agreement and disagreement 1

agreement and disagreement 2

 

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 2:16 am
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 10:58 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

accurate, if a bit overheated, but I disagree with the first sentence. Also, if I understood Andrea's recent post, she thinks that Evola's racial theories had nothing in common with Steiner's. I disagree with that claim as well.

What ?????

Mr.Studenmaier.

(First of all I'm not a "she". Andrea - as the greek word "anèr" states, is, in Italy, a male's name.)

Well , if you disagree it means only that you've got a very feeble and twisted knowledge not only of Steiner ( I did notice it, since you write on and on to demonstrate the nonsensical thesis of "Anthro-eco-fascism" remembering me the ways and the psycho-standards of Holocaust's deniers) )but also of the late Baron Giulio Cesare Evola, Himmelr's supporter, harsh antisemite who hatred, in the same way, Steiner,the Christ and "the Jew".

I wrote something about it, mainly:

"Antroposofia e Nazionalsocialismo" Riv:Antroposofia Luglio 2001 pagg. 14-104

"L'Equivoco Tragico del tradizionalismo esoterico" Riv.Kairòs 2002 /33

If you're not able to read Italian language ....it's your own problem.

Well, Evola dedicated several writings to the aim of "destroying" every insight of Steiner's. Anyone reading Evola and Steiner is able to see that there exists a total opposition between them: it's a real matter of fact.

Lets' start with one of these oppositions.

Steiner pictures the man being as centered on "I AM" principle, rooted on the Logos, in itself free from "nama" and "-rupa" , who embodies himself in Earthly Time , following the laws of karma, in several different soul-physical "forms". So the Human Being , more and more the Ages are passing by, is able to free himself more amd more from the powers of those "forms", shaping and transforming them , till today's Michael Age in which we see the trend towards the mixing and moulding of every "racial" issue.
Following this conception there is no place for racism in Anthroposophy like the historical facts are able to demonstrate either in the 1920's or today ( have you never heard of N.Perlas' attempts to perform Threefolding Movement,Mr Studenmaier, but sure, being an anthropop Perlas MUST BE an "Eco Fascist", or have you ever heard of mr.Ben Aharon " (a"nazi-jew" in your opinon?): have you ever visited Cruz Azul's school ?and so on)

it's not enough to show a couple of "oddities" from 82.000 pages of Steiner's teachings to demonstrate the opposite, ( As we see below is a matter of be "nut" oir "something else".)

Following the above statements we are able to explain also the basic opposition between Anthroposophy and the racist and nationalistic issue of Nazism, of which Evola was, on the contrary, an active supporter, sure in his somewhat "personal" way of "ghibellino".

Evola got about the esoteric-basical Man's picture a total different point.

In his insights there is no "I AM-Christ" , no "I" principle at the core of reincarnation's process , resounding somehow the "anatta Buddhism" teachings mixed with the Esoteric Roman Traditional Insight that the "after death life"is a whinning post only for the Initiates

Following this path we arrive at the foundations of his racism WHO IS EXACTLY AT THE OPPOSITE POLE OF RS'S TEACHINGS SINCE, IN EVOLA, THE "RACE" ELEMENT TRANSCEND THE "I AM ELEMENT" IN ITSELF SIMPLY NON-EXISTING"

So it's impossible to move near RS and JE without spreading falsehoods.

(Mr Studenmaier I believe that when I communicate your opinion about Steiner and Evola to my fellows researchers and students there will be a big laughter)
.
.

Conclusion: whoever speaks of "Steiner's racism" is either a nut or.......something else

Andrea the cave Dweller (Dottie said)

Tarjei again:

How would you define an "ethnic doctrine" or a "racial doctrine"?

Doctrines about ethnicity and about race.

If the achievements in question relate to natural-scientific research, I agree that they are not affected by the morality of doctrines adhered to.

I wasn't talking about morality. I fundamentally disagree with your take on concepts like 'racism' (assuming I've understood what you're getting at); I don't think it makes sense to use these concepts primarily as moral categories; to my mind our first task is to see what they mean descriptively, and then we can move on to normative judgements.

Claiming insight regarding other people's perceptions of themselves requires intimate knowledge of the individuals in question. Otherwise, such claims are not only arrogant, but extremely presumptious and conceited as well.

I disagree entirely. Claiming insight about other people's perceptions of themselves requires paying attention to what they say.

What do you mean by Steiner's "theosophical/anthroposophical period"

The period from 1902 onward during which he publicly identified with Theosophy and anthroposophy.

I seem to recall a claim by you that Steiner was an atheist in the 1890's

Yes, in my view Steiner oscillated between atheism and a mystical re-affirmation of christianity between the mid-1890's and 1900-1901.

which would make him a liar when he wrote in his autobiography thirty years later that the spiritual world had been wide open to him since childhood.

Why would that make him a liar? Atheism means disbelief in god. It does not mean disbelief in the spiritual world. In any case, there is nothing unusual about autobiographies re-interpreting their authors' past; that's part of the point of the whole endeavor.

Someone accustomed to communicate with the souls of the departed cannot be called atheists.

Why on earth not? Atheists are people who don't believe in god, not people who don't believe in souls or in communication with the dead.

RS also made it clear that what later became Anthroposophy was evolving within him long before the turn of the century. For this reason, Steiner's "theosophical/anthroposophical period" can be said to have started with his work on Goethe in the 1880's.

You're forgetting his caustic criticisms of Theosophy in the 1890's.

By using the expression "Aryan myth", you seem to indicate that no Aryans have ever existed. You also seem to imply that stating that Aryans have existed, and still exist, is a racist statement.

I tried to explain this to you at considerable length last month. Maybe I could ask you to read that post again:

http://www.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1715726619

It is indeed the case that "no Aryans have ever existed" if by Aryans you mean a race that founded the civilizations of antiquity. The Aryan myth mixed up language and biology. There was never any such thing as an Aryan race. That's why it's a myth.

The significance of Christ's first sign, and of the RS lecture quoted here, is that Anthroposophy is a New Christ-Proclamation that seeks to lead humanity behond the old ties of blood, soil, nationality, tribe, and race. You have previously claimed that Steiner spoke in favor of glorifying "blood and soil" and race like the Nazis did, and that this was his "doctrine", but that is a lie.

I don't know whether this is a "lie", but it isn't my position. It sounds to me like you're getting my discussion of Steiner mixed up with my discussion of Darre.

Steiner did not insist on assimilation; he recommended it. (Please notice the difference.)

I disagree. His recommendations on this score were categorical and emphatic.

There are orthodox Jews who share your misgivings about assimilation

I do not have misgivings about assimilation as such. I do have misgivings, as everyone should, about the specific version of assimilation that Steiner propagated. What he understood by assimilation was very different from what pro-assimilationist Jews understood by it. These Jews were anything but Orthodox.

The Jerusalem Post, Sunday December 30, 2001 - Health minister compares assimilation to Holocaust - Assimilation was a greater catastrophe for the Jewish people than the Holocaust, Health Minister Nissim Dahan said this morning.

Yes, I recall that remark. I think such comparisons are foolish. I don't see what this has to do with Steiner's views, however, which were formulated and expressed before the holocaust.

Nonsense. There was just a discussion about Mel Gibson and anti-Semitism after your arrival here, because you and nobody else is endeavoring to make a "hot topic" of Steiner's view on the Jews.

Dottie devoted several posts to the topic last week.

Here is another piece of blatant falsehood. Rudolf Steiner never had a "pan-German period." That is another lie.

Steiner was actively involved in the pan-German ("deutchnational") movement in Austria in the 1880's. He wrote dozens of articles for the pan-German press and briefly edited an important pan-German journal, the Deutsche Wochenschrift. These articles can be found in two of the volumes I mentioned yesterday: Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kultur- und Zeitgeschichte and Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Literatur (GA 31 and 32). Both Lindenberg's and Wehr's biographies discuss this period.

As previously mentioned, Rudolf Steiner held the view that all racial ties should disappear, for the simple reason that racial ideals lead mankind into decadence. The Jews were no exception. This view is aparently what you refer to as Steiner's "broader racial doctrines."

That's part of it. But there's a lot more to Steiner's racial theories than that. I'm not sure I understand your second sentence above. Are you saying that the mere existence of Jews depends on some sort of racial ideal? If so, which one? Do you agree with Steiner's dictum that the best thing would be for Jewry as a people to cease to exist?

Peter Staudenmaier

...................................................................................................................................

From: dottie zold
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 5:34 am
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Andrea the cave Dweller (Dottie said)

ANDREA!!! I said not! Whew.

Thanks for the post on Evola. It's pretty interesting to me that no matter what is going to be said Mr. Peter is stuck in his thesis and that is the way it is going to be.

In answering Tarjei, once again he shows how 'he knows Steiner better' than even Steiner knew himself. The whole Steiner didn't know he said this, and Steiner didn't know he was that, as if because he claims to have studied the man he knows what he was thinking that even the Dr. didn't know about himself. Truly unbelievable. Thanks again,

Dottie (non cave dweller, of course:)

...................................................................................................................................

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 8:01 am
Subject: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

----- Original Message -----
From: dottie zold
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 2:34 PM
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Andrea the cave Dweller (Dottie said)

ANDREA!!! I said not! Whew.

Uhu, rhis is true but, sometimes, when I read some "Charlatan's post" (guess who,guess who?) i just feel like this !!

A.

Dottie (non cave dweller, of course:)

...................................................................................................................................

From: dottie zold
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 8:27 am
Subject: Re: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Andrea

Uhu, rhis is true but, sometimes, when I read some "Charlatan's post" (guess who,guess who?) i just feel like this !!

I haven't heard the word faggot in a long, very long, time. It was so funny. Sorry. I wish I could have seen your face/expression when you wrote it.

d

...................................................................................................................................

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 8:55 am
Subject: R: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

I heard it used in one of my favourite songs: Dire Strait's "Money for Nothing".
A.

----- Original Message -----
From: dottie zold
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 5:27 PM
Subject: Re: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Andrea

Uhu, rhis is true but, sometimes, when I read some "Charlatan's post" (guess who,guess who?) i just feel like this !!

I haven't heard the word faggot in a long, very long, time. It was so funny. Sorry. I wish I could have seen your face/expression when you wrote it.

d

...................................................................................................................................

From: patrick evans
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 11:07 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Mr. Staudenmaier,

Please consider another way of interpreting Dr. Steiner's writings and statements particularly with regard to figures like Nietzsche, Haeckel, and Stirner. Rudolf Steiner was a spiritual teacher as I'm sure you know. To develop one's character he recommended that the student practice the Six Subsidiary Exercises. You can find this in the book, Guidance in Esoteric Training. By way of explanation one of the exercises is accompanied by an apocryphal story. In this story, Christ is walking with his disciples along a dusty road. Along the side of the road, the disciples find a wolf in an advanced state of decay. The disciples turn away in disgust. Christ approaches the animal and says to the disciples, "Look at his beautiful teeth!" Steiner used this approach when thinking about ideas and people. He tried to find what was pertinent, relevant, and truthful in the spirit of the other. In Nietzsche's case he saw him to be a Fighter for Freedom in the sense of the Philosophy of Freedom. Both of these books are important in understanding Rudolf Steiner. Because he defended and supported Nietzsche does not mean he held all of his views. To use his support of Nietzsche as of verification of his atheism is not, I believe, a well reasoned evaluation of Steiner and his views, if that is in fact what you are doing. The same goes for Haeckel. Rudolf Steiner saw in Haeckel -- and in Darwin for that matter -- an important proponent of the idea of evolution. His contemplation of Haeckel gave birth to his book, An Outline of Esoteric Science. In his book the Philosophy of Freedom, the idea emerges that one must even "think away" the idea of a creator in order to become completely free in one's thinking. A human being, in order to be free, must approach the idea of God without compulsion. This does not mean that God does not exist or that Steiner is an atheist. From your response to Dottie and Tarjei, I read that you evaluate what people say from your own lexicon. (You are also a master of rhetoric, especially when translating and interpreting others words.) It is critical however, I believe, that we seek to understand the spirit and intent of what one is saying and to do this, we must be open-minded. I think that certain doors of understanding are closed in your mind with regard to Steiner. If one uses the aforementioned discipline to evaluate his words then he is quite consistent in what he says. When speaking of natural science, he supports and praises certain aspects and is critical of others, and so on.

Respectfully,

Patrick Wakeford-Evans

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Staudenmaier
To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 7:38 PM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Hi Dottie, you wrote:

I remember this conversation happening on the critics list and I recall you, Peter, saying that Dr. Steiner changed his tune to be politically correct; in other words he lied.

No, that isn't at all what I said. Steiner didn't care about what we now call 'political correctness' (add that to the list of things I admire about him). I do not think that he lied on this topic. I can't even recall him saying much about in the autobiography. In any case, changing your tune and lying are entirely different things. What I claimed is that Steiner very much changed his tune on a number of issues in the course of the 1890's (I agree with Daniel that anti-clericalism was among these issues), including his views on god. I still don't understand why that sounds so implausible; this is the period when his chief indentifications were with figures like Nietzsche, Haeckel, and Stirner. According to one part of the encyclopedia article Daniel forwarded, a person has to reject spirituality as such in order to count as an atheist (though by my reading the article contradicts itself several times on exactly this point); that is not the sense of 'atheist' that I had in mind. I think of atheism as meaning disbelief in god, nothing more, nothing less.

Peter

...................................................................................................................................

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 11:38 am
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Hi Andrea,

my apologies for mixing up your gender. You wrote:

Anyone reading Evola and Steiner is able to see that there exists a total opposition between them: it's a real matter of fact.

I disagree. In the late 1920's Evola was on good terms with the first generation of Italian Steinerites (Colazza, Colonna, et al.). In the 1930's one of Evola's closest collaborators was Massimo Scaligero, who went on to become perhaps the single best-known Italian follower of Steiner. Moreover, Evola's root-race scheme -- as laid out in Revolt Against the Modern World, for example -- is identical to Steiner's: Polarians, Hyperboreans, Lemurians, Atlanteans, Aryans. I consider these parallels significant.

Peter Staudenmaier

Terms and Their Meanings

...................................................................................................................................

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 11:50 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Hi again Peter S,

I wrote:

I think it's important to keep the moral aspect of racism up front, especially when you throw the word around almost every time you mention Steiner, causing readers to form moral judgements because of it.

And you wrote:

Then we disagree. I think moral judgements are distinct from descriptive claims.

Tarjei:

You're not communicating. The words "racism" and "racist" are charged with associations related to ethics, and when they are used in the manner you are using them, the reader is led to moral judgements, consciously or subconsciously. That does not mean that the author of a description is passing judgements of any kind, although he or she may imply ever so subtely that a moral judgement is implicit.

Tarjei:

In the late 1880's. Chapter 7 of the autobiography, where the excerpt is taken from, covers "1886-1889 - Vienna."

Peter S:

But that's not the time period you and I were talking about. I do not believe that Steiner was an atheist in the 1880's.

Tarjei:

RS explained that he observed strict silence about his spiritual-religious conceptions until 1899

Peter S:

He may have later claimed this, but the claim is inaccurate, unless you mean that his caustic 1897 critique of Theosophy does not count as an expression of his own spiritual-religious conceptions.

Tarjei:

It does not, because RS spoke or wrote nothing at all about his spiritual-religious conceptions before the turn of the century. RS makes this very clear in his autobiography, which he wrote in order to avoid such misunderstandings.

There is another thing that should be mentioned concerning Steiner's affiliation with the Theosophical Society and his endeavor to link his own spiritual work to the pioneering groundwork made by HPB and the Theosophical Society. This is related to the spiritual background of the movement itself: Rudolf Steiner's karma was linked to the founding of the Theosophical Society from the beginning. And to borrow your very own expression (quoted and commented below), one can say with a great deal of certainty that if it not understood that the founding of the Theosophical Society was an initiative originating in the spiritual world, among the higher hierarchies, one has indeed an impoverished conception of spirituality - in this case, a negation of the spiritual.

Peter S:

Indeed. I said nothing about his beliefs regarding god in the late 1880's. My claim was about his beliefs regarding god in the late 1890's.

Tarjei:

If that makes any difference at all, it's for the worse.

Peter S:

I disagree that gods are part and parcel of the spiritual world. They are only part and parcel of some versions of the spiritual world, certainly not all.

Tarjei:

That's worth a Quote of the Day. Your word-game makes absolutely no sense.

Peter S:

Perhaps you think this makes no sense because you really do believe that spirituality as such requires belief in god. If that is the case, I think you have an impoverished conception of spirituality.

Tarjei:

Here you make a simple assumptiom about my belief, which you twist into an "impoverished conception of spirituality." If you wish to demonstrate that my conception of spirituality is indeed impoverished, you should be able to show that your own conception of spirituality is enriched and enlightened. So far, I have seen nothing of the kind from your voluminous list messages and articles.

Tarjei:

So if he said and wrote later that he was a theist at that time but kept it strictly to himself, you don't believe him?

Peter S:

That depends. Where does he say that he was a theist in the late 1890's? (By the way, I don't even necessarily dispute this -- I can't recall coming across any later mention of it one way or the other -- but what I originally said is that Steiner at this time wavered between atheism and re-affirmation of mystical christian belief.)

Tarjei:

Pure unadulterated nonsense. He was familiarizing himself with the sciences, epistemologies and philosophies of his age and carving out his own position in relation to them. In order to do this, he had to keep theology and religion at arm's length. He certainly admired thinkers who were atheists, but he was never naîve enough to be an atheist. Besides, his spiritual faculties made such a position impossible. At one point in a lecture later in life, he said that agnosticism is a misfortune, and that atheism is a disease. If RS had ever suffered from this disease (in his present incarnation), he would probably have said so.

Peter S:

That is not what List or Lanz, the two leading ariosophists, taught, and I don't know of any Nazi race theorist who made this claim

Tarjei:

'To Gobineau, "History... shows us that all civilization flows from the white race, that none can exist without the co-operation of this race," and that to the ordinary white race, the Aryan race is what the white man is to the black.' [Pennick]

Uh, Tarjei? Do you know when Gobineau lived, and where? He wasn't an ariosophist, and he wasn't a Nazi. He died in 1882, when ariosophy was still a glimmer in Guido List's eye (and when Lanz von Liebenfels, who coined the term 'ariosophy', was ten years old), and half a century before the Nazis came to power.

Tarjei:

I have read Webb (The Occult Establishment). He made no attempt to stigmatize Anthroposophy in that manner

Peter S:

Webb's book explores the interplay between anthroposophy and the völkisch movement in detail (pp. 285-290) and discusses several areas of overlap between Theosophy, anthroposophy, and the esoteric wing of the Nazis, including race theory, the Atlantis myth, and the Aryan myth (pp. 312-333).

Tarjei:

The difference between you and Webb is that Webb doesn't play intellectual games in order to target a specific movement.

[I've been writing about James in the past tense, because he died suddenly death at the age of 34, apparently by committing suicide

http://www.gurdjieff-internet.com/article_details.php?ID=213&W=36 ]

Tarjei:

I already said that: The Indo-European peoples who migrated between Europe and Asia. You may say that these migrations never took place, that these people didn't exist, or that they were called something else, but that's your personal opinion, not an objective conclusive fact.

Peter S:

Sorry, Tarjei, this is a very well studied topic.

Tarjei:

Everything related to pre-history is subject to disputes and divided opinions.

Tarjei:

Steiner had ideological links to Nazism?

Peter S:

Yes, of course. That's largely what my first article on anthroposophy was about.

Tarjei:

Which is another pink elephant. In the opening paragraph of your article you write that RS said the following to his audience in Oslo:

[PS]

The "national souls" of Northern and Central Europe were, Steiner explained, components of the "germanic-nordic sub-race," the world's most spiritually advanced ethnic group, which was in turn the vanguard of the highest of five historical "root races." This superior fifth root race, Steiner told his Oslo audience, was naturally the "Aryan race."

Tarjei:

You've gone to great pains to defend this falsehood and/or explain it away by calling it "an opening device" and so on, but it doesn't alter the fact that you are deliberately falsifying Steiner's utterances in this lecture cycle.

Tarjei:

It's ironic that someone who believes Steiner was an atheist and a Nazi ideologue thinks it's the others who misunderstand him."

Peter S:

I don't see why that would be ironic, but in any case, I do not believe that Steiner was a Nazi ideologue. Gobineau, to choose your own example, had multiple ideological links to Nazism, yet was obviously not a Nazi ideologue.

Tarjei:

What you're doing is pick and choose among Nazi ideologues, Ariosophists, war criminals and racists; and then you throw Steiner into the basket too and shake it like a mechanic Blackjack dealer, making sure that Steiner ends up on top with all the notorious murderous racists sticking to him from the bottom of the pit when you take the lid off. You get your applause and take a bow from your audience, most of whom didn't observe your sleight of hand.

Tarjei:

If Jews aren't a race, why do you keep talking about Steiner's "racism" in connection with Jews?"

Peter S:

Because Steiner thought they were a race.

Tarjei:

That's a good one :)

Tarjei:

Why do you insist that Anthroposophy is "racist to the core" on the basis of Steiner's alleged anti-Semitism if Jews are not a race?"

Peter S:

I don't argue that anthroposophy is racist on the basis of Steiner's antisemitic beliefs.

Tarjei:

Steiner had no anti-Semitic beliefs.

Peter S:

I argue this on the basis of his stated views on race, particularly his claims about blacks, Asians, indigenous peoples, and so forth.

Tarjei:

OK....

Tarjei:

There is an urgent need for all peoples in the world to assimilate.

Peter S:

Into what?

Tarjei:

Into new societies, new social groups, new races, based upon total freedom for each individual about whom to have babies with, how to leive, what to believe, etc. There are too many wars in the world linked to ethnic tensions. Old ethnicities and races have outlived their purpose. We should all move away to distant continents and mix with strangers.

Tarjei:

Your notion that Steiner was anti-Semitic is a pink elephant; calling a pro-assimilation stance anti-Semitism is playing abstract games with words, and you know it."

Peter S:

I don't, as it happens, know that, but it does seem to me that you are still having an unusually difficult time understanding my argument about Steiner's views on Jews.

Tarjei:

Someone calling your argument a pink elephant has not, ipso facto, misunderstood it. I just think it's worthless.

Peter S:

There were lots of pro-assimilationist antisemites in Steiner's day. If you are unaware of that fact, you would do well to familiarize yourself with the history of antisemitism. As for Steiner's own views, why don't we discuss those? Then you can show everybody here how wrong I am. Tell me what you think of Steiner's assertion that the very existence of Jewry as such is a mistake of world history. I will gladly entertain an explanation of why this statement was not antisemitic. Thanks in advance,

Tarjei:

Steiner thought the very continuation of 19th century culture into the 20th century was a mistake of world history, and his criticism of Jewish culture (which should always be read along with his praises of this culture as well), is part and parcel of this view.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

...................................................................................................................................

From: holderlin66
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 12:34 pm
Subject: agreement and disagreement/Princess Bride

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Tarjei Straume wrote:

Tarjei:

What you're doing is pick and choose among Nazi ideologues, Ariosophists, war criminals and racists; and then you throw Steiner into the basket too and shake it like a mechanic Blackjack dealer, making sure that Steiner ends up on top with all the notorious murderous racists sticking to him from the bottom of the pit when you take the lid off. You get your applause and take a bow from your audience, most of whom didn't observe your sleight of hand.

Dear Peter;

Yes we all admire your crisp coolness and fencing skills, but in all seriousness, which is not the Pompous Seriousness you have enjoyed, up till now fencing away on the foredecks, aft and stern of the good ship AT, Tarjei is precisely correct and warmly human as well.

Plus he is gifted with a Personality. Sorry, did you no know this was a beauty contest for the shining human soul and saving the Princess of the Castle. Saving Sophia against the dangerous dragon of deceit. Mike has brought up a few honest and wonderful statements you have made and one of the most honest statements I thought you made was something to do with, "I am not Fair and Balanced, never intended to be and ain't gonna happen, I don't like anthroposophy"...etc... as some honest and clear non fence sitting position. That is OK by us.

Now Dear Peter.

It is my duty to tell you that this wonderful scen that we are living now has been filmed before. The movie was called "Princess Bride". "Princess Bride" is all about saving the human princess, SOUL, (yours as well) from the dry cunning nonsense that you spin. Naturally I don't expect your face to crack but, just as the above, the Imagination of this entire visit by you is taken with a hearty sense of warmth and your style, Dear Peter, is impeccable. Here is the scene you would need to study. (There is another one with the two fencers which I should really include later) Call this INTERMISSION.

"Princess Bride" and the quest of the human soul:

Vizzini: Let me put it this way: Have you ever heard or Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?
Man in black: Yes.
Vizzini: Morons!
Man in black: Really! In that case, I challenge you to a battle of wits.
Vizzini: For the princess? To the death? I accept!
Man in black: Good, then pour the wine. [Vizzini pours the wine] Inhale this but do not touch.
Vizzini: [taking a vial from the man in black] I smell nothing.
Man in black: What you do not smell is Iocaine powder. It is odorless, tasteless, and dissolves instantly in liquid and is among the more deadly poisons known to man.
Vizzini: [shrugs with laughter] Hmmm.
Man in black: [turning his back, and adding the poison to one of the goblets] Alright, where is the poison? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both drink - and find out who is right, and who is dead.
Vizzini: But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine it from what I know of you. Are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemies? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you...But you must have known I was not a great fool; you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Man in black: You've made your decision then?
Vizzini: [happily] Not remotely! Because Iocaine comes from Australia. As everyone knows, Australia is entirely peopled with criminals. And criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me. So, I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.
Man in black: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Vizzini: Wait 'till I get going!! ...where was I?
Man in black: Australia.
Vizzini: Yes! Australia! And you must have suspected I would have known the powder's origin,so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Man in black: You're just stalling now.
Vizzini: You'd like to think that, wouldn't you! You've beaten my giant, which means you're exceptionally strong...so you could have put the poison in your own goblet trusting on your strength to save you, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But, you've also bested my Spaniard, which means you must have studied...and in studying you must have learned that man is mortal so you would have put the poison as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me!

Man in black: You're trying to trick me into giving away something. It won't work.
Vizzini: It has worked! You've given everything away! I know where the poison is!
Man in black: Then make your choice.
Vizzini: I will, and I choose...[pointing behind the man in black] What in the world can that be?
Man in black: [turning around, while Vizzini switches goblets] What?! Where?! I don't see anything.
Vizzini: Oh, well, I...I could have sworn I saw something. No matter. [Vizzini laughs]
Man in black: What's so funny?
Vizzini: I...I'll tell you in a minute. First, lets drink, me from my glass and you from yours.

[They both drink]

Man in black: You guessed wrong.
Vizzini: You only think I guessed wrong! That's what's so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned! Ha ha, you fool!! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia; and only slightly less well known is this: Never go in against a Sicilian, when death is on the line!

...................................................................................................................................

From: holderlin66
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 12:55 pm
Subject: Re: agreement and disagreement/Princess Bride 2

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, PART II of the Peter steals the Princess Show: Intermission starring Janice J. and the giggilos

Inigo: Is there another way you'll trust me?
Man in black: Nothing comes to mind.
Inigo: I swear on the soul of my Father, Domingo Montoya, you will reach the top alive.
Man in black: Throw me the rope.

[Inigo throws the rope to the Man in black, and helps him to the top where there's a Clearing]

Man in black: [exhausted] Thank you. [He struggles to draw his sword]
Inigo: wait wait wait wait wait wait 'till you're ready.
Man in black: Again, thank you. [He sits and removes a stone from his boot]
Inigo: I do not mean to pry, but you don't by any chance happen to have six fingers on your right hand?
Man in black: [revealing his five fingers] Do you always begin conversations this way?
Inigo: My father was slaughtered by a six fingered man. He was a great sword-maker, my father. When the six fingered man appeared and requested a special sword, my father took the job. He slaved a year before he was done.

[Inigo unsheathes his sword, and shows it to the Man in black]

Man in black: I've never seen its equal.
Inigo: Six fingered man returned and demanded it...but at one-tenth his promised price. My father refused. Without a word, the six fingered man slashed him through the heart. I loved my father, so naturally I challenged this man to a duel. I failed...Six fingered man leave me alive, but he gave me this [a scar on his cheek] and this [another scar].
Man in black: How old were you?
Inigo: I was eleven years old. When I was strong enough, I dedicated my life to the study of fencing; so the next time we meet I will not fail. I will go up to the six fingered man and say 'Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.'
Man in black: [intrigued] You've done nothing but sword-play?
Inigo: More pursue more than study lately. You see, I cannot find him...it's been twenty years now and I'm starting to lose confidence. I just work for Vizzini to pay to bills. There's not a lot of money in revenge.

[After a moments silence, the Man in black stands up and prepares to
battle]

Man in black: Well I....I certainly hope you find him someday.
Inigo: You all ready then?
Man in black: Whether I am or not, you've been more than fair.
Inigo: [drawing his sword] You seem a decent fellow...I hate to kill you.
Man in black: You seem a decent fellow...I hate to die.
Inigo: [confidently] Begin.

[Slowly, a great battle ensues. Inigo tests the Man in black, and the Man in black tests Inigo. They continue to battle on.]

Inigo: You are using Bonetties Defense against me, ah?
Man in black: I thought it fitting considering the rocky terrain.
Inigo: Naturally, you must suspect me to attack with Capa Fero?
Man in black: Naturally...but I find that Tibal cancels out Capa Fero. Don't you?
Inigo: Unless the enemy has studied his Agliepa...which I have.

[They continue to exchange attacks and parries]

Inigo: You are wonderful!
Man in black: Thank you. I've worked hard to become so.
Inigo: I admit it, you are better than I am.
Man in black: Then why are you smiling?
Inigo: Because I know something you don't know.
Man in black: And what is that?
Inigo: [switching hands] I am not left-handed!

[Inigo switches to his right hand, and appears to overwhelm the Man in black]

Man in black: You're amazing!
Inigo: I ought to be after twenty years.
Man in black: [struggling to keep Inigo away] There's something I ought to tell you.
Inigo: Tell me!
Man in black: I'm not left-handed either.

[The Man in black switches to his right hand, and performs a few amazing feats]
[They stop fencing for a brief moment]

Inigo: [in awe] Who are you?
Man in black: No one of consequence.
Inigo: I must know.
Man in black: Get used to disappointment.
Inigo: [disappointed] Okay...

[The battle rages on again, this time, the Man in black is dominating]
[The Man in black knocks the sword out of Inigo's hand, and circles in behind him]

Inigo: [kneeling] Kill me quickly.
Man in black: I would as soon destroy a stained glass window as an artist like yourself. However, since I can't have you following me either...

[The Man in black hits Inigo on the back of his head with the hilt of his sword, knocking him out.]

Man in black: [sincerely] Please understand I hold you in the highest respect.

...................................................................................................................................

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 1:01 pm
Subject: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Staudenmaier
To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 8:38 PM
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Hi Andrea,

my apologies for mixing up your gender. You wrote:

Anyone reading Evola and Steiner is able to see that there exists a total opposition between them: it's a real matter of fact.

I disagree. In the late 1920's Evola was on good terms with the first generation of Italian Steinerites (Colazza, Colonna, et al.).

It's absurd.
You're twisting the things, as usual.

To be in a good personal relationships means NOTHING AT ALL about each one's point of wiew.
I have lots of written and personal memories about it.

Those pèople were able to struggle and dicuss for hours one another on a conceptual plane and, after a while, they were eating together. That's the way they acted.

You surely also know that Colonna di Cesarò was investigated as the puppeteer of one of the attempts to kill Mussolini, don't you? (What a fascist this Colonna!!...)

In the 1930's one of Evola's closest collaborators was Massimo Scaligero, who went on to become perhaps the single best-known Italian follower of Steiner.

Uhu, Don Pedro be careful!! You're telling stories, in this case halftruths. (Well, you got the entire package I see)..

Unfortunately for you .
You're talking about my own personal Spiritual Teacher that i knew and followed for years!!
The whole truth is that Scaligero (and his fellows disciples) wrote also the strongest possible critics against Evola's insights.

Evola did the same about Massimo..
What a beutiful spiritual commonground relationships!!!

There are also several purely spiritual issues,(I was at Massimo's home two days after Evola's death) but i have to follow the principle "Nolite proicere margaritas...."

But If you want some info about the occult bacgkround of the relationship between Massimo and Evola read Scaligero's own autobiographyin which he also explains the purely esoteric and spiritual way by which he met Steiner's teachings.

Moreover, Evola's root-race scheme -- as laid out in Revolt Against the Modern World, for example -- is identical to Steiner's: Polarians, Hyperboreans, Lemurians, Atlanteans, Aryans. I consider these parallels significant.

Uhu, my God!! Significant?? You are REALLY nut!!
Well if it is so you're not able to separate "the name" from "the thing" , that's the basic work of a rational mind.

You can "consider" everything like you wish, making all the rest of the world laugh, but iin this case ,among more or less 117876 differences among Steiner's and Evola's cosmologies there is the biggest one, the core of it all.

His name is "Christ Event".

Have you never heard this name, mr.Charlatanmaier ?

In any case , I thank you. I 'd never be able to believe that there is on the earth someone able to write what you've been writing about Steiner and Evola

We have ever and ever to learn!!

Andrea the Cave Dweller

Peter Staudenmaier

...................................................................................................................................

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 1:53 pm
Subject: some corrections

Thanks for your vote of confidence, Bradford, but you quoted one of my mangled sentences:

What you're doing is pick and choose among Nazi ideologues, Ariosophists, war criminals and racists; and then you throw Steiner into the basket too and shake it like a mechanic Blackjack dealer, making sure that Steiner ends up on top with all the notorious murderous racists sticking to him from the bottom of the pit when you take the lid off. You get your applause and take a bow from your audience, most of whom didn't observe your sleight of hand.

Make it looks as if the audience is bowing to the performer. So please read the last sentence:

"You take a bow and get your applause from your audience, most of whom didn't observe your sleight of hand."

Btw I know how to spell 'ariosophists', but my cat, who is purely astral because I live with people who are allergic to furs, is a prankster who had changed some keys around on my keyboard when I wrote the word. [Editorially corrected]

Incidentally, a "mechanic" used to mean a blackjack dealer who skims off taxable income for the house by dealing good cards to the shills.

Tarjei

...................................................................................................................................

From: dottie zold
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 3:55 pm
Subject: Re: agreement and disagreement

Hey Patrick,

I just wanted to say thanks for the reminder to keep an open mind when looking at information. Dr. Steiner set such an amazing example of taking into consideration work by great teachers even if they did not come to the same understanding of a thing. And in this manner I am finding the path to freedom.

Nice post,
Dottie

...................................................................................................................................

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 4:23 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Hi Patrick, thanks for your post. You wrote:

Please consider another way of interpreting Dr. Steiner's writings and statements particularly with regard to figures like Nietzsche, Haeckel, and Stirner.

Your interpretation sounds plausible to me. I do think that Steiner's commitment to Haeckel's views was stronger in the late 1890's than you seem to acknowledge, but believe it or not this isn't a major interest of mine.

Because he defended and supported Nietzsche does not mean he held all of his views.

You're quite right.

To use his support of Nietzsche as of verification of his atheism is not, I believe, a well reasoned evaluation of Steiner and his views, if that is in fact what you are doing.

That isn't really what I was getting at, though you do have a good point about my truncated argument from yesterday. What I was trying to say was that it shouldn't strike anybody as wildly outrageous that someone who strongly identified with three of the best-known atheists ever might have tended at that moment toward atheism himself. Whether Steiner's own writings from the period in question actually display atheist tendencies is a matter that we could productively argue about (though it really isn't why I came here, and I don't have a whole lot more to say on the topic), but treating the very notion as a priori preposterous doesn't strike me as the most promising route to an accurate conclusion. That's why I brought up Nietzsche et al.

This does not mean that God does not exist or that Steiner is an atheist.

I don't think that Steiner was an atheist when he wrote PoF.

From your response to Dottie and Tarjei, I read that you evaluate what people say from your own lexicon.

Yes, I think that this is unavoidable at some level. But I also partly agree with your caveat:

It is critical however, I believe, that we seek to understand the spirit and intent of what one is saying and to do this, we must be open-minded.

I'm skeptical about the "intent" part, but otherwise I think you're right.

I think that certain doors of understanding are closed in your mind with regard to Steiner.

That is very likely true. I doubt that this is one of those cases, however; after all, it certainly isn't derogatory, coming from me, to suggest that the younger Steiner temporarily stopped believing in god.

Thanks for your thoughtful comments,

Peter Staudenmaier

...................................................................................................................................

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 4:33 pm
Subject: the atheist initiate (was: agreement and disagreement)

Patrick:

I think that certain doors of understanding are closed in your mind with regard to Steiner.

Peter S:

That is very likely true. I doubt that this is one of those cases, however; after all, it certainly isn't derogatory, coming from me, to suggest that the younger Steiner temporarily stopped believing in god.

Tarjei:

Your opinion proves that you do not understand Rudolf Steiner for the simple reason that you cannot temporarily stop believing in something you see with your own eyes.

An atheist initiate is an oxymoron.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

...................................................................................................................................

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 4:48 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Hi Tarjei,

I don't know why you think I'm not communicating. I simply disagree that it is impossible, or even particularly difficult, to use words like "racism" in a descriptive way, without invoking moral judgements. Try to keep in mind that there are a number of self-proclaimed racists out there who appreciate and promote Steiner's racial theories precisely because they see these theories as compatible with their own racist worldviews. Those folks evidently have a very different sense of moral judgement from yours and mine. I'm still not clear why you consider this controversial; just look at this very exchange right here: you and I can dispute what constitutes proper spirituality, according to our own moral judgements, but this won't tell us anything important about what the basic category of "spirituality" means.

if it not understood that the founding of the Theosophical Society was an initiative originating in the spiritual world, among the higher hierarchies, one has indeed an impoverished conception of spirituality - in this case, a negation of the spiritual.

I think that's silly. Tying spirituality as such to a specific conception of the "higher hierarchies" is a very bad idea. There are lots and lots of spiritual traditions in the world.

Everything related to pre-history is subject to disputes and divided opinions.

Indeed. Some opinions are justified, and others are not. The belief in an "Aryan race" is not. Can you point to any contemporary scholarship at all that supports your views on this topic? Do you by any chance believe that there is a "Romance race" or a "Finno-Ugric race"?

You've gone to great pains to defend this falsehood and/or explain it away by calling it "an opening device" and so on, but it doesn't alter the fact that you are deliberately falsifying Steiner's utterances in this lecture cycle.

What part do you think is false?

What you're doing is pick and choose among Nazi ideologues, Ariosophists, war criminals and racists

Alas, yes, that is indeed how I spend my days.

and then you throw Steiner into the basket too

Steiner was not a war criminal, a Nazi ideologue, or an Ariosophist.

Steiner had no anti-Semitic beliefs.

That's what we should be arguing about, Tarjei. Why don't you present an argument to this effect? Just tell me what you think he meant when he said that Jewry should cease to exist, and why you think this stance was not antisemitic. It isn't a trick question. How about it?

Peter

...................................................................................................................................

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 5:13 pm
Subject: Re: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Hi Andrea, you wrote:

You surely also know that Colonna di Cesarò was investigated as the puppeteer of one of the attempts to kill Mussolini, don't you? (What a fascist this Colonna!!...)

Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but you seem to be saying that anybody who tries to kill a fascist cannot possibly be a fascist. Shall I take it, then, that you think the Nazis who Hitler had killed in the 1934 "night of the long knives" were not really Nazis?

Unfortunately for you .You're talking about my own personal Spiritual Teacher that i knew and followed for years!!

Yes, I had you figured for an acolyte of Scaligero months ago. What do you think of his fascist-era writings, for example in Critica Fascista?

The whole truth is that Scaligero (and his fellows disciples) wrote also the strongest possible criticsagainst Evola's insights.Evola did the same about Massimo.. What a beutiful spiritual commonground relationships!!!

Am I misunderstanding you, or are you really saying that people who later criticize one another's work cannot have been collaborators previously? If that is indeed your position, could you perhaps explain how you came to hold it? Thanks,

Peter

...................................................................................................................................

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 5:45 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Peter, you wrote:

Try to keep in mind that there are a number of self-proclaimed racists out there who appreciate and promote Steiner's racial theories precisely because they see these theories as compatible with their own racist worldviews.

Tarjei:

Abuse of Steiner's conceptions of racial evolution does not ipso facto make those conceptions false; nor does it make them racist.

Tarjei:

if it not understood that the founding of the Theosophical Society was an initiative originating in the spiritual world, among the higher hierarchies, one has indeed an impoverished conception of spirituality - in this case, a negation of the spiritual.

Peter S:

I think that's silly. Tying spirituality as such to a specific conception of the "higher hierarchies" is a very bad idea. There are lots and lots of spiritual traditions in the world.

Tarjei:

Living spirituality has nothing to do with traditions; it is cognition and awareness of spirit. It is not an abstract "idea", and it is therefore irrelevant whether you call it a good or bad "idea." In this case, we're dealing with the spiritual-occult origins of the Theosophical Society, not with abstract notions to be evaluated through external and superficial standards.

Peter S:

Indeed. Some opinions are justified, and others are not. The belief in an "Aryan race" is not. Can you point to any contemporary scholarship at all that supports your views on this topic?

Tarjei:

This category of pre-history belongs to the New Age, based upon psychic explorations and so on and linking more or less loosely to theosophical lore. The term "Aryan race" fell into such disrepute after the Nazi regime and the holocaust that different terminologies have been preferred, but I am quite confident that the more serious aspects of New Age will win the future and replace much of the present materialistic skepticism and cynicism.

Peter S:

Do you by any chance believe that there is a "Romance race" or a "Finno-Ugric race"?

Tarjei:

http://www.genealogia.fi/emi/art/article297ce.htm - "The Finns belong to that linguistic if not racial group of languages known as Finno-Ugric, first used by the Finnish ethnologist Mathias A. Castren."

Tarjei:

You've gone to great pains to defend this falsehood and/or explain it away by calling it "an opening device" and so on, but it doesn't alter the fact that you are deliberately falsifying Steiner's utterances in this lecture cycle.

Peter S:

What part do you think is false?

Tarjei:

That Steiner told his Christiania audience that the world's most spiritually advanced ethnic group was the "Aryan race."

Tarjei:

What you're doing is pick and choose among Nazi ideologues, Ariosophists, war criminals and racists

Peter S:

Alas, yes, that is indeed how I spend my days.

Tarjei:

and then you throw Steiner into the basket too

Peter S:

Steiner was not a war criminal, a Nazi ideologue, or an Ariosophist.

Tarjei:

So what is he doing in your basket in that company?

Tarjei:

Steiner had no anti-Semitic beliefs.

Peter S:

That's what we should be arguing about, Tarjei.

Tarjei:

I don't think so. Arguing is not how I spend my days.

Peter S:

Why don't you present an argument to this effect?

Tarjei:

You know the answer to that, because you've been through this dance many many times before.

Peter S:

Just tell me what you think he meant when he said that Jewry should cease to exist, and why you think this stance was not antisemitic. It isn't a trick question. How about it?

Tarjei:

Steiner believed that traditional religious rituals and beliefs should be replaced by a new apprach to the spiritual. Catholics don't cease to exist only because they stop being Catholics and become New Agers instead. Jews don't cease to exist because they become Buddhists and marry Thai. Muslims don't cease to exist if they change religion, unless the fatwa against such conversions are enforced. If you're looking forward to a cultural-spiritual revolution, you're not anti anybody just because you consider old traditions passé.

Reality is a lot more complicated than this, of course, because for a long time to come, the new and the old will exist side by side. Steiner also mentioned this in connection with traditional religions, but he also warned that sects based upon old beliefs and old scriptures may develop increasingly destructive tendencies.

I won't venture to say too much about the Jews for several reasons: I'm not Jewish myself, but I have always had this strange reverence and fascination for this tradition and its music and arts and literature. There may be others on this list who may take this further, because there's been some talk about the Kabbalah here. As I have understood it, you must learn Hebrew to understand the Kabbalah, and if you know some Hebrew, you're most likely Jewish. The bottom line is, however, that I favor assimilation because it gives each individual Jew complete personal freedom, and I think Steiner may also have had that in mind. That said, I don't think there is much restriction of freedom among ordinary Jews today; their traditions and ethnic identity don't seem to make them very different from others; that's why you can't tell who is Jewish and who isn't. But preservation of the Jewish identity into the future requires individual commitment among Jews; and as long as people are willing to make that commitment without being forced or pressured into it, I most certainly have no objections.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

...................................................................................................................................

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 7:23 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Hello Tarjei, you wrote:

Steiner believed that traditional religious rituals and beliefs should be replaced by a new apprach to the spiritual.

That may be, but what does it have to do with his statement that "Jewry as a people" should cease to exist? He didn't say that Judaism as a religion should cease to exist, he said that Jews as an ethnic group should cease to exist, that is, should cease being Jewish. If you believe that "Jewry as a people" is structured around traditional religious rituals and beliefs, either now or in Steiner's day, I invite you to say so. If you do not believe that, I fail to see how your claim above is a response to my question: what do you think Steiner meant when he said that Jewry should cease to exist, and why do you think this stance was not antisemitic?

Thanks in advance,

Peter

...................................................................................................................................

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 7:40 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Hi Peter, you wrote:

That may be, but what does it have to do with his statement that "Jewry as a people" should cease to exist? He didn't say that Judaism as a religion should cease to exist, he said that Jews as an ethnic group should cease to exist, that is, should cease being Jewish. If you believe that "Jewry as a people" is structured around traditional religious rituals and beliefs, either now or in Steiner's day, I invite you to say so. If you do not believe that, I fail to see how your claim above is a response to my question: what do you think Steiner meant when he said that Jewry should cease to exist, and why do you think this stance was not antisemitic?

You know very well by now what I mean and what Rudolf Steiner meant. You don't need to let the dictionary definitions of "people", "Jewry", "cease" and "exist" and their juxtapositions get in your way. If you fail to see that my previous post was a response to your question, perhaps I didn't care to answer your question. Some of your questions carry the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" syndrome. In other words, what I wrote was a comment on what you wrote, and I do believe it clarified my understanding of the issue and my perception of what Steiner's position was with regard to this topic.

Tarjei

Continued in another thread: "Answering Questions"

...................................................................................................................................

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 2:15 am
Subject: R: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 2:13 AM
Subject: Re: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Hi Andrea, you wrote:

You surely also know that Colonna di Cesarò was investigated as the puppeteer of one of the attempts to kill Mussolini, don't you? (What a fascist this Colonna!!...)

Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but you seem to be saying that anybody who tries to kill a fascist cannot possibly be a fascist.

You're reading much but with bad results

Colonna di Cesarò was a notorius antifascist, before and after the fall of Regime.

In 1946 he was in a political party called "Democrazia del Lavoro"

Unfortunately for you .You're talking about my own personal Spiritual Teacher that i knew and followed for years!!

Yes, I had you figured for an acolyte of Scaligero months ago.

Acolyte? TUO NONNO! I have been a scholar, that is a very different issue.

Months ago?? Hey man what is your job, to spy anthropop? ("Sophia" pls get a galnce at the conclusion of this post!)

What do you think of his fascist-era writings, for example in Critica Fascista?

If we follow Scaligero's biography we see that his fascist writings are typical of his "evolian" period.
They have a certain importance that it is not difficult to grasp. (Sure to those who are open minded researchers and not "spiritual Stalinist" like you, Pietruccio)

Outside the "pro-fascist" form and language Scaligero was able, here and there, to fill them with the results of his personal spiritual research ,in itself , meta-poltically oriented..

After the inner events that led him to find his own personal experience of the Living Thinking Path as the core of Steiner's Anthroposophy also (following his autobiography those events occurred between 1941 and 1944 and the mean to gain such an Initiatic winining post was just Steiner's cosmology as depicted in "Occult Science") everything in his life changed.

From 1959 tom 1980 he wrote 28 books about the Spiritual Path....but it's a matter that is of no us for a guy like you.

The whole truth is that Scaligero (and his fellows disciples) wrote also the strongest possible criticsagainst Evola's insights.Evola did the same about Massimo.. What a beutiful spiritual commonground relationships!!!

Am I misunderstanding you, or are you really saying that people who later criticize one another's work cannot have been collaborators previously?

Did I say so?

If you were a goodfaith nut I'd tell to you "try to see a biography in his wholeness and try, also, to grasp the basical and important features in it".

But you are only doing a job here.

Well after those discussions you have to pay some bill.

You have to be so kind to write "HY LIST, I WAS WRONG ABOUT THIS TOPIC , AND I APOLOGIZE"

You have 48 hours of time to do it.

If you don't do it I'll ask "Sophia" to eject you, FOLLOWING YAHOO RULES, due to your sistematic intellectual dishonesty and mobbing.

Andrea (who is bothering himself to lose time "discussing" with such a badfaith liar)

If that is indeed your position, could you perhaps explain how you came to hold it? Thanks,

Peter

...................................................................................................................................

From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 7:06 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Peter:

I doubt that this is one of those cases, however; after all, it certainly isn't derogatory, coming from me, to suggest that the younger Steiner temporarily stopped believing in god.

Peter, it isn't that it is derogatory rather isn't the truth. Derogatory is besides the point and not one I would care about. We each hold our own truths and have our own opinions of things, but that does not mean we can make our opinions of another be true against what the other persons truth was. I mean we can try as you obviously are doing with really no success.

This is a pretty open group, and it's funny they are from all over the world and have mostly not met one another, yet they can easily see through what you are trying to make true from your own personal world outlook and perspective. And mostly it seems there is no Anthro church so to speak just groups of people that come together to study further the words of Dr. Steiner. No cultish type behavior going on and one can see clearly that most of this group would hightail it out of here if there was. as it would seek to curtail their personal freedom in understanding and pursuing a thing.

Dottie

...................................................................................................................................

From: Detlef Hardorp
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 10:52 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Dear anthroposophers of tomorrow,

permit me to jump in on this thread.

PS wrote:

That may be, but what does it have to do with his statement that "Jewry as a people" should cease to exist?

Where do you, PS, get the statement ""Jewry as a people" should cease to exist" from?

I am inclined to believe - but maybe you will prove me wrong - that this is not a statement by Steiner, but your interpretation of Steiner's meaning. Now everybody is entitled to their opinions. But these should be clearly delineated from statements of someone else.

This "statement" does not come from the controversial paragraph we have been discussing (from the 1888 Hamerling Humunculus review). There Steiner writes that Jewry as a self-contained entity (he uses the expression "Jewry as such"; the "as such" is referring back to the previous sentence where he is speaking about Jewry as a self-contained entity) "has outlived itself and has no justification within the modern life of nations". From this you can only conclude that Steiner is saying that that Jewry as a self-contained entity has no justification within the modern life of nations" (or peoples, if you prefer). This clearly does not indicate a positive stance towards a state like Israel. But it is not saying that ""Jewry as a people" should cease to exist".

Steiner then continues in his essay:

"Wir meinen hier nicht die Formen der jüdischen Religion allein, wir meinen vorzüglich den Geist des Judentums, die jüdische Denkweise."

“By this we mean not only the forms of the Jewish religion but above all the spirit of Judaism and of the Jewish way of thinking."

Summary of this statement: Although Judaism has had a very favourable influence on Western culture, it has outlived itself as a self-contained entity and as a distinct Jewish way of thinking.

I don't want to enter into the debate whether or not this statement is anti-Semitic. Intelligent people have argued both ways. In the end this will certainly depend a lot on your definition of anti-Semitism. There are certain very broad definitions which will classify even mildly critical statements about Israel as anti-Semitic - because anything remotely critical of anything to do with Jewish people and their institutions is, by definition, anti-Semitic. Other definitions are less broad. In the end, it matters less how people judge this. What matters more is how much people understand. In order to understand and certainly to judge statements made by Steiner in the context of Hamerling's thoughts in 1888, a minimal understanding of the historical context is necessary. An attempt to go into this in detail is the book by Bader, Ravagli and Leist, which can be found in English at http://www.waldorfschule.info/aktuell/anti.pdf. A summary of some of this has been recently condensed into a short text, as yet unpublished in English, from which I would like to paste the nitty gritty in a long excerpt here:

 

Historical Context

Allegations of anti-Semitism against Steiner demonstrate an unfortunate lack of historical awareness of the time he lived. For instance, such allegations consider his use of the term “the Jewish question” as so called “proof” of anti-Semitism.4 In fact, in his day this expression was in constant use by the general public, including German Jews. Later it gained anti-Semitic connotations in connection with Hitler’s “final solution.”

In the early 1880’s, the young Steiner was already speaking against one of the most high-profile representatives of anti-Semitism in Germany, the socialist Eugen Dühring, portrayed by Jacob Katz as the 19th century prototype of Nazi-Anti-Semitism. Steiner described Dühring’s anti-Semitism as barbaric and hostile to culture. In the following decade, he referred to “anti-Semitic brutes” as enemies of all human rights.

As a keen and open-minded observer whose views conformed with those of many liberal Jews, he spoke up for the full legal and social equality of European Jews: “The Jews need Europe and Europe needs the Jews,” he wrote in 1888.5 He countered the hate propaganda of anti-Semitism with his own ideal:

“Value should be attached solely to the mutual interaction of individuals. It is irrelevant whether someone is a Jew or a German. This is so obvious that one feels stupid even putting it into words. So how stupid must one be to assert the opposite!”

 

Anti-Semitism: “...the opposite of any sane point of view”

In 1900 Steiner described anti-Semitism as “a mockery of every kind of cultural achievement in modern times,” and the “opposite of any sane point of view.” The foremost Jewish journal waging the battle against anti-Semitism at the time, Mitteilungen aus dem Verein zur Abwehr des Antisemitismus (“Reports from the Society Against Anti-Semitism”), published a series of essays by Steiner in 1901. In these he countered the German racists’ myth of Germanic superiority and condemned their “nonsensical anti-Semitic chatter.” He likened the laws affecting Jews in European countries to “conditions of slavery.”

He considered the prevailing racial antipathies of the time to be an expression of ignorant emotions and instincts being articulated by nationalistic and racist movements. The leaders of these movements soon turned against Steiner himself.

As early as 1919, Adolf Hitler’s mentor Dietrich Eckhart accused Steiner of participation in the so-called “Jewish plot” against the German people. In the newspaper, Der Völkische Beobachter in 1921, Hitler personally continued the campaign against Steiner by denouncing Anthroposophy as “a Jewish method of destroying the normal mental attitude of nations.”6 Militant opposition by nationalist and racist groups culminated with an attempt on Steiner’s life in Munich in 1922.

Because many prominent Jews were students of Steiner’s anthroposophy at that time, the Anthroposophical Society itself was attacked as being “a society of Jews.” Although he was critical of Zionism as a movement, he counted the Zionists Ernst Müller and Hugo Bergman among his friends. Bergman, as Chancellor of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, worked to bring about the realization of Steiner’s political ideas in Palestine because he knew that the “Arab question” could only be solved by overcoming the principle of nation states – a view that is still highly relevant today.

 

Zionism – a consequence of anti-Semitism

Due to his critical concerns about the principle of nation states in general, Steiner opposed Zionism for the same reasons that Hannah Arendt did later. He once even rated Zionism as being more dangerous than anti-Semitism in that it militated against the equality of Jews as citizens. This view was echoed by the Jewish scholar Victor Klemperer, the well-known author of diaries which he kept throughout the period of the Third Reich. As early as the 1930’s, Klemperer was placing Zionism on an equal footing with National Socialism. Here, once again, the impartial observer can clearly see that the yardsticks in use prior to the Holocaust differed from those applied thereafter. For Steiner, the Zionism of Herzl and Nordau was the consequence of anti-Semitism, a self-constructed identity which prospered on the soil of anti-Jewish hostility. His philosophical disagreement with Zionism does not in any way indicate an anti-Semitic attitude.

The “ethic of commandments” is no longer valid – an “ethic of freedom” is needed for the future

Steiner’s clear opposition to anti-Semitism and to racism arose as a matter of course from what he called “ethical individualism.” This concept is the very foundation on which Anthroposophy itself is built. Ethical individualism is concerned with every human being taking responsibility to develop his/her self-determining individual spirit.

Steiner’s essay on Hamerling’s Humunkulus (1888), in which he defended the author against the charge of anti-Semitism (and which contains the previously cited sentence about Jews belonging to Europe) contains another sentence that calls for further clarification as it can only be understood in the context of the ideal of “ethical individualism.” The whole tenor of the essay is quite clearly not anti-Semitic, but this sentence has sometimes been purposely quoted out of context in an attempt to present Steiner as anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic.

The statement in question holds that the continuing existence of Jewishness amid the modern life of nations is a “mistake of world history.” Steiner continued: “By this we mean not only the forms of the Jewish religion but above all the spirit of Judaism and of the Jewish way of thinking.”8

The subsequent text then explains what Steiner meant by calling this a “mistake,” namely that Judaism represented “a moral ideal brought over from ancient times into modern life where it is entirely useless.” These remarks by Steiner could easily be seen to contradict his unconditional plea in favor of Jewish life in Europe and his disapproval of contemporary anti-Semitism. How, then, can we understand this?

The “moral ideal” and the “Jewish way of thinking” here referenced are seen by Steiner as a belief in an abstract monotheism and an ethic of commandment or duty received through revelation. In contrast, he felt that the future development of humanity required that we overcome the constraints of “moral commandments” in favor of individual freedom and responsibility. This conviction also led Steiner to criticize some contemporary Christian denominational thinking which specified moral norms when these did not require the individual to also take personal responsibility to think for him/herself.

 

Steiner’s positive appraisal of Judaism

As mentioned, Steiner recognized aspects of the Judaic religion which he regarded as being timeless in their validity. He emphasized the central role played by Judaism in the establishment of the modern age in the West. For instance, he recognized Moses as having set humanity a task that is still on-going today: “What subsequent humanity owes to Moses is the power to develop reason and intellect.”10 And: “Moses stands as the founder of the new, conceptualized, view of the world which will yet teach humanity to bring the way people live into harmony with the manifestations of nature.”11

By developing monotheism and proclaiming a moral law, Moses had brought the divine will down into the inner core of human beings, and this laid the foundation for the emancipation of the human ego from the law. It was in this sense that Steiner saw the transformation of the ethic of commandments into an ethic of freedom as a logical further evolution of Judaism. To remain bound to traditional law was to give up the moral imperative of every free human being today: The human being must become his or her own lawgiver.

End of excerpt. Maybe this will add some meat to this discussion. Much more meat can be found at the above mentioned link!

Best regards, Detlef Hardorp

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:23 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Hello Tarjei, you wrote:

Steiner believed that traditional religious rituals and beliefs should be replaced by a new apprach to the spiritual.

That may be, but what does it have to do with his statement that "Jewry as a people" should cease to exist? He didn't say that Judaism as a religion should cease to exist, he said that Jews as an ethnic group should cease to exist, that is, should cease being Jewish. If you believe that "Jewry as a people" is structured around traditional religious rituals and beliefs, either now or in Steiner's day, I invite you to say so. If you do not believe that, I fail to see how your claim above is a response to my question: what do you think Steiner meant when he said that Jewry should cease to exist, and why do you think this stance was not antisemitic?

Thanks in advance,

Peter

...................................................................................................................................

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 11:13 am
Subject: Re: R: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Hi again Andrea, you wrote:

Colonna di Cesarò was a notorius antifascist, before and after the fall of Regime.

I have no idea what Colonna's politics were, and I said nothing about them. What I said was that the logic you seemed to invoke was faulty: I took you to be saying that anybody who tries to kill a fascist is therefore automatically not a fascist himself or herself. If that is not what you meant, we can drop the matter.

If we follow Scaligero's biography we see that his fascist writings are typical of his "evolian" period.

Indeed. Perhaps we have a language barrier here: I thought that you said, just two days ago, that Scaligero did not have an Evolian period. Wouldn't this rather complicate your categorical insistence that Evola had nothing in common with anthroposophy?

but it's a matter that is of no us for a guy like you.

On the contrary, I am quite interested in Scaligero's work.

Did I say so?

I don't know, Andrea, that's why I asked. You did note the question marks at the end of my sentences, didn't you?

You have to be so kind to write "HY LIST, I WAS WRONG ABOUT THIS TOPIC , AND I APOLOGIZE"

Which topic do you think I was wrong about?

You have 48 hours of time to do it.

No problem. I can do so more much more quickly, once you tell me what it is you think I was wrong about. I am very frequently wrong about all kinds of things. Thanks in advance,

Peter

...................................................................................................................................

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 12:16 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Hello Detlef,

Where do you, PS, get the statement ""Jewry as a people" should cease to exist" from?

From Steiner's lecture on "The Essence of Jewry", held in Dornach on May 8, 1924, printed in Steiner, Die Geschichte der Menschheit und die Weltanschauungen der Kulturvölker, pages 179-196. I provided two lengthy passages from this text in my first post to this list.

I am inclined to believe - but maybe you will prove me wrong - that this is not a statement by Steiner, but your interpretation of Steiner's meaning.

Obviously that is my interpretation of Steiner's meaning, Detlef. Since Steiner is dead, we cannot ask him what he meant. Instead, we all have to interpret his words, as they appear in the published editions of his work. If you disagree that Steiner says in this lecture that the best thing would be for Jewry as a people to cease to exist, then I urge you to provide your own interpretation of the passages in question. Here are the two Steiner quotations that I provided earlier. I highly recommend that you check the original.

"This discussion that I have just described to you took place before the Great War of 1914 to 1918, you see. The fact that people no longer want the great universal-human principles, but prefer to segregate themselves and develop national forces, that is exactly what lead to the great war! Thus the greatest tragedy of this 20th century has come from what the Jews are also striving for. And one can say that since everything the Jews have done can now be done consciously by all people, the best thing that the Jews could do would be to disappear into the rest of humankind, to blend in with the rest of humankind, so that Jewry as a people would simply cease to exist. That is what would be ideal. This ideal is still opposed, even today, by many Jewish habits – and above all by the hatred of other people. That is what must be overcome."

(that's from p. 189)

"Today all aspects of the Jews are dominated by racial qualities. Above all they marry among themselves. They see the racial qualities, not the spiritual. And this is what must be said in reply to the question: has the Jewish people fulfilled its mission within the evolution of human knowledge? It has fulfilled it; for in earlier times one single people was needed to bring about a certain monotheism. But today spiritual insight itself is necessary. Therefore this mission has been fulfilled. And therefore this Jewish mission as such, as a Jewish mission, is no longer necessary in evolution; instead the only proper thing would be for the Jews to blend in with the other peoples and disappear into the other peoples."

(that's from p. 190)

Please tell us what you think Steiner was trying to say here.

Peter

...................................................................................................................................

From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 12:27 pm
Subject: Re: agreement and disagreement

Peter:

Obviously that is my interpretation of Steiner's meaning, Detlef. Since Steiner is dead, we cannot ask him what he meant.

PETER!

Are you saying that the phrase: Jewery as a people is your own interpretation?! You must be kidding me. What is the correct translation of this sentence exactly?

You must stop this silliness Peter. Just stop it. You have people believing that this is what Dr. Steiner said and it is your interpretation! This is just beneath you which I think is a compliment to your person. You for some reason your studies have been tied up to Dr. Steiners work. This is no mistake. And you just blinked. Well actually you blinked on Sunday and I caught it but I do not have time to go back and find it. I see what you are seeking and it came full out and said 'hello dottie' and I smiled and said 'hey Peter'.

You should put your amazing skills of writing together for something positive Peter. You did it with the Bookstore and you can do it for something else. You are around a college town and have a great possibility to effect change with your skills. I know you can. Your heart is a good strong heart Peter, use it wisely.

Sincerely,
Dottie

...................................................................................................................................

From: at
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 12:27 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Peter Staudenmaier:

I disagree that gods are part and parcel of the spiritual world. They are only part and parcel of some versions of the spiritual world, certainly not all. In any case, if you'd like to persuade me that Steiner was indeed a theist in the latter half of the last decade of the 19th century, I will gladly consider any writings from that period.

Daniel:

In the common understanding, atheism is not just the opposite of theism. So proving Steiner a theist is not necessary to show that he was not an atheist. You yourself have agreed that Steiner was not an atheist when you agree that he believed in a spiritual world. Only, you have an understanding of the term that is at variance with the common understanding of 'atheism'. If atheism means whatever you want it to, then it can of course apply to whomever you wish it to apply to.

Daniel Hindes

...................................................................................................................................

From: at
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 12:37 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Peter Staudenmaier:

What I was trying to say was that it shouldn't strike anybody as wildly outrageous that someone who strongly identified with three of the best-known atheists ever might have tended at that moment toward atheism himself. Whether Steiner's own writings from the period in question actually display atheist tendencies is a matter that we could productively argue about (though it really isn't why I came here, and I don't have a whole lot more to say on the topic), but treating the very notion as a priori preposterous doesn't strike me as the most promising route to an accurate conclusion. That's why I brought up Nietzsche et al.

Daniel:

In arguing about translations, you are quite adamant that a narrow dictionary translation be the only one considered. Yet the standard definition of atheism is precisely the one you are now requiring that we bend. You argument here gets rather slippery. Rather than deciding whether Steiner fits the standard definition of "atheist" you turn to a guilt-by-association argument ("Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, he admired atheists..."). Then comes the phrase 'display atheist tendencies'. Even if his writings 'display atheist tendencies' this tells us nothing about his personal beliefs. And Nietzsche has many admirers among the clergy.

Peter Steudenmaier:

I don't think that Steiner was an atheist when he wrote PoF.

Daniel:

That was what, 1895?

Daniel Hindes

...................................................................................................................................

From: holderlin66
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 3:38 pm
Subject: Re: agreement and disagreement

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Detlef Hardorp wrote:

As a keen and open-minded observer whose views conformed with those of many liberal Jews, he spoke up for the full legal and social equality of European Jews: “The Jews need Europe and Europe needs the Jews,” he wrote in 1888.5 He countered the hate propaganda of anti-Semitism with his own ideal:

“Value should be attached solely to the mutual interaction of individuals. It is irrelevant whether someone is a Jew or a German. This is so obvious that one feels stupid even putting it into words. So how stupid must one be to assert the opposite!”

Bradford comments;

What is the nature of the new paradigm of brotherhood? Well naturally it is having well considered all the horrors of the 20th century and some local and intimate prejudice that comes, even from Northerners and Southerners in the good ole U.S. of A. Red Necks and how do you know your're a redneck and the wonderful curative work of Jeff Foxworthy, all reveal various forms of overcoming inner atagonisms, racism and antisemitism. Overcoming the bully in the soul life with warm humor has done more for the therapy of those sick souls than any amount of Intellectual bite. Except for the incredible Hardorp direct hit on the nerves of grammar and intellects famous barbed wire. Peter, Hardorp said their wss a dead goat caught in your electric fence.

It appears to be a terrible trial to come forward and attempt to approach Cosmopolital and global isssues with a sincere sense of brotherhood. Let me give you an example.

Now there are different ways to arrive at cosmopolitan and global issues that either open one up so that one finds it stupid to bash the French or the Germans, as some members of the U.S. did recently over Iraq. But you can also arrive at some sort of Bounty Hunter for Racist views where you get a nickel for ever Native American scalp you can bring back to the trading post. The bigger and more ferocious the warrior, as, lets say, Dr. Steiner, the greatest warrior of the Michael School...if you can get his scalp and put it on your saddle bow or hang it on your belt...Well that has got to be a trophy worth something. That isn't exactly the route of brotherhood or cosmopolitan humanism I was hoping for. Yet it is certainly another way to approach the idea.

You can come up the back side of the mountain or you can come up the front side of the mountain, at the top of the mountain you face each other. Shouldn't the vista of the vast peoples of humanity spread out before you from Atlantis to America give your heart a sense of the greatness and diversity of it all? Well, not exactly. Clawing up the mountain over the corpses of fallen intellects that have dropped like flies and stooping to pick on their bones and finally arriving at the top of the mountain having hunted down and brought to justice every unclean pagan or spirit blabbering fool who ever believed in humanity and brotherhood, is apparently also a path up the mountain. It sort of gives a whole new meaning to Mountain. King of the Hill sort of. Porckchop Hill..Heartbreak Ridge.

So let me end with the famous American Grail Quest quote from Forest Gump. Indeed the Pure Fool of "Forest Gump" was a carried over vision of the sub-cultural unfolding of the memory of the Parsifal story...drawn down through Veit Nam.. Steiner would probably agree with Parsifal errrr Forest Gump here. "Stupid is as Stupid does".

Bradford

...................................................................................................................................

From: golden3000997
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 5:57 pm
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

In a message dated 2/23/2004 2:47:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, pstauden writes:

Hyperboreans, Lemurians, Atlanteans, Aryans. I consider these parallels significant.

Peter, you do understand that he is talking about antediluvian periods here of about 21,600 years each, right? and that in "our" world view of reincarnation, we ALL - every single human being that is, was and will be were part of all of these "root races". In fact, the "biology" that Rudolf Steiner described for these periods (far out and wacky as it may be) was such that we didn't even have physical bodies in the earliest periods and soft, malleable bodies in the Lemurian and Atlantean periods. "Race" as is thought of in the past, oh, 5,000 years didn't exist - not biological, not theological, not even cultural. He is talking about eons and epochs of time that included every human being. To refer to "Aryan" as a root race in the schematic that you just referred to includes every human being that survived the Great Flood - what ever that was! WE ARE ALL ARYANS - black, white, peach with ultramarine hue, burnt sienna with alizarin crimson hi