure": he agrees that
"main races" refer to two different concepts. He had
agreed previously that there is no 1-1 correspondence between
"root races" and races in the sense of "coloured
races" (message 4018). So they cannot both be "root
races"!
It is not too complex to realise that he is now writing complete
gibberish.
_____________________
PS wrote:
Hauptrassen" can mean "root races"
just as well as it can mean "main races", hence your
claim that only one of the two translations is acceptable is
plainly false.
I never claimed "that only one of
the two translations is acceptable"!
I wrote that "Hauptrasse" (which ALWAYS means "main
race") can denote either "root race" (in the context
of "Cosmic Memory") or "principle race" ("Grundrasse")
in the context Steiner uses it in his "Mission..."
book, i.e. "coloured races" and the "white race".
Which translation is acceptable depends on the context. A translator
that stays close to the actual German word by using "main
race" will always be correct. I recommend this literal translation
for future translators!
_____________________________________
Dottie commented PS's response
in message 4102:
Peter Peter Peter, it is more than just
reading words man. ....
Of course she is right, it is more
than just reading words. But the man can't even read the words
correctly! This is more pathological than I had previously believed.
Detlef Hardorp
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 10:41 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Staudenmaier's reading
comprehension
Detlef writes:
"Hauptrasse" must mean "main race"!
That is the direct translation of the word.
I'm afraid you've got that backwards, Detlef. "Hauptrasse"
is a direct translation of "root race".
Here someone agrees that "root races" and "principle
races" are two quite different concepts, but are "not
two quite different terms".
Indeed. Perhaps you have never encountered the distinction between
terms and concepts before.
So they cannot both be "root races"!
Obviously they are both 'root races'. The term has multiple meanings.
That's sorta the point, y'know?
I never claimed "that only one of the two translations
is acceptable"!
Then why do you insist that one of them is a mistake?
I wrote that "Hauptrasse" (which ALWAYS means
"main race") can denote either "root race"
(in the context of "Cosmic Memory") or "principle
race" ("Grundrasse") in the context Steiner uses
it in his "Mission..." book, i.e. "coloured races"
and the "white race".
But he uses it in *both* contexts in Cosmic Memory. You really
aren't paying attention here, are you? By the way, could you
explain why you simultaneously believe that Hauptrasse always
means main races, *and* that it can denote root race? Did this
contradiction not occur to you earlier?
Which translation is acceptable depends on the context.
Not if the context directly refutes your own personalized reading
of the text. Demanding that translators share your private idiosyncrasies,
and accusing them of mistakes when they do not, is foolish.
A translator that stays close to the actual German word
by using "main race" will always be correct.
Except for the inconvenient fact that the actual German word
was itself already a direct translation of the English term 'root
race'.
I recommend this literal translation for future translators!
Aside from the problem that your preference is hardly literal,
do you really mean that you simply "recommend" this
preference? Or do you still think that any other rendering is
a "mistake"? Or do you believe that your preferences
determine what counts as a "mistake" in the first place?
That would certainly explain a lot.
Yours for reading comprehension,
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 11:02 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Staudenmaier's reading
comprehension
Detlef:
Here someone agrees that "root
races" and "principle races" are two quite different
concepts, but are "not two quite different terms".
Peter S:
Indeed. Perhaps you have never encountered the distinction
between terms and concepts before.
Oxford English Reference Dictionary, Oxford
University Press, Revised second edition 2002:
term n. &. v. - n. 1 a word used to express a definite concept,
esp. in a particular branch of study etc. ("a technical
term")
Tarjei:
Peter, we already know that your definitions
don't match those of dictionaries, but don't expect us to respond
to the gibberish that results from the confusion you are trying
to create thereby.
Tarjei
...................................................................................................................................
From: Deborah
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 9:47 am
Subject: Staudenmaier's reading comprehension
I have a request. Would Detlef Hardorp or
Daniel Hindes be willing to repost two basic bits of material?
1) Peter's original commentary on the lecture
under discussion
2) The actual passage from the lecture in German and English
I think this argument has come very far from
its roots. I've lost track of the point and I suspect that everyone
else except from the two D.H.'s and PS have too.
Thanks in advance.
Deborah
...................................................................................................................................
From: Detlef Hardorp
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 3:36 pm
Subject: Staudenmaier's reading comprehension
Wow, I didn't think we could could steep this
low!
I had written:
"Hauptrasse" must mean "main
race"! That is the direct translation of the word.
PS responded:
I'm afraid you've got that backwards, Detlef.
"Hauptrasse" is a direct translation of "root
race".
Someone asked for the original quotes in German and English.
I'll leave that to somebody else. The nitty-gritty concerns three
words:
1. Wurzelrassen
2. Grundrassen
3. Hauptrassen
The English translations are:
1. root races
2. principal races
3. main races
Anyone can check in the tiniest of dictionaries that
a. Rasse = race
b. Wurzel = root
c. Grund = basic, principal
d. Haupt = main
Thus the direct (i.e. literal, lexical) translation of "root
races" is "Wurzelrassen". This is the word Steiner
uses when talking about the Theosophical "root races".
Blavatsky wrote in English and used "root races". Steiner
wrote and spoke in German and used "Wurzelrassen".
As this concept is fundamental to Theosophical thinking, the
seven "root races" have also been referred to as the
seven "main races". Similarly in German, the seven
"Wurzelrassen" have been referred to as the seven "Hauptrassen".
It is not exactly unusual to refer to the fundamental concepts
as "main" concepts.
But the "main" something can be quite different in
different contexts!
So when American high school textbooks talk about the five basic
or principle races of mankind (the black, yellow, brown, red
and white race), they may very well refer to them as "main
races" also. But they are obviously not talking about the
seven "root races" of Theosophy!
Similarly, when Rudolf Steiner talks about the five basic or
principle races ("Grundrassen") in his "Mission
..." book (referring explicitly to the black, yellow, brown,
red and white race), he refers to these as "main races"
at least once. But this does not automatically mean that he is
now talking about Theosophical "root races" as some
nit-wits still want us to believe!
To make it absolutely clear: to translate "Hauptrasse"
with "root race" in a context where the author is clearly
not speaking or writing about the seven root races ("Wurzelrassen")
of Theosophy but about the five classical "Grundrassen"
(basic or principal races: the black, yellow, brown, red and
white race) as also found in high school text books is plain
wrong.
This can only occur when people think in words without understanding
the ideas behind the words.
I can certainly vouch for the fact that this easily happens to
translators! I once had to submit an authorised translation (by
a state-certified translator) of my Ph.D. thesis abstract into
German. My thesis was in mathematics and concerned "three
dimensional manifolds". Well, the state-certified translator
looked in a dictionary and found that "manifold" meant
something out of the engineering realm (I think it was the equivalent
of "carburator" or something like that - I just tried
the translation service at http://translation2.paralink.com/
and they came up with "Sammelleitung" for manifold,
yet another engineering term to do with bundled phone connections),
whereas in fact it means "Mannigfaltigkeit" in topology
in German and has to do with topologically twisted spaces. So
I corrected the translation (there were quite a number of other
mistakes in the few sentences he was supposed to translate as
well), sent it back to the state-certified translator, and he
redid it exactly the way I told him to (and still charged me
a horrific fee for the few sentences he had not been able to
translate!). This just proves a point which any decent translator
knows: you cannot translate properly if you don't properly understand
what the subject is about. The most fundamental errors can occur
if you don't.
Translation errors abound in early translations of Steiner, as
we see to this day. This is not surprising either. But they can
be corrected by anyone with a good understanding of anthroposophy
and of German and English.
I am getting increasingly tired of writing about this topic again
and again simply because one participant on this list chooses
to be so dim-witted! I hope this really was the last time.
Detlef Hardorp
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 7:19 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Staudenmaier's reading
comprehension
Hi Tarjei, you wrote:
Peter, we already know that your definitions don't match those
of dictionaries, but don't expect us to respond to the gibberish
that results from the confusion you are trying to create thereby.
I don't find the matter particularly confusing. Steiner used
the term "Hauptrasse" to refer to at least two different
concepts. Blavatsky used the term "root race" to refer
to a range of several related concepts. The first term is a translation
of the second term. Hence the second term is an acceptable translation
of the first, regardless of what individual readers might want
the text to mean. Maybe you could explain what seems confusing
about this?
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter
Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 8:08 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Staudenmaier's reading
comprehension
Detlef writes:
Thus the direct (i.e. literal, lexical) translation of "root
races" is "Wurzelrassen".
That is incorrect. There are two direct translations of "root
races" in German: "Hauptrasse" and "Wurzelrasse",
as well as combinations of the two. This has been the case for
one hundred years. For example, the first German translation
of Blavatsky's book The Secret Doctrine.
This is the word Steiner uses when talking about the Theosophical
"root races".
That is incorrect. Steiner uses two words when talking about
the theosophical root races: "Hauptrasse" and "Wurzelrasse".
He sometimes uses both in the very same text. For example, his
foundational text Aus der Akasha-Chronik (Cosmic Memory in English).
Steiner wrote and spoke in German and used "Wurzelrassen".
As well as "Hauptrasse", as Detlef himself finally
conceded a while back.
As this concept is fundamental to Theosophical thinking, the
seven "root races" have also been referred to as the
seven "main races".
I invite Detlef to name a theosophical text in which this term
is used.
Similarly in German, the seven "Wurzelrassen" have
been referred to as the seven "Hauptrassen".
Quite so. This renders Detlef's argument absurd. I confess that
I have no idea why this remains somehow unclear to Detlef. Would
anybody else care to explain it?
To make it absolutely clear: to translate "Hauptrasse"
with "root race" in a context where the author is clearly
not speaking or writing about the seven root races ("Wurzelrassen")
of Theosophy but about the five classical "Grundrassen"
(basic or principal races: the black, yellow, brown, red and
white race) as also found in high school text books is plain
wrong.
That is incorrect. "Hauptrasse" is itself a translation
of "root race". Theosophical texts, including Blavatsky's,
refer to "root races" in descriptions of black, yellow,
red, and white racial groups. Sometimes they refer to five races.
Sometimes they refer to seven races. Detlef's private views on
the appropriateness of such terms are irrelevant to the question
of translation.
This can only occur when people think in words without understanding
the ideas behind the words.
The expectation that translators must share one's personal interpretation
of a given text is childish.
So I corrected the translation
That's perfectly acceptable with your own translations or with
your own texts. In stark contrast, complaining that other translators
(anthroposophist translators, at that) of texts by another person
have made repeated "mistakes" merely because their
rendering does not accord with your preferred reading, is quite
frivolous.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: Detlef Hardorp
Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 1:45 am
Subject: Staudenmaier's reading comprehension
I wrote:
As this concept is fundamental to Theosophical
thinking, the seven "root races" have also been referred
to as the seven "main races".
PS then extended an invitation:
I invite Detlef to name a theosophical text in which this
term is used.
Here's one:
http://www.theosophical-society.org.uk/html/insight_articles/blavatsky_lecture_2001.html
THEOSOPHY: ITS BENEFICENT
POTENTIALITIES
by Geoffrey Farthing 2001
Blavatsky Lecture
delivered at the Summer School of the Theosophical Society in
England King Alfred’s College, Winchester, U. K. Sunday
29 July 2001
The Theosophical Publishing
House 50 Gloucester Place, London W1U 8EA
... Theosophy tells us of the differences between sections of
humanity by way of Root Races, sub-Races, families and so on.
Each of these groups has an historic background and each of them
is developing its own aspect of man’s constitution. The main races of humanity
develop their respective principles in due season. At this time
in the 4th Round the 5th
Root Race is developing
the mental aspects of Kama (the 4th principle). Each Sub-Race
of each Root Race is developing or has developed one or other
of these aspects but the Races and Sub-Races overlap. ...
_________________________
I had written:
Thus the direct (i.e. literal, lexical)
translation of "root races" is "Wurzelrassen".
PS responded:
That is incorrect. There are two direct translations of "root
races" in German: "Hauptrasse" and "Wurzelrasse",
as well as combinations of the two.
Man, this guy is thick! When I say "direct" I explicitly
said that I meant "literal, lexical"! Please look up
"literal" and "lexical" in the dictionary!
The literal (i.e. lexical) translation of "root race"
is "Wurzelrasse" and nothing else. Another (non-lexical)
translation is "Hauptrasse". The converse does not
follow from this! You need a course in logic: if rabbits can
be white this does not imply that all white things are rabbits!
Similarly, if "root race" can be translated as "Hauptrasse"
this does not imply that the word "Hauptrasse" always
refers to "root race"!
Mr. Staudenmaier: go home to your co-op bookstore and stop wasting
everybody's time. I can imagine that you might do well as a bookseller,
you have obviously seen a lot of books in shelves and browsed
through some of them. BTW, did you ever manage to get a high
school diploma? What high school and what year was that?
Dr. Hardorp
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter
Staudenmaier
Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 9:44 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Staudenmaier's reading
comprehension
Good morning Detlef,
speaking of time travel... You helpfully quoted the "2001
Blavatsy Lecture". Are you trying to say that this 2001
lecture should have been taken into account by anthroposophist
translators in 1929 and 1970? Also, by your reading, does this
2001 lecture clearly distinguish between root races and main
races? If you answer yes to either question, could you explain
why?
The literal (i.e. lexical) translation of "root race"
is "Wurzelrasse" and nothing else.
That is false. The literal translation of "root race"
is both "Hauptrasse" and "Wurzelrasse", as
well as "Haupt- und Wurzelrasse" etc. I recommend you
take a look at German translations of Blavatsky.
Similarly, if "root race" can be translated as "Hauptrasse"
this does not imply that the word "Hauptrasse" always
refers to "root race"!
I'm not sure why this hasn't dawned on you yet, but people sometimes
disgree about what specific texts refer to. When such disagreements
arise, there is no point in shunting them off into invented disagreements
about "mistakes in translation". To follow on your
own sentence above: if "root race" can be translated
as "Hauptrasse", that does indeed mean that "Hauptrasse"
can be translated as "root race", even in those circumstances
where you might have preferred a different rendering.
Peter
delivered at the Summer
School of the Theosophical Society in England King Alfred’s
College, Winchester, U. K. Sunday 29 July 2001
The Theosophical Publishing
House 50 Gloucester Place, London W1U 8EA
... Theosophy tells us of the differences between sections of
humanity by way of Root Races, sub-Races, families and so on.
Each of these groups has an historic background and each of them
is developing its own aspect of man’s constitution. The main races of humanity
develop their respective principles in due season. At this time
in the 4th Round the 5th
Root Race is developing
the mental aspects of Kama (the 4th principle). Each Sub-Race
of each Root Race is developing or has developed one or other
of these aspects but the Races and Sub-Races overlap. ...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
