Kabbalah Tuesday

 

From: dottie zold
Date: Wed Feb 18, 2004 9:14 am
Subject: Kabbalah Tuesday

Dear Friends,

Once again my mind is teeming with thoughts of Christianity and Judaism and want to share them here because Anthroposophy works in between both of them in a way.

Mr. Staudenmaier would have had a fit if he saw the video shown last night about Science and how God is in everything and how scientistist today are closer to the nitty gritty of God in its physical form than anyone else: they are studying God!!! And in this they shed light on what students of spiritual science have been discovering within for years. And once again how utterly ridiculous his arguments become for an anti-semetic Dr. Steiner.

A big difference I have found between Judaism and Christianity is the idea that sex is bad. Jews think that when they are at the peak of an intimate moment, (orgasm) they are closest to God in that they are procreating at that very moment. And that this sexual relationship is holy in that they must think holy thoughts in this moment more than ever. And that in thinking these holy thoughts they are able to show themselves to the various spirits wanting to be incarnated more brightly where a good match for that particular family will ocurr. And so for them this is the first moment they get to 'meet' their child.

The more I think on the differences of these two religious streams I have to wonder how or why did Christianity go so far out from the original interpretations of the Torah/Old Testament? What happened to the joyful rendition of 'go forth and mulitply? What I came to last night, other than of course this is the evolutional path we take, is the idea that the priests got further and further away from their roots. And once far away and of course Patriarchy taking over in an unbalanced way that anihilated the Shekinah, that which sits with the Holy of Holies, they were no longer recievers of God but enforcers. Now of course there are alot of good things but unfortunately man made himself God and women the devil.

Now, in the study of Anthroposophy and even unto Mr. Prokolieff we see that this thing had to come about due to the idea of individualism and freedom. But in going this way we did indeed lose that which was vital to us and that was our Mother. And this is what we must find again in order to become male and female, giver and reciever of the Word.

In looking at the question of Mary I was kind of shocked that when I asked about Magdalene as the annointer he said 'well we don't believe in her'. And I was 'but she 'annointed the annointer'...and he said 'no we don't believe in the Virgin Mary'. Uh oh. One and the same? and he said 'yes'. How can that be? Well I have an idea but it was real interesting to hear him say it.

Looking at the line of what lived in this whom we call 'step mother' we find quite a few very strong and old personalities; 1) she has the original mother of the Nathan child within her at the Jordan, 2) we have the Zarathustra I, which is her original son, in her, we have the I of the Solomon Jesus in her as well. Say hey, what is going on with this trinity? Can this really be?

And one last thing before I try to do some work around here: In Hebrew, I was told last night, Ish is masculine and Isha is feminine. Hum. Okay so I ask if Elisha to Elija is feminine? And he says yes but he was a male. Oh, okay I say with a smile on my face. But afterwords I go to Dennys and do some reading of the book by Prokolieff and find a commment about how is it that certain beings come together that work together with the hiearchy that when are considered as a collaborative they are of the Feminine. And one who harkens unto them are the recievers. I will quote it later on but it is the first time this male female thought and all the mix ups in the bible make any kind of sense for me. And the holding onto 'oh he was a male really has to go'.

I think Mr. Prokolieff speaks to this issue of male female in a way that Dr. Steiner did not. And it seems he may be right, well as right as right can be in this ever changing Universe:)

Thoughtfully,
Dottie

p.s. I have a flower plant in the back yard that does not smell if the Sun is not shining. Isn't that wierd? I keep testing her evernight to see if just once she is going to surprise me and she does not:)

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Wed Feb 25, 2004 8:59 pm
Subject: Kabbalah Tuesday

Dear Friends,

I missed my Kabbalah class last night but spent my time studying the Hebrew lessons as I was not feeling up to company. So, the teacher of the art class I take on Wednesday and Fridays shared with me a few lessons of the night and boy was I so mad that I did not kick my butt in gear:(

Paulina's post about Cosmic Memory brought up a point that continued to unfold in my art class of which at this point I am the only student:) And that is this: Rudolf Steiner's cosmology is that unchanging cosmology that the Jewish sages of long ago tapped into through their great inheritance and their great studies. What Dr. Steiner found, through his spiritual work, is specifically the same as what the great Jewish Sages found, and what the great Bible unveils in a very mysterious manner. And this is knowable to those who so sincerely wish to seek with all their heart, mind, and souls.

The Jewish schools for children are basically very similar to that of Waldorf. They have a lesson for each day, according to the Kabbalah system, and their specific cosmological understandings. Their Monday - Sunday are also matched up with colors as well as planets. Not only this but it seems they go even further unto numbers and astrology which is all inherently included in the daily lessons. It is absolutely astounding to the extent yet not such a surprise as Dr. Steiner was led and led his spirit to the great inner understanding spoken of by the Jewish Prophets.

I recall one day Sharon and a few others stating that Dr. Steiner had co-opped other people religions and that is why his is the same as many others. What they do not realize is there actually is a method to that allows one to enter into these specific understandings as they are unchanging in their natural essence. And yes in order to perceive this understanding one must study and open oneself up to many difficult trials according to mans regular understanding of a thing.

What is so amazing about this is I am coming to the idea that I don't think Dr. Steiner could possibly have gotten this upstream in his life without having been in a Jewish incarnation!

Dr. Steiner Anthroposophia and Judaism, in its mystical highest element, are one and the same. And this is why no learned Rabbi who studies Dr. Steiners work for an understanding of whether or not he was anti-semitic would agree with Peter Staudenmaier. It is an impossibility. Rabbis love to debate the issues of understanding. They do not shy away from the hard questions. And they will duke it out with anyone unless you are trying to convert them into Christianity, and in that case they will just let the subject rest for the most part unless you keep pushing them.

Mr. Staudenmaiers Rabbi female friend may have had to listen or read Peters twisted understandings of a thing to have come to such a conclusion but then again I can not imagine she would make a comment straight out and say such a thing without truly looking further than Peters paper. And if she did make such a comment on such slippery evidence I say she has her work cut out for her in the rabbinical field.

So, to conclude:) Steiners make up and that of Judaism are one and the same. One can check right down to the As Above Also Below concept. They understand the same thing including Karma and everything single other thing except for the idea that the Messiah has already come. And get this, they say the first place one goes to, after death in the physical realm, is the Moon. :) And not only that but that there really is no Hell as the Christians portray it to be:)))) I like them already;)

It is raining cats and dogs here in Los Angeles. I was just told by a friend to not go see the Passion. I fear I must but I go with a very heavy heart.

Sincerely,
Dottie

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

From: Mike Helsher
Date: Thu Feb 26, 2004 5:43 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Kabbalah Tuesday

Beautiful post Dottie!

Thank you. I treasure your learning experiences.

Warm Regards

Mike

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

From: eyecueco
Date: Thu Feb 26, 2004 1:38 pm
Subject: Re: Kabbalah Tuesday

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, dottie zold wrote:

Dear Friends,

What is so amazing about this is I am coming to the idea that I don't think Dr. Steiner could possibly have gotten this upstream in his life without having been in a Jewish incarnation!

Hi again, Dottie,

Actually it is not at all necessary for Steiner to have been Jewish in another incarnation to have gotten, as you say so far "upstream. :-)

Here is why. As you have learned from your Kaballah studies, the soul levels, nefesh, ruach, chayah, and yechidah, all represent certain levels of consicousness.

Yechidah is said to be the level of consciousness where one attains unity with GOD (at least with the GOD of creation, not En-Sof). At that level all becomes known and undestood, no matter if one is Jew, Islam, Christian, aetheist.

One has moved beyond collective consciousness - chayah, beyond lower ego consciouness - ruach, and life force consicousness - nefesh. However, what one has expereienced in a state of yechidah consciousness will bget filtered back through chayah, ruach and nefesh levels of the individual and this will result in varying translations, so to speak.

Does this make sense or work for you?

Paulina

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Thu Feb 26, 2004 2:12 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Kabbalah Tuesday

Paulina wrote:

As you have learned from your Kaballah studies, the soul levels, nefesh, ruach, chayah, and yechidah, all represent certain levels of consicousness.

And

However, what one has expereienced in a state of yechidah consciousness will bget filtered back through chayah, ruach and nefesh levels of the individual and this will result in varying translations, so to speak.

Does this make sense or work for you?

Hi Paulina,

Yes, it makes absolute sense. Unfortunately the class I missed was exactly on what you have just written:( but then again here it is explained plainly so I can see it. I guess I would have gotten it one way or the other:) funny how things work this way. When I went in the next day I saw the blackboard with the levels you speak of above and realized what a block head I was for missing class.

Love to you,
Dottie

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 11:13 pm
Subject: Kabbala Tuesday

Dear Friends,

Something in the Passion really bothered me regarding Mother Mary and it was a very interesting scene. After Christ gives up the Spirit Mary the mother goes to the body still hanging on the cross and kisses the bloody feet. This scene hit me between the eyes in a sense because it is always Magdalene by the feet. And it is an important gesture as I have just found out from my Rabbi.

See, the feet is the crown position in the Kabbala according to him. All works from this area. This is the Holy of Holies. This is the Royalty, this is the Tower, the closest to God. And this is why Jesus washed the feet and why the Magdalene showed him first. Somewhere along the lines we had this to mean she was married to him. But I think where this came about is actually the next Seforit up that actually stands in the place of the sexual organs. But it was not there she took care, it was the feet. And for a specific meaning that shows her to have been the one that was raised from the bottom to the top. And this is what Magdalene represents. And this to me is the Lazarus.

I asked the question of Hitler and what Jews make of his spirit as the Rabbi says all comes from God and even the evil in this world. He says the evil dissapates in the spirit world. That it is turned into light that this is Gods way of helping us to ascend from our descension.

And in regards to Hitler he says that he came with the greatest potential of Good. For in order to do a great evil one must have the greatest potential for Good. Makes me wonder 'who' this spirit of Hitler really is? PUts a giant hole in Peters theories. Anyhow, he also says that the jewish people who were killed are moved directly into relation with God, that they rest within the Holy of the Holies as they were martyrs for God. And he says they do not have to come back again but that Hitler would have to but he is way not ready as the toturing that is taking place to his soul is not finished but that one day he shall be back to atone for his sins in the physical world. So many things he says I understand because I have studied Dr. Steiners work, even unto the concept that Hitler will feel the pain of each and every soul he tortured in his lifetime.

He told the story so heartwarming that I asked him if one could pray for such a soul and he said of course we could. He told a story of another man who related what it was like to be tormented and it went something like this: The man said that he was in a place where his soul would be burned everyday and the ashes were then taken by the Angels and spread throughout the whole world, and then at the end of the day the Angels would have to come and collect all the ashes and bring them back together as his soul to begin aknew this burning as his evil had been great in the world. But what was so amazing, when listening to my Rabbi, was to feel within me that he has a great understanding of the souls path. One that Peter Staudenmaier could not possibly comprehend, because he so chooses not too, and one that sits at the essence of what Dr. Steiner taught: Love

I told the Rabbi that Dr. Steiner had a few schools in Jerusalem and he was very interested in hearing this. I want to share How To Know Higher Worlds with him as it seems something completely within the realm of his teachings and I know it would make him smile.

One last thing, is that the Rabbi is looking at Christianity trying to figure out what is going on?:) He came to the thought htat with Moses God was brought into the world and that through Christ he left as Christians hold the cruxificition as their high ponit. Really low point actually. I told him that the ressurection is what sits as my cross and he didn't understand that for a second because it is not what he hears from others.

And Paulina is right that it does not matter if one is a Jew or whatever to understand this great teaching. It seems anyone can tap into the highest realm of Chokmah, Bina and Daat if they are so prepared. It is not unto good or bad it depends on who is using it and what their soul disposition is in a way. And it will all be paid for by the soul.

Looking at the feet with new eyes. Wow, a thought comes to with the saying 'take your shoes off this is holy ground....whoa, the feet, the crown,

Wow,

Dottie

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 11:26 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Kabbala Tuesday

Last thought before hitting the hay: Rabbi says that it is said Jesu ben Pandira was considered the teacher of Jesus one hundred years before. He says that two Jesus are spoken of and that he really doesn't get what is trying to be said with this.

My question would be if indeed this other Jesu was the teacher why would Jesus need to raise this figure through Lazarus if I understood someone in an earlier post?

Wow, what if actually we are speaking of the two Jesus boys but that the Jesu ben Pandira is getting mixed in which would then confuse the point of the two Jesus families.

Good Night,
d

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

From: golden3000997
Date: Wed Mar 3, 2004 5:27 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Kabbala Tuesday

'Morning Dottie!

Beautiful - I love taking your class with you. Please show your Rabbi the articles from the Jerusalem Post. I'd love his thoughts on them.

Also - I wanted to remind you about the picture in our group photo file "Fra Angelico" called "Lamentation". Take a look again. See Mary (Magdalene, in my opinion) kissing the feet. In my opinion it is Sophia at the head and Eva at the heart. There is another female behind the group with a special halo. I wonder who she is? Actually, the group is mostly women. Fra Angelico was one of the most "visionary" painters. Check out the other work uploaded here, too.

I think a great deal of the difficulty in the relationship between Judaism and Christianity for the last 2000 years is that basically, the church version of the Christ story is too stupid to really be believed. Either one has to go on "blind faith" or family or political allegiance or some kind of threat, in this world or the next. Because it really doesn't make sense. And even though Steiner's way of looking at it involves a couple of "mystical bits" like the merging of the two Jesus children and the exit of Jesus and entrance of Christ into the body at the Baptism, the actual story as he shows us makes more sense and has fewer "holes" which we need "faith" to leap over. No wonder that Judiaism, which already had a very long mystical AND intellectual tradition refused to accept those "leaps" and refused to accept such a flawed construct.

And no wonder that the history of the past 2000 years is so full of bloodshed when "being a Christian" has been, for so many people and even nations, a totally "rah-rah" perspective with little or no thought behind it.

Keep us posted!

Love,
Christine

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Wed Mar 3, 2004 6:51 am
Subject: Re: Kabbala Tuesday

Christine:

Also - I wanted to remind you about the picture in our group photo file "Fra Angelico" called "Lamentation". Take a look again. See Mary (Magdalene, in my opinion) kissing the feet. In my opinion it is Sophia at the head and Eva at the heart.

Morning Christine,

NOW I understand the three aspects of Sophia that you are speaking of in the terms above. I had Sophia as One, and She is, but it is Three in One. And that is why when I saw the Mother at the feet my mind went split for a second to straighten the picture out in my own understanding.

Do you know my Rabbi puts Saddam Husein as one of those capable of great goodness but who chose the other proportion somewhere in his life. That at some point just like Hitler he forgot to fight in a way to maintane his emotions, and the great thing he hated became more than the great thing he loved. It's funny because it makes me wonder what was the great thing both these men were capable of that did not come to fullfilment within them.

I did check the pictures in your file. I always check when you put new things there:) I will recheck again however and see if I can't see this other woman with a halo that I may not have noticed before.

We're doing the Purim celebration here at the clubhouse on Sunday.

Christine:

I think a great deal of the difficulty in the relationship between Judaism and Christianity for the last 2000 years is that basically, the church version of the Christ story is too stupid to really be believed. Either one has to go on "blind faith" or family or political allegiance or some kind of threat, in this world or the next. Because it really doesn't make sense.

Dottie

One can find the mysteries in this bible, they are there. Well, they are slowly dissappearing now as the new bible translations are totally making God in mans image. Thank God the world is at a place where there is so much information, and that Sophia is really pressing down on Her students to show the way, or else we would be stuck in the river with no paddle heading upstream.

I shared with the Rabbi that the message I hearken unto of Christ which is 'the Kingdom is within'. It was great to share some of the things I have found with Dr. Steiner and see his face just light up with ideas and so forth. It is a different experience with the Christians he encounters in his work. It's closer to the Kabbala and he understands that. He is going to be a great Rabbi. He is going to build a bridge of understanding to himself about the true message of Jesus. Doesn't mean he is going to accept Christ and all that but it does mean that the walls of misconception spread by the early church will come down and a new way of looking at things is at hand. He really doesn't get why so many people followed Paul who he credits for Christianity in its making.

My Muslim co-worker just told me of a dream that I wanted to share here about Christ and Muhammhed: He is in a plane going to encounter Jesus. He suddenly finds himself in a bus getting more nervous as he and a group of others are truly headed to this confrontation with Jesus and he doesn't know why. Now he is on foot and in the market place, kind of like and okay corral western and the showdown is at high noon. He is shaking in his boots and suddenly Muhammed is there and he can see through Muhammeds eyes. 'Oh how beautiful it is to see through Muhammeds eyes he says, just so beautiful.' He tells Muhammed that he is scared because he has to take on Jesus and doesn't know what to do. Muhammed says don't worry I will stand in your place. Just then Jesus arrives and Muhammed steps in his place as he falls to the background. Jesus looks past Muhammed straight into Marks eyes and slowly turns away. There is no fight after all.

So, we interpreted this to be that Muhammed is standing in the way of Mark getting to know Christ. And we were floored how the spirit works in ourselves.

Much Love,
Dottie

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Wed Mar 3, 2004 8:16 am
Subject: Re: Kabbala Tuesday

Christine:

Also - I wanted to remind you about the picture in our group photo file "Fra Angelico" called "Lamentation". Take a look again. See Mary (Magdalene, in my opinion) kissing the feet. In my opinion it is Sophia at the head and Eva at the heart. There is another female behind the group with a special halo. I wonder who she is? Actually, the group is mostly women. Fra Angelico was one of the most "visionary" painters. Check out the other work uploaded here, too.

Hey Christine,

This is an amazing painting. I need to see a closer up version. I think we also have the angels that will see him through the 'death' passage in this lamentations. As well the 'light woman' to the left center and all the way in the back has no halo. But she is of the Light in a sense. Kind of Michaelic for me. Yes, she stands for Michael for me.

Maybe it is something Sergio O. Prokofieff said about the concept as Chockma (Sophia) being the Mother and Father. And something about Michael being the very Light itself. But all of this is birthed through the Sophia.

Oh, now I get why Joel said the daughter was closest to the Father. She is the one ascending from the crown, the feet......... okay got it.

Anyhow, what do you make of the two women in all black one behind a bit where Mother Mary is at the head and the other looking onto where Magdalene is at the feet. They are very interesting figures.

love,d

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

From: eyecueco
Date: Wed Mar 3, 2004 9:30 am
Subject: Re: Kabbala Tuesday - now: Judaism is not passe

In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, golden3000997 wrote:

I think a great deal of the difficulty in the relationship between Judaism and Christianity for the last 2000 years is that basically, the church version of the Christ story is too stupid to really be believed. Either one has to go on "blind faith" or family or political allegiance or some kind of threat, in this world or the next.

Dear Christine, I wonder if you have any idea how this kind of remarks offends the practicing Jew who is as devoted to his or her religion as Christians are to the concept of Christ, Redemption, and Resurrection?

I think that the problem is on the side of Christians who have the idea that we Christians have all the answers and all the Jews should convert because we 'get it' about who and what Jesus Christ was and did, and so everyone else should 'get it' as well and get with the program. Well, that's not the BIG plan and it strikes me as amazingly egoic that so many of the Christian faith think this way.

When we start talking about Judaism we need to soberly reflect on the fact that these people are the chosen people, the only people picked by G-D, and the only people who had a Covenant established with G-D. This Covenant does not say, "Look here guys, I'm selecting you out in order to establish within you an inner law set down by ME by which, over many generations an appropriate vessel of all sheaths necessary will be appropriately formed in order to contain my Incarnation so that I can right what went wrong with this particular creation now set into motion, but, then, guys, I have to tell you, after MY Incarnation you will be obsolete, passe; done-deal puppies and I'm really, really sorry about that,"

NO, that was not, is not the deal! The Covenant between G-D and his chosen people has no time stamp, no expiration date in the contract. They were chosen (as a collective unity, not individually, don't get me wrong) for the fulfillment of many prophesies yet to come. It is a BIG mistake, imo, to think that all Jews should get with the Saul-Paul program. There is a much larger plan involved here. The world cannot do without the Jewish people and their continuing fulfillment of their religious obligations as established by their Covenant; the world cannot!

The time of one religion is very, very distant, and it continues to baffle me that those studying the same Steiner as I, fail to 'get it' about where we currently are and how much further we have to go. We are only at the mid-point of the 5th Epoch, but so many Anthropops on these lists I keep talking about how we should all be thinking, feeling and functioning as though it were the 6th Epoch. Well, no, we should not. It is not the 6th Epoch yet and we have certain lessons to learn that cannot be learned if we do not stay in the here and now.

Anyway, I am totally committed to the Christ spoken of in Steiner's Christologies, but this does not prevent me from understanding that Judaism has NOT outlived its purpose. I personally think that Steiner understood this as well, and when he talked about the dispersement of Jews throughout the world his was thinking about what is carried forth by way of the perfecting impulses of thinking, feeling. willing that arise from living one's life according to the Covenant established by the first active Eloha via the Archangel Michael.

Warmly,
Paulina

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Wed Mar 3, 2004 9:52 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Kabbala Tuesday - now: Judaism is not passe

Paulina wrote:

Anyway, I am totally committed to the Christ spoken of in Steiner's Christologies, but this does not prevent me from understanding that Judaism has NOT outlived its purpose. I personally think that Steiner understood this as well, and when he talked about the dispersement of Jews throughout the world his was thinking about what is carried forth by way of the perfecting impulses of thinking, feeling. willing that arise from living one's life according to the Covenant established by the first active Eloha via the Archangel Michael.

Hi Paulina and Christine,

It ocurred to me last night that it is the Michael intelligence that stands behind Jewish knowledge. And it is ongrowing in a sense. It is a solid knowledge well rooted in cosmic truth it seems to me.

I agree with what Paulina has said above about Judaism not outliving its purpose. And Dr. Steiner must have been aware of it I can not really see it any other way.

The idea about living in the sixth epoch while we are here now is an issue I realize. But the fact is that it is indeed pressing in. And I think that is the way it must happen in the ongoing evolution of things. Dr. Steiner talks about this happening to the Fourth to the Fifth epoch as well.

The story tellers sow the seeds and they grow in future lifetimes of the people hearing them. Today there really aren't any story tellers in the way there were before. We actually are now retelling old stories that are sowing these seeds and maybe that is always how it has been. I don't know. And then there are others along the lines of a Dr. Steiner who are now watering the seeds for the next lifetime. The seed has already been planted in many of us that have followed Dr. Steiners work through the centuries. And maybe we will find a way to tell this new story through the teachers who are now talking today maybe not.

Sincerely,
Dottie

The Rabbi says that he can not figure out how Paul who was such a killer and mean spirited was able to start a religion. It would be so great to have Rabbis and Christians, not the ones trying to convert one another, really try to look at what seems impossible to the other to understand and why. And I guess it would have to be ones who have a spiritual understanding of the living word versus the fundamentalist concrete view of how things are and that is that.

Sincerely,
Dottie

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Wed Mar 3, 2004 10:08 am
Subject: Re: Kabbala Tuesday - now: Judaism is not passe

Paulina:

We are only at the mid-point of the 5th Epoch, but so many Anthropops on these lists I keep talking about how we should all be thinking, feeling and functioning as though it were the 6th Epoch. Well, no, we should not. It is not the 6th Epoch yet and we have certain lessons to learn that cannot be learned if we do not stay in the here and now.

Dear Paulina,

When I first began this journey with Dr. Stiener, in this lifetime, I was already in phenomina world. I was already having certain experiences and I was stuck in the feeling of them and not the knowledge of them. With Dr. Steiners work and my studies I have been able to ground these experiences in thought and have been able to come to a balance within them and my self. Without his work I do not believe I would have ever been able to ground these experiences in a way that allows me to rise to knowledge. There is nothing one can do about this kind of life other than either ground it or be out there in fairey land.

My hope is not to live in the sixth epoch while in the Fifth rather it is to do what ever it is I am supposed to do with these understandings that are trying to make their way to the forefront of my spiritmind. And hopefully I will be true to that and continue to ground whatever is making its way towards me.

Sincerely,
Dottie

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

From: golden3000997
Date: Wed Mar 3, 2004 5:55 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Kabbala Tuesday - now: Judaism is not passe

In a message dated 3/3/2004 12:32:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, pkleonard writes:

In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, golden3000997 wrote:

I think a great deal of the difficulty in the relationship between Judaism and Christianity for the last 2000 years is that basically, the church version of the Christ story is too stupid to really be believed. Either one has to go on "blind faith" or family or political allegiance or some kind of threat, in this world or the next.

Dear Christine, I wonder if you have any idea how this kind of remarks offends the practicing Jew who is as devoted to his or her religion as Christians are to the concept of Christ, Redemption, and Resurrection?

I think that the problem is on the side of Christians who have the idea that we Christians have all the answers and all the Jews should convert because we 'get it' about who and what Jesus Christ was and did, and so everyone else should 'get it' as well and get with the program. Well, that's not the BIG plan and it strikes me as amazingly egoic that so many of the Christian faith think this way.

Dear Paulina,

I thought I was clear on what I said that it is "I" who think the church version of the Christ story for the last 2000 years is stupid! And that the fact that so much of church history is about asking people to "join their team" or even worse MAKING them do so is very offensive to ANYONE with a brain!! Of course, I have a long winded theory on the development of the Church, per se through Willing, Feeling and Thinking up today when we are on the brink of "Christ Conciousness" which, to me is a combining of all three and then taking it to a higher level. But I am just talking about how difficult it is for anyone who really thinks deeply to take seriously any religion with so many unanswered questions and which demands its followers to accept their "explanations" with blind faith. Rudolf Steiner is the only person who ever gave me answers that make sense, even though there is a bit of "faith" required, or at least the willingness to consider things like the idea of the two children becoming one or the ex-carnating of Jesus and Incarnating of Christ at the Baptism. Still, if one can take these ideas as factors, things like the physicality of the conception of the bodies of the two children don't interfere with the Divinity incarnation. In fact, "average" Christians don't even KNOW that the actual Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception refers specifically to "Mary being conceived IMMACULATE IN HER SOUL - free from the taint of original sin." My quotes & caps - a paraphrase, but close of the dogma lingo. I can look it up on a Catholic site if necessary. Most people, when you say "immaculate conception" think it refers to Jesus being born without Mary and Joseph having sex. Most people that I have known in my life, anyway, don't bother with asking themselves, "Can someone be a Virgin in their soul and still have sex?" Whoa! What a question?? Go ahead and ask that question out on the street and see what kind of answers you get.

Do you know who I think could answer that question really, really well? Dottie's Rabbi! Oh yeah!!!

Is that anti-semitic? If so, why?

Hugs,
Christine

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

From: golden3000997
Date: Wed Mar 3, 2004 6:09 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Kabbala Tuesday - now: Judaism is not passe

Hi Dottie, Paulina et al!!!

I would really, really recommend Taylor Caldwell's historical novel "Great Lion of God" which is about Paul. This woman, alcoholic and all, actually did research in the Vatican libraries.

She paints such a wonderful portrait of a Paul who was far from a perfect person. But what happened to him was wonderful.

The only ? I have about what you said the Rabbi said was that he "started a religion". I think it is only fair and important to see the two streams of Christianity in the early epoch - the one from Paul and the one from Peter. Brings to mind Isaac and Ishmael. One experience, two results. Pauline Christianity is Christianity seen through Paul's eyes which were blinded internally, then blinded externally, then opened by Christ Himself. Nevertheless, as Paul said "we see as through a glass darkly, then face to face." We have his testimony of a great wonder as seen through very human eyes. Applying his "laws" for the church while denying the wonder and mystery of his experience can only lead to negative interpretation.

This is the man who said:

1 Corinthians 1:17
For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

1 Corinthians 1:18
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

1 Corinthians 1:19
For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

1 Corinthians 1:20
Where [is] the wise? where [is] the scribe? where [is] the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

1 Corinthians 1:21
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

1 Corinthians 1:22
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

1 Corinthians 1:23
But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

1 Corinthians 1:24
But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

1 Corinthians 1:25
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

1 Corinthians 1:26
For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, [are called]:

1 Corinthians 1:27
But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

1 Corinthians 1:28
And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, [yea], and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

1 Corinthians 1:29
That no flesh should glory in his presence.

1 Corinthians 1:30
But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

1 Corinthians 1:31
That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

1 Corinthians 2:1
And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.

1 Corinthians 2:2
For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

1 Corinthians 2:3
And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.

1 Corinthians 2:4
And my speech and my preaching [was] not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:

1 Corinthians 2:5
That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

1 Corinthians 2:6
Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:

1 Corinthians 2:7
But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

1 Corinthians 2:8
Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known [it], they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

1 Corinthians 2:9
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

1 Corinthians 2:10
But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

1 Corinthians 2:11
For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

1 Corinthians 2:12
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

1 Corinthians 2:13
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

BUT THEN CAN ALSO SAY:

1 Corinthians 13:1
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become [as] sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

1 Corinthians 13:2
And though I have [the gift of] prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

1 Corinthians 13:3
And though I bestow all my goods to feed [the poor], and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

1 Corinthians 13:4
Charity suffereth long, [and] is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,

1 Corinthians 13:5
Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;

1 Corinthians 13:6
Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

1 Corinthians 13:7
Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

1 Corinthians 13:8
Charity never faileth: but whether [there be] prophecies, they shall fail; whether [there be] tongues, they shall cease; whether [there be] knowledge, it shall vanish away.

1 Corinthians 13:9
For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

1 Corinthians 13:10
But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

1 Corinthians 13:11
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

1 Corinthians 13:12
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

1 Corinthians 13:13
And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these [is] charity.

To my mind, Paul did not "found" a religion - he only bore witness to it.

In love,
Christine

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

From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Wed Mar 3, 2004 6:11 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Kabbala Tuesday - now: Judaism is not passe

Hi, Christine,

In fact, "average" Christians don't even KNOW that the actual Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception refers specifically to "Mary being conceived IMMACULATE IN HER SOUL - free from the taint of original sin." My quotes & caps - a paraphrase, but close of the dogma lingo. I can look it up on a Catholic site if necessary. Most people, when you say "immaculate conception" think it refers to Jesus being born without Mary and Joseph having sex. Most people that I have known in my life, anyway, don't bother with asking themselves, "Can someone be a Virgin in their soul and still have sex?" Whoa! What a question?? Go ahead and ask that question out on the street and see what kind of answers you get.

You're right about the Immaculate Conception of course. Nevertheless, as I understand it, (because it was drummed into me) RC dogma does insist that Mary was a physical virgin, i.e., no sex.

Frank

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

From: winters_diana
Date: Thu Mar 4, 2004 5:32 am
Subject: Re: Kabbala Tuesday - now: Judaism is not passe

Paulina wrote about Judaism:

This Covenant does not say, "Look here guys, I'm selecting you out in order to establish within you an inner law set down by ME by which, over many generations an appropriate vessel of all sheaths necessary will be appropriately formed in order to contain my Incarnation so that I can right what went wrong with this particular creation now set into motion, but, then, guys, I have to tell you, after MY Incarnation you will be obsolete, passe; done-deal puppies and I'm really, really sorry about that,"

Paulina, I hope people here can "hear" this from you (rather than those of us perceived as having an Ahrimanic or otherwise evil agenda). I don't substantially share your views of course since I am not Christian, but I am relieved to see there is an alternative anthroposophic interpretation that does not see Judaism as obsolete, having fulfilled its karmic purpose and serving no purpose now other than perhaps dispensing a "marvelous genepool" for the rest of us etc. That stuff makes my skin crawl, but nobody here blinked, apparently, except you. Trashy remarks about "luscious" Jewish women also went unremarked.

Awhile back people were trying to reach a definition of anti-Semitism, and I propose a simple one: Derogatory remarks about Jews are anti-Semitic. Stating that any positive contributions made by Jews (as Jews) are in the past is derogatory thus anti-Semitic. Stereotypes about Jews are also anti-Semitic even when they are superficially positive (enhanced sensuality, overdeveloped intellectualism).

Diana

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

From: holderlin66
Date: Thu Mar 4, 2004 7:48 am
Subject: Re: Kabbala Tuesday - now: Judaism is not passe

winters_diana wrote:

purpose now other than perhaps dispensing a "marvelous genepool" for the rest of us etc. That stuff makes my skin crawl, but nobody here blinked, apparently, except you. Trashy remarks about "luscious" Jewish women also went unremarked.

Hey, that's my wife you're talkin about, hot damn momma, fire up the tacos.

bradford

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

From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Thu Mar 4, 2004 12:27 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Kabbala Tuesday - now: Judaism is not passe

Diana wrote:

Awhile back people were trying to reach a definition of anti-Semitism, and I propose a simple one: Derogatory remarks about Jews are anti-Semitic. Stating that any positive contributions made by Jews (as Jews) are in the past is derogatory thus anti-Semitic. Stereotypes about Jews are also anti-Semitic even when they are superficially positive (enhanced sensuality, overdeveloped intellectualism).

Diana

Some years back I was in a business meeting in Tel Aviv. The chairman started off the meeting with a story: Goldberg from Brooklyn flew down to Miami Beach to check into the Fontainbleu Hotel on his annual vacation. At the hotel the reception clerk told him that there was no reservation in his name and the hotel was full. "What?" said Goldberg, "It's me, Goldberg, I always come here on vacation and I have a reservation." But the clerk was adamant, so G. demanded to see the manager. The manager apologized, but said there was no room. Goldberg protested and screamed so much that finally the manager said, "OK, you want the truth?" "Of course." "We don't want you here." "But how can that be? I'm Moishe Goldberg, etc. etc." The manager said, "It's because you piss in the pool." "What? piss in the pool? But everyone pisses in the pool." Manager: "But not from the high diving board."

The speaker was Dov Adiv, manager of the national airline, EL AL. The rest were the managers of the foreign airlines operating in Israel, all regular members of the panel. I was the representative of the airline trade organization and a guest at the meeting. They smiled politely and I was the only one who laughed. One of them told me later that Dov told one or more of his Jewish jokes (with a perfect New York Jewish accent) at every meeting and they'd all heard the one he told that day at least 3 times before. Anyway, according to your definition, he was an anti-Semite. He'd be very surprised to hear that.

Frank

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

From: eyecueco
Date: Thu Mar 4, 2004 3:06 pm
Subject: Re: Kabbala Tuesday - now: Judaism is not passe

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, golden3000997 wrote:

Dear Paulina,

I thought I was clear on what I said that it is "I" who think the church version of the Christ story for the last 2000 years is stupid! And that the fact that so much of church history is about asking people to "join their team" or even worse MAKING them do so is very offensive to ANYONE with a brain!! Of course, I have a long winded theory on the development of the Church, per se through Willing, Feeling and Thinking up today when we are on the brink of "Christ Conciousness" which, to me is a combining of all three and then taking it to a higher level. But I am just talking about how difficult it is for anyone who really thinks deeply to take seriously any religion with so many unanswered questions and which demands its followers to accept their "explanations" with blind faith.

Hi Christine,

I replied to your post because recently there have been some posts on Judaism, Heberew, etc., and I think it very easy to fall into thinking that the conclusion of the Covenant between G-D and the Jews was accomplished by the Incarnation. When I read you post I rather thought I heard you saying that perhaps the Jews turn away from Christianity because of the varying blind faith doctrines, etc. of the Catholic Church, and if only things were not so "stupid' (your term) then all Jews might be able to come to Christianity, but, I do not think that is the case at all. The Jews have a differing view of the SON, at least in Luranic Kabbalah.

C:

Rudolf Steiner is the only person who ever gave me answers that make sense,

Same here.

C:

even though there is a bit of "faith" required, or at least the willingness to consider things like the idea of the two children becoming one or the ex-carnating of Jesus and Incarnating of Christ at the Baptism.

Never had any problem with either of these personally.

In regard to the two Jesus children, there is just too much in the way of esoteric literature and also images through art history that point to this profound mystery. There is a 2001 book by David Ovason (not an anthroposophist, I don't believe) that was released in the Uk, NZ and Australia and is due to be released here in the U.S. in May on the issue of the historical evidence for two Jesus children in both art and literature. It is a wonderful and informative book that follows an understandable trail of evidence. I think that this book will go a long way to help anyone who has previsouly had problems with the issue of the mystery that stands behind the need for two children.

At any rate, Mary and the Divinity of Christ is not an issue for Jews following the path set for them by the Eloha, Jehovah, so it is not a matter of finding a path to understanding these mysteries, imo.

C:

Still, if one can take these ideas as factors, things like the physicality of the conception of the bodies of the two children don't interfere with the Divinity incarnation. In fact, "average" Christians don't even KNOW that the actual Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception refers specifically to "Mary being conceived IMMACULATE IN HER SOUL - free from the taint of original sin."

Someone already posted on this and did a great job of defining this doctrine.

C:

My quotes & caps - a paraphrase, but close of the dogma lingo. I can look it up on a Catholic site if necessary. Most people, when you say "immaculate conception" think it refers to Jesus being born without Mary and Joseph having sex. Most people that I have known in my life, anyway, don't bother with asking themselves, "Can someone be a Virgin in their soul and still have sex?" Whoa! What a question?? Go ahead and ask that question out on the street and see what kind of answers you get.

This issue is, once again, a matter of how consciousness is defined. Of course both Jesus children were conceived in a normal way, but, one of these children, the Luke child was conceived in a state without knowledge of the act and under the direction of the temple. Bock speaks very well to this issue, even better than Steiner who treads lightly on the sexual aspect.

C:

Do you know who I think could answer that question really, really well? Dottie's Rabbi! Oh yeah!!!

What question, Christine?

And, btw, don't think you are going to get agreement on anything by asking a Rabbi. Get two of them together and listen to the debating. :-)

C:

Is that anti-semitic? If so, why?

I don't know. I don't understand your question yet. :-) If it is about trying to find a better way to explain the Incarnation of Christ to an orthodox Jew, I don' think you are going to get any takers. They are approaching the Cosmic Christ on a different highway at this particuliar juncture of time and space. I jsut think it imperative to respect their journey fully and with as much reverence as we do our own.

Warm regards,
Paulina

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Thu Mar 4, 2004 4:24 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Kabbala Tuesday - now: Judaism is not passe

At 14:32 04.03.2004, Diana wrote:

Paulina, I hope people here can "hear" this from you (rather than those of us perceived as having an Ahrimanic or otherwise evil agenda). I don't substantially share your views of course since I am not Christian, but I am relieved to see there is an alternative anthroposophic interpretation that does not see Judaism as obsolete, having fulfilled its karmic purpose and serving no purpose now other than perhaps dispensing a "marvelous genepool" for the rest of us etc. That stuff makes my skin crawl, but nobody here blinked, apparently, except you.

If your skin crawled because my mention of the marvellous Jewish genepool and the benefits of race-mixing, I wonder what your reaction had been if I had called the genepool defective and discouraged race-mixing? Would you have backed the racists then, who say that races should be preserved as they are and not be mixed? (Animosity makes strange bedfellows, and if racists can offer a useful angle, why not put them in the PLANS brainstrorming pool?)

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Thu Mar 4, 2004 4:35 pm
Subject: whatever....

I wrote to Diana:

If your skin crawled because my mention of the marvellous Jewish genepool and the benefits of race-mixing, I wonder what your reaction had been if I had called the genepool defective and discouraged race-mixing? Would you have backed the racists then, who say that races should be preserved as they are and not be mixed?

Doesn't make much sense the way I wrote that, but you get my drift. If the racist label doesn't stick to the anthro's, the PLANS folks are likely to ask the racists for help to demonize our anti-racism and make it look bad. And so on and so on.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: golden3000997
Date: Thu Mar 4, 2004 5:08 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Kabbala Tuesday - now: Judaism is not passe

OK - I've been burned at the stake so many times, I've started wearing asbestos underwear (like to see YOU use THAT in your sick fantasies, Frank!)

When I was working the phones, I had some long conversations with young black women who were my colleagues. Sometimes, they would get some rap going on the speaker, and I had a chance to really listen to what those "artists" were saying. Hey, it was all "nigger, nigger, nigger" and "bitch, suck my cock" and all that. I said to my friend, Charlene, now tell me, WHY if I were to call you a nigger, that would be awful, but you (black) people can say it all the time and its OK??? She said that it was like calling someone a "moron" and that it was OK if you were friends, but not OK if you weren't.

I live in Miami and I worked for four years at the biggest resort hotel on Miami Beach (not the Fountainbleau). I met one of the owners, who is Jewish and he was a polite and unpretentious person who you would not realize was the owner unless someone pointed it out to you. I can't imagine him telling a story like the above. I believe that one can be a Jew and ACT (in word or deed) antisemitically through disrespect of one's own culture.

I also believe that Blacks who use the word "nigger" (extensively down here) ACT (in word or deed) as racists when they show such disrespect, not only for themselves, their historical, heroic fight against that word and everything it stands for, but also against the "white" people who fought side by side with them and died also to overcome racism and for the protection of the law against overt acts of.

The fact that the music that I heard was also blatantly sexually violent and more than disrespectful against women, particularly Black women was really nauseating to me.

Chris Rock has an act in which he goes on the theme, "I hate niggers." He elaborates very well on what he means. He hates the denigrating contemporary street culture that disrespects the Black Person as a Person, first and foremost. The parochial view that if a "Black" person reads a wide variety of literature, listens to a wide variety of music, works for the education and career that fulfills him or her and lifts him or her out of poverty and the degradation that comes with it, then he or she is a "sell-out" to the "whities".

Will Smith also has a recorded act that says much the same thing and I have read interviews with him and his wife Jada that explain their point of view more fully. Why shouldn't a "Black" person be educated and ambitious for goals that are purely their own? Why should a "Black" person have to "talk trash" to show that he or she is "Black"?

As we speed on into the future, considering how much has changed in thinking and in attitudes carried by the "mass" culture, I can only imagine and hope that with the "assimilation" of "Blacks" and "Whites" such as the cultures of every conceivable combination of race and national origin that I live with every day here in Miami, that what is good and progressive in world culture that has arisen through the "Black" experience and point of view will continue and be ever more enobled through understanding and development. And I imagine and hope that what has "devolved" into abuse and "reverse racism" will disappear altogether in time through education and social justice.

Are Chris Rock and Will Smith "racists" for "hating niggers?" No. In my definition, Luke Campbell, LL Cool J and Tupak Shakur are racists. Their messages are full of hate and denigration toward their "own people" especially the female members.

Is the man in the story, Dov Adiv, a racist ( or antisemite) (another word for racist)? Absolutely, because he denigrates Jewish people, and it make absolutely no difference if he is of the same identity group.

Did y'all see Queen Latifah and Steve Martin in "Bringing Down the House?" There is a great scene where she ( a street level ex con) comes to Steve Martin's law office and drops her "rap" talk (I really don't know what they call the street talk these days) and says some thing like "You see, I can talk this white way perfectly well if I want to, but why would I want to, it's so boring."

It's a funny scene, but in a way I think it is put there to speak to the "street" people who are her fans. Like, "don't take the fact that I am intelligent and successful and can hold my own in ANY society seriously. I am still one of you." Because she IS intelligent and successful and can hold her own in any society. I love her so much!! I would be a lesbian just for her if she were willing. I just want to hug and kiss her so much!

Do y'all remember how Bill Cosby was attacked toward the end of "The Bill Cosby Show" for having, for many years, shown a representation of an intelligent, affluent black family, because the street population felt it wasn't true and was misleading. I think I remember an interview in an article around the ending of the show where he said he was deeply, deeply hurt. That his work (for what, a decade) meant nothing because it "wasn't true" and gave black people false hopes and a greater sense of inferiority for not living up to the show's ideals. Well, there are many "white" family shows that the majority of "white" families don't live up to, either. But they may serve to inspire young people to hope for and work for a better future for themselves. Why do street blacks need to cling to their hopelessness? Why is hopelessness their identity?? The Bill Cosby show may have been no more "realistic" than "Father Knows Best" but it showed more than any other programming I have ever seen, the power of love, intelligence, humor and pride in one's self, one's family and one's culture. It was always a message of hope. That is why it was universally beloved by people of all races, creeds, colors and national origins. It was the message of the "I AM" - the universal human at its best.

The enemy is not the amount of melanin in our skins, it's the amount of hopelessness in our souls.

Christine

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

From: winters_diana
Date: Thu Mar 4, 2004 7:34 pm
Subject: Re: Kabbala Tuesday - now: Judaism is not passe

I wrote:

Awhile back people were trying to reach a definition of anti-Semitism, and I propose a simple one: Derogatory remarks about Jews are anti-Semitic.

and Frank told a slightly less offensive, slightly less crude story than the last one (whatever).

The speaker was Dov Adiv, manager of the national airline,

<snip>

One of them told me later that Dov told one or more of his Jewish jokes (with a perfect New York Jewish accent) at every meeting

Christine later says some relevant stuff here, but I'd been thinking about saying something and thinking, no, it's too obvious. But I guess it's not obvious, so here it is. Do you not think it is a bit different for someone to tell a joke on themselves - even an ethnic joke - rather than for someone else to tell it on them, at their expense? I do. This is not that unusual. Yes, it's very simple. He can tell Jewish jokes on himself if he wants to - for me to do it would be an offense, and rightly so. Similarly, it is one thing for Jews to discuss assimilation, pro and con, and it is not "anti- Semitic" for them to do so (especially since their reasons for assimilating, are not, generally, a belief that their karmic mission as Jews is complete). It is quite another for other people to tell them they ought to be assimilating. If you don't see a difference, well . . . And once you mix in "spiritual" reasons they should be assimilating, you are wandering into very dangerous territory.

Diana

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

From: winters_diana
Date: Thu Mar 4, 2004 7:36 pm
Subject: Re: Kabbala Tuesday - now: Judaism is not passe

Paulina, you write all this great stuff and then you say, of Judaism:

They are approaching the Cosmic Christ on a different highway at this particuliar juncture of time and space. I jsut think it imperative to respect their journey fully and with as much reverence as we do our own.

While I see your respectful intent, I think it's ironic you insist on concluding that they are nevertheless on a journey to the "Cosmic Christ."

Diana

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

From: winters_diana
Date: Thu Mar 4, 2004 7:52 pm
Subject: Re: Kabbala Tuesday - now: Judaism is not passe

Tarjei:

If your skin crawled because my mention of the marvellous Jewish genepool and the benefits of race-mixing, I wonder what your reaction had been if I had called the genepool defective and discouraged race-mixing? Would you have backed the racists then, who say that races should be preserved as they are and not be mixed?

Ah! If only you could see that there is a third option. I so wish that I could show it to you. YEs - remarks about the "marvelous Jewish genepool" are disturbing, Tarjei. So would remarks discouraging race mixing be disturbing.

Think about it! The third option is not to be so hung up on peoples' genes and racial characteristics in the first place. There is no need to cringe at the idea of the races mixing, and there is equally nothing to be gained from encouraging them to mix in order to share their genes, or singing a song of joy if they do mix. You only show your hand that way, you show that you believe race is a determining factor about an individual. Jews do not have "marvelous" genes, Tarjei, compared to Christians or Buddhists or whoever. People are not their genes. We all have nearly as much in common genetically with a monkey. It seems so ironic and sad to me that it is critics of anthroposophy who are considered "materialists," when these notions of the "races" and their "roles" in history are so thoroughly saturated with materialistic ideas - such as the idea that race even matters.

I'll try one more time: Race mixing doesn't matter. It doesn't pollute or taint, and it isn't "marvelous," and people aren't assigned "missions" based on what race they were born into. People aren't their race, people aren't their genes, this is all nonsense!

You can't get past materialism by trying to pretend that stupid notions about racial characteristics and so-called racial roles are actually "spiritual truths." That is precisely what racism is - overvaluing race - whether negatively or positively. People just aren't their race and no elaborate esoteric melodramas are necessary for this to be so. the way to get past racism is to drop these notions, not try to spiritualize them.

Diana

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

From: eyecueco
Date: Fri Mar 5, 2004 9:18 am
Subject: Re: Kabbala Tuesday - now: Judaism is not passe

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, winters_diana wrote:

While I see your respectful intent, I think it's ironic you insist on concluding that they are nevertheless on a journey to the "Cosmic Christ."

Hi Diana,

I said 'Cosmic Christ', not 'Jesus Christ'. :-) Jews are on the same trip as Christians, i.e., on the Tree of Life, going from Malkuth to Kether.

The Jewish Kabbalahis monotheistic, the Christian Cabala is trinitarian, the neo- pagan Quabalah incorporates beings of ancient mythologies, but, all three have in common the Tree diagram that describes the journey on the various highways or paths. Sephirot can be traveled any number of ways. Tikkum (return) is on going for most of us (there has only been one Ezekiel-Metatron), esoteric Christians call it 'reincarnation', the Zohar calls it 'gilgul'.

I could just as easily have said that Christians are returning to the Orchard (Padres), on a different highway at this particular juncture of time and space. I used the term 'Cosmic Christ' because most of us here study Steiner and would understand the deeper esoteric meaning standing behind this term, signifying the heavenly or primordial man.

Kind regards,
Paulina

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

From: eyecueco
Date: Fri Mar 5, 2004 10:37 am
Subject: Re: Kabbala Tuesday - now: Judaism is not passe

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, winters_diana wrote:

Christine later says some relevant stuff here, but I'd been thinking about saying something and thinking, no, it's too obvious. But I guess it's not obvious, so here it is. Do you not think it is a bit different for someone to tell a joke on themselves - even an ethnic joke - rather than for someone else to tell it on them, at their expense? I do.

Absolutely, Diana, absolutely!

I started to post about this yesterday, but am glad I did not as you have make the point much better than I would have.

Coming from an inner-city mindset the word 'Nigger' came to mind yesterday and how shocked I was when first teaching to see this word used so often and not only among the kids, but the adults in the lounges and lunch rooms. It is a sub-cultral thing, a personal private thing among Blacks just as a man and woman might have private pet terms for each other that would not be acceptable used by another.

To suceed in the classrooms where I taught it was impeative to keep up with the sub-cultural lingo that changes radically every couple of years and to use it on occasion if you expect to _connect_ with the students, but, one word that cannot be used with the Black student, peer or friend is 'nigger',

My kids told me a number of funny jokes with the term 'nigger' in it, and so did my peers, but, I could not tell these jokes to another group of students, or could I repeat these jokes to other Blacks. It just would not have been appropriate.

Now, with the sub-cultural lingo I could throw certain expressions out and the kids found that to be 'Bad', 'Cool', 'Hard', 'Rad', or whatever was in for that year that expressed approval and that "this teach is with it". I even got by with indirect "Your Momma" remarks, but that is really pushing the envelope and it actually says a lot about the level I was able to connect with my kids. There has to be a strong level of trust and faith to accept Your Momma" remarks as this too is a kind of private culltural THING.

Thanks, Diana, for expressing the issue so well.

Paulina

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Fri Mar 5, 2004 1:49 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Kabbala Tuesday - now: Judaism is not passe

At 04:36 05.03.2004, Diana wrote to Paulina:

While I see your respectful intent, I think it's ironic you insist on concluding that they are nevertheless on a journey to the "Cosmic Christ."

Everybody is on that journey. Christ is the savior and redeemer of humanity, mankind, the earth, and all that goes with it, including those monkeys you claim your genes come from.

Cheers,

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sat Mar 6, 2004 7:08 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Kabbala Tuesday - now: Judaism is not passe

I wrote:

If your skin crawled because my mention of the marvellous Jewish genepool and the benefits of race-mixing, I wonder what your reaction had been if I had called the genepool defective and discouraged race-mixing? Would you have backed the racists then, who say that races should be preserved as they are and not be mixed?

Diana, you wrote:

Ah! If only you could see that there is a third option. I so wish that I could show it to you. YEs - remarks about the "marvelous Jewish genepool" are disturbing, Tarjei. So would remarks discouraging race mixing be disturbing.

I understand. If an anthro says that race-mixing is good, it's disturbing and it makes your skin crawl. If an anthro says race-mixing is bad, it's also disturbing. If the arguments of an anthro are racist or anti-racist, it's disturbing nevertheless and makes your skin crawl. Whenever an anthro utters the word "race," it gives you the creeps. That's why you guys keep urging us to discuss race, race, and nothing but race.

Think about it!

You people at PLANS-WC have been telling us for years and years to think about it, and we've done our best to comply with your wish.

The third option is not to be so hung up on peoples' genes and racial characteristics in the first place.

Wow! This piece of wisdom, coming from you, is hereby nominated to the WC Quote of the Month (WC meaning Waldorf Critic, not necessarily the WC list). From what I can see, it is your comrade-in-arms Peter S who insists upon discussing NOTHING EXCEPT this topic.

By insisting upon focusing exclusively upon the topic that you now admirably denounce as if you've woken up for a moment, Peter S tends to pull us all down into the pitts - not only into textual analyses, but also into areas that could be appropriately described as fecal studies: All anthros should take a closer look at the excrements of their teacher and acknowledge thereby what he ate, and from that, what he thought and was. (The you-are-what-you-eat syndrome.) Like Hamlet demonstrating how a king can end up in the bowels of a beggar through a worm and a fish.

There is no need to cringe at the idea of the races mixing, and there is equally nothing to be gained from encouraging them to mix in order to share their genes, or singing a song of joy if they do mix.

In other words, you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't.

You only show your hand that way, you show that you believe race is a determining factor about an individual.

Nothing suprises me about what you believe that I show, Diana. If you say I show that I believe in Al Qaida, I'll take your word for it: That's what you see. I'm not going to argue about it. See and believe whatever you want, but don't expect me to take it too seriously.

Jews do not have "marvelous" genes, Tarjei, compared to Christians or Buddhists or whoever.

Of course the reason why the Jews became such an exceptionally gifted people eludes you, because it can hardly be understood by anyone who does not grasp the significance of the Christ Mystery. When the God of the Spiritual Sun, the emissary of the Elohim, who dwell on the son, incarnated in physical human form, he was a Jew. And that is how the Mystery of the Christ and the Mystery of the Jews are intimately related.

People are not their genes.

Now you sound like an anthroposophist :) It's almost precisely what RS used to say. People are not the products of heredity and culture and environment, but of the spiritual world, with each individual carrying the karmic sum of experiences from former lifetimes. which makes each person what he or she is.

Incidentally, who said people are their genes? Where did you get that idea from?

We all have nearly as much in common genetically with a monkey.

Now you sound like a social Darwinist who has misunderstood his teacher. If you believe you have the genes of a monkey, I'm not going to argue with that either.

It seems so ironic and sad to me that it is critics of anthroposophy who are considered "materialists," when these notions of the "races" and their "roles" in history are so thoroughly saturated with materialistic ideas - such as the idea that race even matters.

We are not the ones who say that race is important - you and Peter S are. We are only responding. For years, Dan Dugan and his cohorts used to complain that anthroposophists refuse to discuss race. And when we're discussing it, you say it's so sad, because we are allegedly the ones who believe it's so important. That's a lie, Diana. It's also a lie to say that anthroposophists have notions about race that are saturated with materialistic ideas.

I'll try one more time: Race mixing doesn't matter. It doesn't pollute or taint, and it isn't "marvelous," and people aren't assigned "missions" based on what race they were born into.

Inbreeding is a breeding ground for hereditary diseases and defects. That's a medical scientific fact. The royal families of Europe had a lot of problems like this before the practice of marrying non-royals became officially acceptable. This is less apparent with regard to larger communities; I may be on shakey ground here because I haven't done any medical research and only mention what I have stumbled across by coincidence, but I believe it was established many decades ago that racial inter-breeding is healthy for humanity and for the common genepool.

In the past, races have had their functions and their missions, but that's an epoch come and gone. The preservation of old racial forms is counter-productive.

People aren't their race, people aren't their genes, this is all nonsense!

You're talking exactly like Rudolf Steiner, although that's probably not a compliment for you.

You can't get past materialism by trying to pretend that stupid notions about racial characteristics and so-called racial roles are actually "spiritual truths."

The fact remains that we have evolved though races and that we still carry remnants of the past. Spiritual Science explains why we are what we are and how we have evolved to what we have become.

That is precisely what racism is - overvaluing race - whether negatively or positively.

In that case, the Waldorf Critics are racists. I am always fascinated by new definitions.

People just aren't their race and no elaborate esoteric melodramas are necessary for this to be so. the way to get past racism is to drop these notions, not try to spiritualize them.

According to this kind of logic, the way to overcome racism - and who knows what this word means from one day to the next among the WC'ers - is to eliminate all racial differences, not only for the present and the future, which I personally recommend, and which Rudolf Steiner recommended, but also for the past. According to this kind of logic, the creators of humanity, the gods, must have been racists. Or to put it monotheistically, God must be a racist, because if he wasn't a racist, he would not have given humanity different physiological characteristics. He would have made them a grey, homogenous mass. I believe Lenin dreamed of such a mass.

Cheers,

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Sat Mar 6, 2004 7:48 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Kabbala Tuesday - now: Judaism is not passe

Diana:

While I see your respectful intent, I think it's ironic you insist on concluding that they are nevertheless on a journey to the "Cosmic Christ."

Diana, why not ask a practicing Jew who they are waiting for within the next three hundred years? They are waiting for the Messiah and that translated into English is Christ or The Annointed One.

See, Christians believe he has come already and the Jews are still waiting for Him. So, indeed we are all on the same journey.

Dottie

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sat Mar 6, 2004 9:18 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Kabbala Tuesday - now: Judaism is not passe

At 04:34 05.03.2004, Diana wrote:

And once you mix in "spiritual" reasons they should be assimilating, you are wandering into very dangerous territory.

Could you explain why spiritual assimilation and integration is more dangerous than secular assimilation and integration?

Tarjei

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sun Mar 7, 2004 5:59 am
Subject: About N words and such.... (was: Kabbala Tuesday - )

At 02:08 05.03.2004, Christine wrote in a personal vein:

When I was working the phones, I had some long conversations with young black women who were my colleagues. Sometimes, they would get some rap going on the speaker, and I had a chance to really listen to what those "artists" were saying. Hey, it was all "nigger, nigger, nigger" and "bitch, suck my cock" and all that. I said to my friend, Charlene, now tell me, WHY if I were to call you a nigger, that would be awful, but you (black) people can say it all the time and its OK??? She said that it was like calling someone a "moron" and that it was OK if you were friends, but not OK if you weren't.

Martin Luther King Jr. did an experiment with one of his black audiences in Chicago in the 1960's when he put a white guy on stage and had him yell "the N word" to them. Many people got all riled up and some approached the stage to go and give the guy a beating, when MLK stepped up and confronted them all by asking why they didn't react like that if a black person like himself was standing there saying exactly the same things. He made them think about it and discuss it among themselves.

I heard about the above from someone who was actually present. She is the woman I shared household with for four years in Las Vegas and Phoenix in the late seventies/early eighties. I'll get back to this after a few initial comments.

Although I've always been an exhibitionist what internet publishing is concerned - an advantage, I would say, which saves you from worrying about who's snooping and so on, because they can snoop all they want - in spite of this, I have always been reticent about the aspects of my own biography that has to do with private relationships and family affairs because it involves third parties that are scattered around and have not been asked to share my cyber-exhibitionism. So I'm not going to include names here, and I'll focus primarily upon experiences that lie several decades back in time, albeit geographical distances are non-existent on the internet. But I do know the parties involved so well on a heart level that when it comes to burying the nasty stigma of racism that certain reptiles are eager to throw at us, I'm confident about their approval and blessing.

I've already told you about the Jewish girl I was living with in London in 1974, the one who thought I said "Jewry" when I actually said "jewelry" - well, before I continue, I'd like to add another little amusing anecdote about her. The ridiculousness of the misunderstanding I mentioned is especially amplified when I explain that although this Miami beauty and I got along primarily in bed and in front of the TV set, there were in fact some intellectual issues we agreed upon as well, and one of these was race and racial relations. She had a lot of black friends back home in Miami, and at one time her father had a friend over for a visit, and this man, who was also Jewish, began to talk all kinds of shit about blacks, using the N word and the whole dirty package. My girlfriend overheard this, and she went off like a vulcano, which was her custom, calling the man a nasty dirty ****ing kike and every imaginable Jew-hating word she could think of. The man was shocked and looked in bewilderment at his host, who just shrugged and said that he would have to expect that from his daughter when insulting her black friends.

This reminds me of a story of my very own, approximately ten years later, in 1984 when I was driving taxicabs for a living in L.A. and sharing apartment with a black girl in Koreatown. I may get back to this period, but at this point I'll only focus upon a specific episode. With a wandering Steppenwolf kind of lifestyle I've been having, the various episodes in my life almost feel like different incarnations, different lifetimes; they are very separate and non-related experiences, or trips. At the time in question, I was living with this black girl and driving taxicabs at night, and there was this upper middle class passenger from Mexico City one evening who looked around in disgust as we were passing through a run-down black neighborhood and began an aggressive and unkind tirade against "los negras." They were ruining society, he said, degrading it with their very presence, in every country, including the United States and Mexico. He went on and on and on about how awful those blacks were. Over the years, I had learned to hold back and listen without reacting all the time. Noticing my silence, he finally leaned forward and asked me directly: "Don't you agree?" "Oh sure you have a valid point," I retorted, "But fortunately, my wife is not quite as bad as the rest. She must be an exception to the rule, I guess."

My Mexican passenger was awestruck, and he seemed to want to sink into the ground. "I'm so sorry! I didn't know! I had no idea!" I just kept shrugging and saying that everything was OK, it didn't matter what he had said, because I was used to hearing it from people. He continued to express his profuse embarrassment, and I believe he may have learned a lesson: You never know who you're talking to when you start pouring out things like that to strangers, and even if they're not strangers, you may be making a big mistake - like an acquaintance of mine from Georgia - this was also in L.A. - who used the N word in friendly jest when talking with black people, but when no blacks were around, he would use the N word in a derogatory, racist fashion. I was shocked and hurt by this because I liked the guy a lot but experienced this as a serious illness of his soul - oh shit, is he infected with that nasty virus too? It was because of people like him that I could never bring myself to use the N word even when all my black friends were using it constantly, including my aforementioned girlfriend I was living with for a couple of years.

Anyway, this was the early-to-mid eighties, but I was going to tell you about the lady I was sharing household with a few years earlier in Las Vegas and Phoenix. She was ten years older than me, born and raised in Chicago, was heavily into astrology, doing natal charts for people and all that jazz, and had three Afro kids by different fathers. Our relationship was primarily intellectual, and I learned a great deal about American history and culture from her, and about her generation, people born around 1940, like the Beatles and Bob Dylan and so on, the late beatniks and the early hippies. She had marched with Martin Luther King and written speeches for him, taking a bullet in the jaw in the process and had a scar and dentures to prove it. She didn't tell me much about MLK's libido (which was brought up by someone here on his national holiday), but Bob Kennedy on the other hand ..... well, let's drop it and move on.

To put it bluntly: Those assholes who insist upon persistently throwing filth about racism at anthroposophists don't know who they're talking to - just like that Mexican guy in my taxicab twenty years ago. My present nuclear family in Oslo is also racially mixed.

Tarjei Straume
http://www.uncletaz.com/anthrocritics.html

"The worst readers are those who proceed like plundering soldiers: they pick up a few things they use, soil and confuse the rest, and blaspheme the whole." - Friedrich Nietzsche, Mixed Opinions and Maxims

Continued in the thread "About N words"

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

From: winters_diana
Date: Sun Mar 7, 2004 7:36 pm
Subject: Re: Kabbala Tuesday - now: Judaism is not passe

Tarjei:

Could you explain why spiritual assimilation and integration is more dangerous than secular assimilation and integration?

A fair question, though you have definitely rephrased it (in a way which ought to surely raise Daniel's hackles). I don't even know what "spiritual assimilation" is, if it exists, and since you probably do assign a meaning to this term, we probably can't understand each other. The distinction I meant to draw was between reasons the Jews themselves might have for choosing to assimilate, versus other people telling them they ought to assimilate – the latter seeming particularly dangerous to me when "spiritual" reasons are suggested.

This was one of my quicker, bashed out in about 60 seconds answers, and I"ll probably get raked over the coals for it . . .

Diana

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

From: winters_diana
Date: Sun Mar 7, 2004 8:00 pm
Subject: Re: Kabbala Tuesday - now: Judaism is not passe

I wrote:

remarks about the "marvelous Jewish genepool" are disturbing, Tarjei. So would remarks discouraging race mixing be disturbing.

I am really glad you answered, Tarjei, I was afraid no one was going to. I'm still hopeful that you or others here can see what I'm getting at.

If an anthro says that race-mixing is good, it's disturbing and it makes your skin crawl. If an anthro says race-mixing is bad, it's also disturbing.

It doesn't have to do with whether an anthro says it. And saying "race mixing is good" wouldn't necessarily make my skin crawl – but "race mixing is good" accompanied by a few stereotypes about a particular race or ethnic group, claiming that one or the other of them may have particularly desirable genes – or assurances that you've slept with Jewish women so you must not have anything against Jews- will likely make me shiver. (It's sorta protesting too much. Who cares who you slept with?) This gets to the "overvaluing race" thing (see later) (which, incidentally, is not the same thing as "overvaluing discussions of racism," which is probably not possible).

If the arguments of an anthro are racist or anti-racist, it's disturbing nevertheless and makes your skin crawl. Whenever an anthro utters the word "race," it gives you the creeps. That's why you guys keep urging us to discuss race, race, and nothing but race.

No, you're missing it at this point, though you come closer later. It's not because an anthroposophist says it that it bothers me. Anthroposophists are surely not the only ones with odd racial notions or prone to saying questionable things about race mixing, and I do indeed have the same twitchy reactions to hearing these statements in different places. I admit, it is particularly perversely strange among anthroposophists, because anthroposophists believe their views are all progressive. I expect to hear my somewhat red-neck neighbor down the street say dubious things about blacks, for instance; I don't spend much time arguing with him. What's bizarre is to hear it from people like you and Bradford with whom I share views about, for instance, George Bush and John Ashcroft and the disaster the US has wrought in Iraq and capital punishment and draconian drug wars and the disintegration of civil liberties etc.

I wrote:

The third option is not to be so hung up on peoples' genes and racial characteristics in the first place.

Tarjei (after various expostulations):

By insisting upon focusing exclusively upon the topic that you now admirably denounce as if you've woken up for a moment,

No – check back. I denounced focus on race as a characteristic of a person that is worth being hung up on. I did not denounce discussions of whether race is a characteristic of a person that is worth being hung up on.

I said:

There is no need to cringe at the idea of the races mixing, and there is equally nothing to be gained from encouraging them to mix in order to share their genes, or singing a song of joy if they do mix.

Tarjei:

In other words, you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't.

But you're still missing what I called the third option. Which is to get over thinking that it is of any import spiritually, historically etc., whether people of different races mix. (Well, it is of import historically, but only because of the accompanying attitudes; not because of the actual mixing of the races or the genes themselves.) To go with your "damned if you do and damned if you don't" approach, you could avoid damnation by ceasing to care whether the races mix: not by denouncing it or applauding it. (Which is again, I repeat because it seems such a basic misunderstanding in this discussion, not the same as saying we shouldn't be talking about the topic of whether racial mixing is good.)

I said:

Jews do not have "marvelous" genes, Tarjei, compared to Christians or Buddhists or whoever.

Tarjei:

Of course the reason why the Jews became such an exceptionally gifted people eludes you, because it can hardly be understood by anyone who does not grasp the significance of the Christ Mystery.

You are correct there, I'm afraid; since I don't subscribe to the Christ Mystery, I am not likely to ever share the view that the Jews are an exceptionally gifted people for this reason. And gotta tell you, yes, it does the same skin-crawly thing to me to hear they are "exceptionally gifted." I wait to hear the "but" that is bound to follow from the claim that they are "exceptionally gifted." It's always a set-up for a "but," isn't it? But their mission is over now . . .

When the God of the Spiritual Sun, the emissary of the Elohim, who dwell on the son, incarnated in physical human form, he was a Jew. And that is how the Mystery of the Christ and the Mystery of the Jews are intimately related.

Just a thought that, although Christ's body was that of Jewish person, and this was supposedly of significance, it also set up a situation where, for centuries now, the Jews have been seen (by some) as equally to blame for killing him as for lending their genes to the project. I would have to wonder if, since this is perceived as significant karmically by some Christians, the Jews don't have reason to regret they ever got mixed up in it.

I said:

People are not their genes.

Tarjei:

Now you sound like an anthroposophist :) It's almost precisely what RS used to say. People are not the products of heredity and culture and environment, but of the spiritual world, with each individual carrying the karmic sum of experiences from former lifetimes. which makes each person what he or she is.

The real key is that despite saying we are not the products of heredity culture etc. etc., Steiner nevertheless spiritualized those things, which is what is racist in anthroposophy. Sure, you take a whole bunch of different racial identities on – serially - but that is not the same thing as saying they have no meaning spiritually, in fact just the opposite, you take them on so you can experience their different "meanings" and "tasks."

It's schizoid – it assigns a spiritual meaning to race, and then has to declare the individual free of these meanings in the long term: naturally, since some of them are good and some of them are bad, people need an "out" from being too closely identified with any one of them. (Would there be any other way to reclaim the individual's "freedom" from the restrictions that are considered to be imposed spiritually by race, other than to allow him/her the opportunity to try a whole bunch of them in turn?)

A "spiritual" approach to race, to me, would have to state that race has no meaning spiritually. Not that it can have different meanings to different people in different lifetimes. A nonracist spiritual system would not assign spiritual values or characteristics to people on the basis of race, then give them a way out the back door with karma and reincarnation. It's like saying, "You're Jewish, but I won't hold it against you, `cus you won't be next time."

Now you sound like a social Darwinist who has misunderstood his teacher. If you believe you have the genes of a monkey, I'm not going to argue with that either.

What have you got against monkeys? We do have much in common genetically with various animals and this is really not a huge problem spiritually unless you believe the genes have a spiritual meaning. If they're just genes then so what? What's upsetting about monkey genes? If you decide in advance that they are significant spiritually, then you have a big project on your hands of showing "meanings" for each of them and letting people take turns with these different "meanings," or else laboriously disassociating humans (spiritually) from animals, similarly as the races must be disassociated one from another. Is there an anthroposophic interpretation of the human genome yet? :)

I wrote:

It seems so ironic and sad to me that it is critics of anthroposophy who are considered "materialists," when these notions of the "races" and their "roles" in history are so thoroughly saturated with materialistic ideas - such as the idea that race even matters.

Tarjei:

We are not the ones who say that race is important - you and Peter S are.

Shooting the messenger, Tarjei. Rudolf Steiner is who we're talking about it, he said race was important.

We are only responding.

Yeah, but to us, rather than to the relevant texts of Rudolf Steiner's.

For years, Dan Dugan and his cohorts used to complain that anthroposophists refuse to discuss race. And when we're discussing it, you say it's so sad, because we are allegedly the ones who believe it's so important.

Still a mix-up: it's race that is not important – spiritually – it's not that discussions of attitudes about race are not important. Obviously, since some people still think race is important, discussing it continues to be as well.

I'll skip your accusations that I'm lying, since I think we've long since established that accusing each other of lying is not going to get us anywhere.

Tarjei:

In the past, races have had their functions and their missions, but that's an epoch come and gone. The preservation of old racial forms is counter-productive.

Oh yuck again, sorry I can't always respond more intellectually, getting that twitchy creepy problem again. It is really reprehensible, today, to state that "old racial forms" should not be preserved or are causing somebody some kind of problem. There are no "old racial forms" in the quaint, 19th century sense Steiner clung to.

I said:

People aren't their race, people aren't their genes, this is all nonsense!

Tarjei:

You're talking exactly like Rudolf Steiner,

Steiner did say this stuff, but out of one side of his mouth; out of the other he regaled his audiences with colorful tales of racial destinies.

The fact remains that we have evolved though races and that we still carry remnants of the past.

We have not evolved spiritually through races, Tarjei. If you really want human progress you need to give up that archaic idea. It is not the races that should be remnants of the past, it is this kind of thinking about the races that should be remnants of the past. The existence of varied races on the planet today is not causing anyone, anywhere, any problem. People with stupid beliefs about the supposed differences between the races are causing the problems. My guess is that were Rudolf Steiner around today (or maybe next time he incarnates) he might well reconsider some of this himself. Well, I think he meant just what he said, but knowing Steiner he'd probably rewrite it or claim to have meant things in a different way but was not free at the time to speak blah blah.

Spiritual Science explains why we are what we are and how we have evolved to what we have become.

That is simply the statement of a believer in his creed, and we can't have a productive discussion of it, since you believe it and I don't.

I wrote:

That is precisely what racism is - overvaluing race - whether negatively or positively.

Tarjei:

In that case, the Waldorf Critics are racists. I am always fascinated by new definitions.

No – once again I said race is overvalued not discussion of racism.

I said:

People just aren't their race and no elaborate esoteric melodramas are necessary for this to be so. the way to get past racism is to drop these notions, not try to spiritualize them.

Tarjei:

According to this kind of logic, the way to overcome racism - and who knows what this word means from one day to the next among the WC'ers - is to eliminate all racial differences,

Whew! Look how mixed up you are, where has a Waldorf critic ever suggested we needed to "eliminate all racial differences" – it's Steiner who hopes for that. No – there is not, and will never be, a need to eliminate racial differences. The need is to eliminate racial attitudes.

not only for the present and the future, which I personally recommend, and which Rudolf Steiner recommended, but also for the past.

We can't change the past, but interpretations and understandings of the past change all the time, and it is entirely possible. It is even possible for anthroposophists <G> though much harder if it must be reconciled with the requirement that Steiner not ever have been wrong about anything.

According to this kind of logic, the creators of humanity, the gods, must have been racists.

Gods who would have designed things the way Steiner said they did would definitely have been racist in my view. Fortunately, we don't have to believe Steiner. Lots of people believe in a God or gods who would not have assigned "missions" to different races or given them a particular "epoch" of history to play around in, while meanwhile other bad, interfering spirits screwed around with things so that certain races didn't disappear when they were supposed to, causing conflict. This in fact reifies racial conflict as having a spiritual origin and thus being unavoidable, or at least unavoidable if certain groups or races don't get off the stage when they were karmically scripted to do so. It absolves humans of the need to learn to avoid conflict through looking at their own attitudes. (I think this is the basis of Peter Staudenmaier's saying anthroposophy is racist to the core, it's these weird little racial fables found woven into the explanation of how the world works, how cosmic evolution has occurred. This stuff needs to get tossed out.)

Or to put it monotheistically, God must be a racist, because if he wasn't a racist, he would not have given humanity different physiological characteristics.

You assume God cares about racial characteristics the way you do. Maybe God thought different skin colors were interesting, different hair textures were interesting, different sizes and shapes were interesting, and nice to look at, or that genetic variation gave the species a better chance of surviving and prospering. Maybe he didn't pass out "missions" and "roles" and "tasks" on this basis? Maybe you misunderstood and it just doesn't mean what you think it does? Don't worry, God doesn't have to die if you decide he doesn't hold racial views after all.

He would have made them a grey, homogenous mass. I believe Lenin dreamed of such a mass.

Oh, the homogenous gray mass again. Your homogenous gray mass doesn't bother me much, I wouldn't care personally if people had gray skin (I like gray). Though I don't see why God would have needed to make a gray mass. You figure he made different colors so he could remember who was on what mission?

Diana

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Mar 8, 2004 4:18 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Kabbala Tuesday - now: Judaism is not passe

I wrote:

If an anthro says that race-mixing is good, it's disturbing and it makes your skin crawl. If an anthro says race-mixing is bad, it's also disturbing.

Diana wrote:

It doesn't have to do with whether an anthro says it. And saying "race mixing is good" wouldn't necessarily make my skin crawl – but "race mixing is good" accompanied by a few stereotypes about a particular race or ethnic group, claiming that one or the other of them may have particularly desirable genes – or assurances that you've slept with Jewish women so you must not have anything against Jews- will likely make me shiver.

For the record: I haven't slept around with Jewish women, Diana. I was talking about a girl I almost married. She was my fiancee of sorts, and we visited each others' families in Miami and Oslo. Secondly, mentioning her was not meant as an "assurance" of any kind; it was to illustrate an example of how an allegation of anti-Semitism can pop up from the most absurd situations and even domestically, like when I said "jewelry" and she thought she heard me say "Jewry." That was the point. The other point was how this same girl could burst into a Jew-bashing tirade against her father's buddy when he insulted blacks. (It was an understandable reaction, because she wanted him to feel how blacks felt when he talked that way.)

(It's sorta protesting too much. Who cares who you slept with?)

I don't know why you're trying to focus upon what's been happening under my sheets, Diana. You've been talking to Frank too much lately :)

This gets to the "overvaluing race" thing (see later) (which, incidentally, is not the same thing as "overvaluing discussions of racism," which is probably not possible).

In the case of Jewry, it boils down to overvaluing the Christ and His heritage, doesn't it? You want to dismiss that and at the same time keep pushing the button on racism. Do you want to accuse anthroposophists of showering Jews with too much praise and of being anti-Semitic at the same time?

If the arguments of an anthro are racist or anti-racist, it's disturbing nevertheless and makes your skin crawl. Whenever an anthro utters the word "race," it gives you the creeps. That's why you guys keep urging us to discuss race, race, and nothing but race.

No, you're missing it at this point, though you come closer later. It's not because an anthroposophist says it that it bothers me. Anthroposophists are surely not the only ones with odd racial notions or prone to saying questionable things about race mixing, and I do indeed have the same twitchy reactions to hearing these statements in different places.

Where else have you heard these statements that give you "twitchy reactions"?

I admit, it is particularly perversely strange among anthroposophists, because anthroposophists believe their views are all progressive.

Anthroposophists believe their views are all progressive? No anthroposophist will ever admit having a thought that's not progressive? And everything anthroposophists write on the internet is what they all believe to be progressive thoughts? What kind of stereotyping hogwash is that?

I expect to hear my somewhat red-neck neighbor down the street say dubious things about blacks, for instance; I don't spend much time arguing with him.

And those dubious things rednecks say about blacks remind you of anthroposophists and their all-progressive views?

What's bizarre is to hear it from people like you and Bradford

What do you hear from me and Bradford? Dubious things about blacks that remind you of redneck bigots? See the progression of your thoughts in these posts of yours, Diana. I have seen this from Peter S and others too. You talk about anthroposophists, and then about the KKK or some other racists in the same breath, and then you say you didn't intend to create associations, but you did nevertheless, through your subtext, between the lines.

<snip>

Tarjei (after various expostulations):

By insisting upon focusing exclusively upon the topic that you now admirably denounce as if you've woken up for a moment,

No – check back. I denounced focus on race as a characteristic of a person that is worth being hung up on. I did not denounce discussions of whether race is a characteristic of a person that is worth being hung up on.

Have you noticed that this is never an issue of particular interest among anthroposophists on lists like this one untul one of you guys come along and insists upon discussing it? And when we do respond and express our views, we're accused of being too focused upon it. That's what I call mindgames, Diana. It's also entrapment.

But you're still missing what I called the third option. Which is to get over thinking that it is of any import spiritually, historically etc., whether people of different races mix.

Then stop focusing on it; stop insisting that this is the only thing you guys (you and Peter S) want to discuss. If you ask, you get honest answers. They won't be uniform; people here as elsewhere have a variety of different views, but you'll get honest personal opinions. I don't think anybody believes all their own opinions are "progressive." (Well, I can think of one person, but he's unsubbed at the moment.)

If you don't like the answers, it doesn't help to keep grinding on it, because people are unlikely to be persuaded by you that way.

(Well, it is of import historically, but only because of the accompanying attitudes; not because of the actual mixing of the races or the genes themselves.) To go with your "damned if you do and damned if you don't" approach, you could avoid damnation by ceasing to care whether the races mix: not by denouncing it or applauding it.

I can avoid damnation? What the heck is THAT supposed to mean? I'm supposed to adopt your views and sentiments to avoid damnation? Says who? Jerry Falwell?

From my point of view, racial mix is primarily a question of personal liberty and individual rights. What you're coming with here is unbelievable. I'm supposed to fear your damnation so much that I dare not think freely. Why are you trying to threaten and intimidate people that way?

(Which is again, I repeat because it seems such a basic misunderstanding in this discussion, not the same as saying we shouldn't be talking about the topic of whether racial mixing is good.)

Of course not. This is good fuel for your creativity.

And gotta tell you, yes, it does the same skin-crawly thing to me to hear they are "exceptionally gifted."

In other words, an ethnic group or a race or a nationality must be absolutely equal to all other ethnic groups and races and nationalities in merit and ability to keep your skin from crawling. They might as well look the same too and become Lenin's grey mass.

I wait to hear the "but" that is bound to follow from the claim that they are "exceptionally gifted." It's always a set-up for a "but," isn't it?

I don't use set-ups, with or without "but"s. I don't play mindgames.

But their mission is over now . . .

In the sense that Christ has risen. Maybe they have another mission today, I dunno.

Just a thought that, although Christ's body was that of Jewish person, and this was supposedly of significance, it also set up a situation where, for centuries now, the Jews have been seen (by some) as equally to blame for killing him as for lending their genes to the project. I would have to wonder if, since this is perceived as significant karmically by some Christians, the Jews don't have reason to regret they ever got mixed up in it.

The Jews of today are not inso facto the Jews 2000 years ago. The Pope may have been one of those Jews. Or Putin, or Muhammed Ali, or you and me. Being born as a Jew today doesn't mean you've always been Jewish. The Jews of old Palestine when Christ was crucified are spread all over the planet, not only as Jews but in every other population too. You're talking about gross misconceptions and superstitions and stupidities here. Please spare me.

The real key is that despite saying we are not the products of heredity culture etc. etc., Steiner nevertheless spiritualized those things, which is what is racist in anthroposophy.

Steiner did not spiritualize anything. The spiritual is the cause of everything that exists; it cannot possibly be spiritualized. You don't understand that, so you call it racist. I don't give a damn about that, and I do not fear your perdition or condemnation either.

Sure, you take a whole bunch of different racial identities on – serially - but that is not the same thing as saying they have no meaning spiritually, in fact just the opposite, you take them on so you can experience their different "meanings" and "tasks."

Makes no sense to me.

It's schizoid - it assigns a spiritual meaning to race,

You're assuming that race had no spiritual meaning before someone assigned it. Like I said, God must be racist, because he created races from spirit, assigning spiritual meaning to it all from the beginning.

<snip>

What have you got against monkeys?

Nothing.

We do have much in common genetically with various animals

Of course. All of life has a common origin, and we all have common ancestors. That's beside the point.

and this is really not a huge problem spiritually unless you believe the genes have a spiritual meaning.

Everything has a spiritual meaning because this spiritual meaning existed before anything else:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." - John 1:1-3

How about this:

"In the beginning was Spiritual Meaning, and Spiritual Meaning was with God, and Spiritual Meaning was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." - John 1:1-3

If they're just genes then so what? What's upsetting about monkey genes?

Nothing.

If you decide in advance that they are significant spiritually, then you have a big project on your hands of showing "meanings" for each of them and letting people take turns with these different "meanings," or else laboriously disassociating humans (spiritually) from animals, similarly as the races must be disassociated one from another. Is there an anthroposophic interpretation of the human genome yet? :)

I see. Lenin's grey mass includes monkeys. Fascinating.

Tarjei:

We are not the ones who say that race is important - you and Peter S are.

Shooting the messenger, Tarjei. Rudolf Steiner is who we're talking about it, he said race was important.

He did?

When a person speaks of races today he speaks of something that is no longer quite correct; even in Theosophical handbooks great mistakes are made on this subject. In them it is said that our evolution runs its course in Rounds, that in each Round there are Globes, and in each Globe, Races which develop one after the other - so that we have races in each epoch of the earth's evolution.

But this is not the case. Even in regard to present humanity there is no justification for speaking of a mere development of races. In the true sense of the word we can only speak of race development during the Atlantean epoch. People were so different in external physiognomy throughout the seven periods that one might speak rather of different forms than races. While it is true that the races have arisen through this, it is correct to speak of races in the far back Lemurian epoch; and in our own epoch the idea of race will gradually disappear along with all the differences that are a relic of earlier times. We still speak of races, but all that remains of these today are relics of differences that existed in Atlantean times, and the idea of race has now lost its original meaning. What new idea is to arise in place of the present idea of race?

Humanity will be differentiated in the future even more than in the past; it will be divided into categories, but not in an arbitrary way; from their own spiritual inner capacities men will come to know that they must work together for the whole body corporate.

- "Universe, Earth and Man", Stuttgart, 16th August, 1908, GA 105

http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Lectures/UniEarMan/19080816p01.html

<snip>

We have not evolved spiritually through races, Tarjei.

According to you, we have not evolved spiritually at all, but chemically through monkey genes or something.

Out of patience and on my way to work,

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Mar 8, 2004 4:34 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Kabbala Tuesday - now: Judaism is not passe

Quick note:

Diana, I'm sorry about blowing up the damnation thing and throwing it at you because you wobably only responded to my using the figure of speech "damned if you do and damned if you don't".

However, you are guilty of the same snakey entrapment and defamation technique I have seen from PS and others. You ask our opinions about Jews; we praise Jewry; you say this praise gives you the same creeps you get from hearing rednecks speaking derogatorily about blacks, thus indirectly throwing anthroposophists into the camp of racists who hate Jews and blacks. This is intellectually dishonest and libellous.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: winters_diana
Date: Mon Mar 8, 2004 6:52 am
Subject: Re: Kabbala Tuesday - now: Judaism is not passe

Tarjei:

Do you want to accuse anthroposophists of showering Jews with too much praise and of being anti-Semitic at the same time?

Very possible. Not that I am accusing "anthroposophists" of that per se (so that we can avoid a long pedantic discussion of precisely how or whether I qualified a statement about "anthroposophy") - but this is exactly the danger I am pointing to. It's the overvaluing thing. In the American idiom, flip sides of same coin. Definitely possible to both praise and denigrate with the same attitudes.

Where else have you heard these statements that give you "twitchy reactions"?

Anywhere racist remarks are heard, surely you don't need a list, beside the point.

I can avoid damnation? What the heck is THAT supposed to mean? I'm supposed to adopt your views and sentiments to avoid damnation? Says who? Jerry Falwell?

I think you later saw your mistake here - you introduced the colloquial expression "damned if you do and damned if you don't," I didn't, and I continued to use the expression to carry on your metaphor, with some hesitation that you might take it this way. I don't think you're "damned," Tarjei, I'm sure you realize that.

In other words, an ethnic group or a race or a nationality must be absolutely equal to all other ethnic groups and races and nationalities in merit and ability to keep your skin from crawling.

Newsflash! Ethnic groups, races and nationalities are generally equal in merit and ability. Obviously there are many differences between peoples but these generally are cultural or environmental, aside from minor physical differences which are largely superficial and are (or ought to be) irrelevant in today's world.

They might as well look the same too and become Lenin's grey mass.

Do you have nightmares about this gray mass or something? There is no real reason people would need to look the same because they have similar inborn abilities etc. or if you strip away notions of the spiritual missions of the varying races. I guess the idea of gray skin is upsetting because it seems death-like, presumably this is where you go with this gray mass idea of yours.

(the Jews:)

In the sense that Christ has risen. Maybe they have another mission today, I dunno.

Sheesh. Maybe you could ask a couple of Jews what they think their mission today is, now that Christ has risen. On second thought, please don't.

Steiner did not spiritualize anything. The spiritual is the cause of everything that exists; it cannot possibly be spiritualized.

That is the crux of our disagreement. What I hear here is that the way Steiner explained it is the way you believe it, and I just don't. I don't read Steiner's lists of spiritual causes of everything that exists, and accept them or see profound insight in them. You may say this is because I have not done the work. You could be right, that I have not done the work at least not correctly per Steiner, but I'm just pointing out that this is the basis of the disagreement. When I read in Steiner that this race or that was given a certain mission, I don't believe it. I don't see any reason to believe it and I see much potential harm in these ideas.

I don't give a damn about that, and I do not fear your perdition or condemnation either.

I'm sorry you thought I was damning you, certainly not.

I wrote:

Sure, you take a whole bunch of different racial identities on – serially - but that is not the same thing as saying they have no meaning spiritually, in fact just the opposite, you take them on so you can experience their different "meanings" and "tasks."

Tarjei:

Makes no sense to me.

Darn. This is about as far as I usually get discussing this with an anthroposophist.

You're assuming that race had no spiritual meaning before someone assigned it.

Exactly!! Hey presto! Perhaps this is as far as we will get with this. We can understand each other's assumptions, at least, and how they differ.

You put your finger on it: I assume that race had no spiritual meaning before someone assigned it.

Like I said, God must be racist, because he created races from spirit,

A god who would assign racial "meanings" and "tasks" would be racist, yes, but I don't believe in that god, and lots of other people don't either. Do you recognize, Tarjei, that lots of people believe in various gods and various forms of spirituality, see spiritual causes and meanings in many things, and also reject the idea that a god or gods assigned meanings to racial characteristics, or gave roles to different races?

Everything has a spiritual meaning because this spiritual meaning existed before anything else:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." - John 1:1-3

That is your statement of faith, and since I don't share it, we don't wind up at the same certainty that the racial meanings this god supposedly made, are genuine.

Steiner:

When a person speaks of races today he speaks of something that is no longer quite correct;

No quote wars please; we've been round and round many times on the question of whether the antiracist statements cancel out the racist statements, or vice versa; neither is true in my view.

According to you, we have not evolved spiritually at all, but chemically through monkey genes or something.

I don't say we haven't evolved spiritually; I do say that if we have evolved spiritually, we haven't done so in parallel with racial evolution. (And we could very well evolve spiritually even if we've got monkey genes; still don't see why the monkey genes upset you from a spiritual point of view.) I also repeat that I think assigning spiritual meanings to genes and racial characteristics is actually materialistic thinking, anthroposophists have got that exactly backwards.

Diana

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Mon Mar 8, 2004 7:14 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Kabbala Tuesday - now: Judaism is not passe

Diana:

Sheesh. Maybe you could ask a couple of Jews what they think their mission today is, now that Christ has risen. On second thought, please don't.

Hi Diana,

It's really interesting reading your posts on this subject. It's like one can't even discuss things and if they do they better walk a fine line or be charged with racism from you or Peter. Best not to have an opinion one way or the other in your understanding it seems. Anthroposophists are thinkers by nature it seems and it would go against the grain not to dwell into a thing.

And it would be great to ask a 'couple of jews' this question because they are way down with debating without throwing in your face that you are a racist for asking or even thinking of the question itself.

Dottie

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

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Mon Mar 8, 2004 8:31 am
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Kabbala Tuesday - now: Judaism is not passe

Diana:

Sheesh. Maybe you could ask a couple of Jews what they think

Good! Why don't you ask Mr. Jesaiah Ben Aharon about it ? He is a Jew of birth, Israelian citizen and deeply involved in his homeland's everyday life. You can contact him at www.civilsociety.co.il

A.

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

From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Mon Mar 8, 2004 8:52 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Kabbala Tuesday - now: Judaism is not passe

[Tarjei:]

I don't know why you're trying to focus upon what's been happening under my sheets, Diana. You've been talking to Frank too much lately :)

Actually, Tarjei, she's been doing most of the talking. Ever since you told that story about your Jewish girlfriend, she's been pestering me about what Jewish women have (in the sack) that she doesn't. I tell her to forget about race and religion, shut up and get on with it. When this affair started, btw, I didn't know that she was over 40 or I would have taken a raincheck and waited for the next rootrace.

Frank

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

From: winters_diana"
Date: Mon Mar 8, 2004 10:08 am
Subject: Re: Kabbala Tuesday - now: Judaism is not passe

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Frank Thomas Smith

I don't know why you're trying to focus upon what's been

When this affair started, btw, I didn't know that she was over 40 or I would have taken a raincheck and waited for the next rootrace.

Frank

Hey Frank: don't wait for me in the next rootrace.

that's too soon, think in terms of Steiner's long cycles of planetary evolution, then again, you'll always be a lot older than me.

Diana

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 2:07 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Kabbala Tuesday - now: Judaism is not passe

At 15:52 08.03.2004, Diana wrote:

Tarjei:

Do you want to accuse anthroposophists of showering Jews with too much praise and of being anti-Semitic at the same time?

Very possible. Not that I am accusing "anthroposophists" of that per se (so that we can avoid a long pedantic discussion of precisely how or whether I qualified a statement about "anthroposophy") - but this is exactly the danger I am pointing to. It's the overvaluing thing. In the American idiom, flip sides of same coin. Definitely possible to both praise and denigrate with the same attitudes.

Do you think we're denigrating Jews by praising them?

Where else have you heard these statements that give you "twitchy reactions"?

Anywhere racist remarks are heard, surely you don't need a list, beside the point.

In other words, when an anthroposophist praises Jewry, it's a racist remark that reminds you of redneck bigots talking ugly about blacks?

<snip>

In other words, an ethnic group or a race or a nationality must be absolutely equal to all other ethnic groups and races and nationalities in merit and ability to keep your skin from crawling.

Newsflash! Ethnic groups, races and nationalities are generally equal in merit and ability.

What do you mean by the qualifying adverb "generally" in the above sentence? The Apaches and the Soux were excellent warriors and hunters; the Navajo were better at handiwork. Or could they easily have switched activities?

Obviously there are many differences between peoples but these generally are cultural or environmental, aside from minor physical differences which are largely superficial and are (or ought to be) irrelevant in today's world.

Rudolf Steiner did indeed say that racial differences are irrelevant in today's world, but you do not like to see him quoted on that point, do you?

They might as well look the same too and become Lenin's grey mass.

Do you have nightmares about this gray mass or something?

Absolutely. Mass conformity, for instance, is a nightmare. Individuality is quenched. Did you ever read "The Sane Society" and "Fear of Freedom" by Erich Fromm?

There is no real reason people would need to look the same because they have similar inborn abilities etc. or if you strip away notions of the spiritual missions of the varying races.

In that case, you might as well strip away notions of the spiritual missions for individuals as well, and for animals and plants and planets and stars, angels and gods.

I guess the idea of gray skin is upsetting because it seems death-like, presumably this is where you go with this gray mass idea of yours.

The idea is not mine. And you repeat the same dance over and over and over, and then you forget and ask us to danse with you over and over again the same old stupid boring beat. Check this out:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/984

Diana:

To state that humanity has evolved through races, Tarjei, is racist.

Tarjei:

Nominated to Waldorf Critic Quote of the YEAR - of 2003! We have twelve months to find an equal for 2004.

After another long tirade about why you believe the above, I am reminded of a science fiction movie about that guy whose dreams always became true, so he was exploited for this reason. It was a white guy with a black girlfriend, and in one of his dreams the authorities had decided to eliminate racism by obliterating differences of complexion, so the guy wakes up and sees his girlfriend's body is all gray, and his own body is all gray, and he looks out the window and sees only gray faces in the street.

Welcome to the ideal world of Diana and PLANS.

<snip>

Steiner did not spiritualize anything. The spiritual is the cause of everything that exists; it cannot possibly be spiritualized.

That is the crux of our disagreement. What I hear here is that the way Steiner explained it is the way you believe it, and I just don't. I don't read Steiner's lists of spiritual causes of everything that exists, and accept them or see profound insight in them.

In that case, why do you keep saying that you're so terribly interested in studying Anthroposophy and understanding it?

You may say this is because I have not done the work.

Frankly, I don't know what 'doing the work' entails in this case. It's a simple question of comprehension.

You could be right, that I have not done the work at least not correctly per Steiner,

Neither have I.

but I'm just pointing out that this is the basis of the disagreement.

Baloney.

When I read in Steiner that this race or that was given a certain mission, I don't believe it. I don't see any reason to believe it and I see much potential harm in these ideas.

You may prefer to believe that the universe is the result of a random explosion and that human consciousness just happens to be here as the result of an illusion created by a certain spot in the brain - an opinion held by a brain surgeon in San Diego according to a leading article in Time Magazine or Newsweek some years ago. You may also see all the potential harm in spiritual ideas that your heart desires. But when you lump such spiritual concepts together with extremist racist groups and redneck bigotry, you're cheating.

<snip>

Diana:

Sure, you take a whole bunch of different racial identities on – serially - but that is not the same thing as saying they have no meaning spiritually, in fact just the opposite, you take them on so you can experience their different "meanings" and "tasks."

Tarjei:

Makes no sense to me.

Diana:

Darn. This is about as far as I usually get discussing this with an anthroposophist.

That doesn't surprise me, judging from the combination of racist-baiting fraught with all kinds of harm and danger with the KKK lurking in the background, and your bungled-up sentences like the one above.

You're assuming that race had no spiritual meaning before someone assigned it.

Exactly!! Hey presto! Perhaps this is as far as we will get with this. We can understand each other's assumptions, at least, and how they differ.

You put your finger on it: I assume that race had no spiritual meaning before someone assigned it.

And whoever assigned it was no god, but some kind of weird wacko anthro racist with harmful and dangerous ideas?

Like I said, God must be racist, because he created races from spirit,

A god who would assign racial "meanings" and "tasks" would be racist, yes, but I don't believe in that god, and lots of other people don't either.

So God created races, but they were completely meaningless and stupid then. They had no purpose. They were just spices in Carl Sagan's cosmic soup that we could have done better without.

Do you recognize, Tarjei, that lots of people believe in various gods and various forms of spirituality, see spiritual causes and meanings in many things, and also reject the idea that a god or gods assigned meanings to racial characteristics, or gave roles to different races?

Everything has meaning, everything has a purpose, except human races, which are meaningless and absurd. I'm getting the picture.

<snip>

Steiner:

When a person speaks of races today he speaks of something that is no longer quite correct;

No quote wars please; we've been round and round many times on the question of whether the antiracist statements cancel out the racist statements, or vice versa; neither is true in my view.

You're talking about going round and round, Diana? And you refuse to look at an RS excerpt that should clear up the whole thing, because you enjoy your tedious dance too much to ruin the fun? You're afraid that this lecture by RS would put to shame your associations with redneck bigots?

According to you, we have not evolved spiritually at all, but chemically through monkey genes or something.

I don't say we haven't evolved spiritually; I do say that if we have evolved spiritually, we haven't done so in parallel with racial evolution.

In other words, races have not evolved at all. They're at a standstill at the monkey stage or something.

(And we could very well evolve spiritually even if we've got monkey genes; still don't see why the monkey genes upset you from a spiritual point of view.)

Who said monkey genes upset me? (Quote please.)

I also repeat that I think assigning spiritual meanings to genes and racial characteristics is actually materialistic thinking, anthroposophists have got that exactly backwards.

Is it materialistic thinking to assign spiritual meanings to stones?

"And some of the Pharisees from among the multitude said unto him, Master, rebuke thy disciples. And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out." - Luke 19:39-40

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: winters_diana
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 6:55 am
Subject: Re: Kabbala Tuesday - now: Judaism is not passe

Tarjei:

Do you think we're denigrating Jews by praising them?

<sigh> The third option, the third option! Try it this way: denigrating them or praising them as Jews is pointless, and prejudiced. As individuals, you can praise or denigrate anybody you like and it will have nothing to do with racism or anti-Semitism, but when you ascribe either positive or negative characteristics to them as Jews it's prejudice. Consider this (she said, talking endlessly to the wind): It's simply inaccurate. You are mistaken that they have "marvelous genes," you are mistaken that they have this or that quality or inborn talent as Jews. Honest to God, do you really believe it?

You:

Where else have you heard these statements that give you "twitchy reactions"?

Me:

Anywhere racist remarks are heard, surely you don't need a list, beside the point.

You:

In other words, when an anthroposophist praises Jewry, it's a racist remark that reminds you of redneck bigots talking ugly about blacks?

Where is Daniel? Tarjei, whenever you think you are repeating what I have just said, you have usually said something amazingly different. You actually bait me. You asked me where else have I heard racist statements, and though I couldn't see why it was relevant, I responded in a general fashion that of course one hears racist remarks in various places. You then insist I have said that anthroposophists "remind me" of redneck bigots talking ugly about blacks!! Come on now Tarjei. You practically demanded that I say that anthroposophists remind me of redneck bigots, when if you actually were to recreate this thread (maybe Daniel will jump in and help by repasting mountains of dialogue for us?), what I actually originally said set up a contrast between anthroposophists (whom I think do generally hold progressive views, though the latest stuff Bradford reprinted from a right-wing, anti-gay, anti-abortion, pro-death penalty, pro-prayer in school, anti-immigration, question global warming and bash environmentalists and feminists and "earth-based spirituality" paper made me rethink that) and those you called "rednecks."

What do you mean by the qualifying adverb "generally" in the above sentence? The Apaches and the Soux were excellent warriors and hunters; the Navajo were better at handiwork. Or could they easily have switched activities?

Couldn't tell you. It would be very hard to tease out what was inborn physical characteristics (which seem likely if we are talking about hunting and fighting), versus cultural and environmental. But what is the point?

Rudolf Steiner did indeed say that racial differences are irrelevant in today's world, but you do not like to see him quoted on that point, do you?

Why do you think I don't like to see him quoted on anything? Quote away; just don't expect the old discussion of "well he said this nice thing about Jews here," to convince critics that this cancels out his racial doctrines.

Do you have nightmares about this gray mass or something?

Absolutely. Mass conformity, for instance, is a nightmare. Individuality is quenched. Did you ever read "The Sane Society" and "Fear of Freedom" by Erich Fromm?

Actually, yes, many years ago. Tarjei, may I gently point out that making the mass gray is simply a metaphor, a pictorial device, a way of illustrating externally what would be (in your nightmare scenario of mass conformity) an internal situation, and not reflected in our physical features? The point was if we all have equal merit and abilities etc., why would we have to turn gray? In fact reality is we do all have equal merit and abilities (or rather, these things vary individually, and not by race), but we aren't all gray, so honestly, relax, we aren't going to turn gray.

Incidentally, "conformity" refers to behavior, which hopefully an individual has some control over, and not to inborn abilities or merit.

Me:

There is no real reason people would need to look the same because they have similar inborn abilities etc. or if you strip away notions of the spiritual missions of the varying races.

You:

In that case, you might as well strip away notions of the spiritual missions for individuals as well, and for animals and plants and planets and stars, angels and gods.

Why? Why might I "as well" strip away all other spiritual notions, if I strip it away from race? If you could, somehow, just theoretically, be convinced by me or convinced in some way by somebody, that the race you were born into is, after all, try to get over the shock, irrelevant. What would you do? Would you feel you no longer had a purpose in living? Don't you have something else to do? Don't you have some other, personal mission? in life Or just enough in common with your fellow humanity to somehow stagger on through daily life?

I am reminded of a science fiction movie about that guy whose dreams always became true, so he was exploited for this reason.

Lathe of Heaven? Didn't this list discuss this recently? (Or maybe I'm confused becuz my son's reading Ursula LeGuin.)

It was a white guy with a black girlfriend, and in one of his dreams the authorities had decided to eliminate racism by obliterating differences of complexion, so the guy wakes up and sees his girlfriend's body is all gray, and his own body is all gray, and he looks out the window and sees only gray faces in the street.

I've got that somewhere, I'll have to check it out. It's a metaphor, Tarjei. If the authorities decided to eliminate racism by eliminating differences of complexion, isn't that actually what Steiner said will eventually happen? Sounds to me like their culture adopted a spiritual program akin to anthroposophy . . .

In that case, why do you keep saying that you're so terribly interested in studying Anthroposophy and understanding it?

See my other posts this morning!

You may prefer to believe that the universe is the result of a random explosion

Did I say that? Daniel, Daniel!! Where are you. Need you here to enforce accurate thread reconstruction. I said I don't believe it when Steiner says this or that race is on a given mission.

and that human consciousness just happens to be here as the result of an illusion created by a certain spot in the brain

Er, hang on, what did I say now about the origin of human consciousness and spots in the brain?

That doesn't surprise me, judging from the combination of racist-baiting fraught with all kinds of harm and danger with the KKK lurking in the background, and your bungled-up sentences like the one above.

I did notice my sentence was muck, I'll try to figure out how to restate this. I'm aware no anthroposophist yet has ever had the slightest idea what I mean by that and I need to work on this. :)

Me:

I assume that race had no spiritual meaning before someone assigned it.

You:

And whoever assigned it was no god, but some kind of weird wacko anthro racist with harmful and dangerous ideas?

Probably just an ordinary person trying to make sense of things. Humans have come up with plenty of wacky ideas over the eons.

So God created races, but they were completely meaningless and stupid then.

Hold on, why did anything become meaningless and stupid when races were no longer "meaningful" in your treasured spiritual sense? My life is far from meaningless and stupid and I don't believe for a millisecond that I'm pursuing a "mission" connected to the white skin that I have during this "incarnation."

They had no purpose. They were just spices in Carl Sagan's cosmic soup that we could have done better without.

Maybe so, or maybe they have a purpose, I dunno. I see a lot more harm than good, so far, having come from any idea humans have yet come up with about the "purpose" of races. Ignoring the irrelevant tends to help people get along better, as does ignoring superficial differences like the color of our skin. Fantasizing and mythologizing about the origins of these differences tends to start fights.

Everything has meaning, everything has a purpose, except human races, which are meaningless and absurd. I'm getting the picture.

Why do we have to choose between "meaningless and absurd" and "on a spiritual mission from God" (or some friggin' archangel)? I don't relate to my friends or family this way, or my cat or dog, or the trees and the rocks, etc., classifying them by spiritual mission. Quit worrying about other peoples' spiritual missions or lack thereof.

You're talking about going round and round, Diana? And you refuse to look at an RS excerpt that should clear up the whole thing,

It doesn't clear up the whole thing, but quote away if you want to.

In other words, races have not evolved at all. They're at a standstill at the monkey stage or something.

What if they were? You gonna give up on life in despair if the "races" haven't evolved the way your pet theories say? I don't feel at a standstill, at all, regardless of whether you think I'm a monkey :)

Is it materialistic thinking to assign spiritual meanings to stones?

Probably :) Poor stones. Shees, even the stones gotta have a meaning? (Now you have that Jesus Christ Superstar song going through my head, where the rocks and stones themselves would start to sing: Hosanna, hey-sanna)

Diana

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

From: holderlin66
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 7:45 am
Subject: Re: Kabbala Tuesday - now: Judaism is not passe

winters_diana wrote:

Tarjei

Absolutely. Mass conformity, for instance, is a nightmare. Individuality is quenched. Did you ever read "The Sane Society" and "Fear of Freedom" by Erich Fromm?

Mrs. Winter

Actually, yes, many years ago. Tarjei, may I gently point out that making the mass gray is simply a metaphor, a pictorial device, a way of illustrating externally what would be (in your nightmare scenario of mass conformity) an internal situation, and not reflected in our physical features? The point was if we all have equal merit and abilities etc., why would we have to turn gray? In fact reality is we do all have equal merit and abilities (or rather, these things vary individually, and not by race), but we aren't all gray, so honestly, relax, we aren't going to turn gray.

Incidentally, "conformity" refers to behavior, which hopefully an individual has some control over, and not to inborn abilities or merit.

Bradford Session 113 room 322:

"Based on the novel by Michael Ende (author of The Neverending Story), the play follows Momo, a mysterious little girl who lives by herself in the ruins of an amphitheater on the outskirts a city. Momo has the power to hear into people's hearts. One day, the ominous Men in Grey appear, convincing people to save time for an undefinable "better" future by cutting corners in their lives. As they begin to hoard time, one by one, her friends disappear, leaving Momo – with the help of a magic tortoise and the Source of Time itself – to battle the Men in Grey and their evil plan to steal all the time in the world."

Hi, my name is Bradford. (hi Bradford!) I have also seen grey men in hats go up to alarm clocks and drain them. I've seen them, climb church steeples in the middle of the night, and just like a gas pump, syphon out TIME. I've seen them slide into cars and attempt to drink digital time, but they don't swallow. It was unnerving. It was like watching the sex of spiders.

I've seen these grey men, walk like a shadow by someone who is walking down a crowded city street, and with slurping sounds, drink from wrist watches, neck chain clocks. Rolex's. (crowd mumbles) You've all seen them, the pimps with their gold chains and Rolex's in their pimp mobiles..sometimes a dozen, sometimes 10, doing terrible, terrible things to distract them and while they are distracted, sucking dry a complete Rolex. Times UP! And I watched them in South Central get capped. Times Up!

I have learned, as you have learned, that these grey figures are armies of the dead working to retard humanity. They shorten the life span, bring sickness and death, the occasional flat tire and appear in the sky as a swarm and we call this swarm, SMOG! (crowd mumbles like British Parliment). That is when they descend into the Lungs and take Time from Hearts, from human hearts. We have all seen it. Why is the country still in denial. Why does the world refuse to understand Time Spirits.

Can't they understand how the ARCHAI MICHAEL, the living pulse of Time is being attacked daily? (Parlimentary murmur). You all know that Michael is no longer merely an Archangel. He isn't just hovering around France..He is on the Clock, he is in the Clock, in fact Michael is our very lives. I am afraid to go out, afraid these grey men will swoop down out of the smog, or leap off someones Rolex and drain my heart.

The MoMo Society, like the Ellen James Society of Garp-

(A group of followers for the Ellen James Society who cut off their own tongues to protest the rape of Ellen James, a man who chose to become a woman, and Jenny Fields silent leadership as the head of the feminist movement in America. After Garp and his wife reconcile, he begins to write again, but not fiction but about how wrong the Ellen James society is. When Jenny goes to run for office, another death occurs at the hand of language, but this time it is an assassination during her speech. Not allowed to his mother's funeral, Garp dresses as a woman to attend but is uncovered. Ellen James herself helps him to escape. As Garp moves back to his hometown to become a wrestling coach, his past writings catch up with him. A follower of the Ellen James Society comes in and shoots Garp five times in the chest.)

The MoMo Society doesn't believe in wearing watches. The only pulse we care to hear is this one..(pulls out and shows Stethoscope and everyone seated in hall raises their own stethoscopes). We don't want no TIN MEN! (crowd yells) I walk up to people and I say, "Are you alive?" and I take THIS out and I listen. I listen! I brush away and terrify, We terrify any grey men near peoples hearts.

And they think we are crazy. They think we're a Cult. They've called us by every name in the book, Time huggers- Wafting in the Timeless-Time's pit bulls- Space Time condom heads. But these labels are the same labels they used for the Christians in the catacombs under Rome. Where is Rome today?

(Crowd Cheers He goes to his seat)

Hi my name is Diana...

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 11:32 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Kabbala Tuesday - now: Judaism is not passe

At 04:36 08.03.2004, Diana wrote:

Tarjei:

Could you explain why spiritual assimilation and integration is more dangerous than secular assimilation and integration?

A fair question, though you have definitely rephrased it (in a way which ought to surely raise Daniel's hackles). I don't even know what "spiritual assimilation" is, if it exists, and since you probably do assign a meaning to this term, we probably can't understand each other.

You're the one who introduced the concept by writing: "And once you mix in "spiritual" reasons they should be assimilating, you are wandering into very dangerous territory." Recognition of the fact that everything is spiritual because the spiritual is the origin of all that exists, is something you have chosen to call "mixing in spiritual reasons", as if the spiritual is a spice that some cook has added to the ingedients in Carl Sagan's primordial cosmic soup. So I understand you're confused when trying to grapple with caricatures of spiritual concepts you don't believe in.

The distinction I meant to draw was between reasons the Jews themselves might have for choosing to assimilate, versus other people telling them they ought to assimilate – the latter seeming particularly dangerous to me when "spiritual" reasons are suggested.

I've never told anyone what to do with their personal lives - and choice of mating partner is very personal - and I never will. But if anyone was facing a hard choice in this matter and asked for my advice, I would say go for it. And if the person was deeply spiritual and troubled thereby, I might add - uh, "mix in" - some spiritual considerations. If you think that's dangerous, so be it. But that's no reason to start talking crap about redneck bigots in the same breath.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:33 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Kabbala Tuesday - now: Judaism is not passe

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Frank Thomas Smith

I don't know why you're trying to focus upon what's been

When this affair started, btw, I didn't know that she was over 40 or I would have taken a raincheck and waited for the next rootrace.

Frank

Hey Frank: don't wait for me in the next rootrace.

that's too soon, think in terms of Steiner's long cycles of planetary evolution, then again, you'll always be a lot older than me.

Diana

On the contrary, not soon enough. How about meeting during our next incarnations, when you will be male and I female - and when I wouldn't be at all surprised if I prefer younger men.

Frank

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

From: winters_diana
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 11:09 am
Subject: Re: Kabbala Tuesday - now: Judaism is not passe

Frank:

On the contrary, not soon enough. How about meeting during our next incarnations, when you will be male and I female - and when I wouldn't be at all surprised if I prefer younger men.

But we do not always alternate genders, according to Steiner, right? I said you would always be older than me, but actually, that is not correct either, as sometimes the parent is the child next time around and vice versa, n'est-ce pas? And, if I recall correctly, he said we meet people in the middle of our lives that we have known in the previous incarnation early in life.

Diana

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Thu Mar 11, 2004 2:54 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Kabbala Tuesday - now: Judaism is not passe

At 15:55 09.03.2004, Diana wrote:

Try it this way: denigrating them or praising them as Jews is pointless, and prejudiced. As individuals, you can praise or denigrate anybody you like and it will have nothing to do with racism or anti-Semitism, but when you ascribe either positive or negative characteristics to them as Jews it's prejudice.

In other words, if you say that the Swiss are exceptionally good at watch-making, or that the Chinese have a special knack for the art of healing, it's immoral to say so.

Consider this (she said, talking endlessly to the wind): It's simply inaccurate. You are mistaken that they have "marvelous genes,"

How do you know that this is not true? Or at least, a partial truth? During the course of the centuries, the genes have become mixed through integration, and although the descendants of Russian-Jewish emigrants have had a tremendous impact on the West through music (Dylan, Berlin, Gershwin) Dylan himself has pointed out that who knows how many Jewish girls in Russia slept with Cossacks now and then, so he doesn't really know how Jewish he is.

you are mistaken that they have this or that quality or inborn talent as Jews. Honest to God, do you really believe it?

Only to a certain extent. Within limits. The powers of heredity are on the wane. I see no particular reason to disbelieve it, but you seem to feel morally obliged to disbelieve it for some ideological reason.

You actually bait me. You asked me where else have I heard racist statements, and though I couldn't see why it was relevant, I responded in a general fashion that of course one hears racist remarks in various places. You then insist I have said that anthroposophists "remind me" of redneck bigots talking ugly about blacks!! Come on now Tarjei.

I did not bait you, Diana. I asked you to elaborate about your train of thought and associations. You were talking about anthroposophy containing racist statements that reminded you of other racist statements, and I asked you to elaborate, which plunged you right into talk about redneck racist bigotry. This says a lot about your bigotry against anthroposophy.

You practically demanded that I say that anthroposophists remind me of redneck bigots, when if you actually were to recreate this thread (maybe Daniel will jump in and help by repasting mountains of dialogue for us?), what I actually originally said set up a contrast between anthroposophists (whom I think do generally hold progressive views, though the latest stuff Bradford reprinted from a right-wing, anti-gay, anti-abortion, pro-death penalty, pro-prayer in school, anti-immigration, question global warming and bash environmentalists and feminists and "earth-based spirituality" paper made me rethink that) and those you called "rednecks."

Sorry about your confusion. Try Nietzsche.

It would be very hard to tease out what was inborn physical characteristics (which seem likely if we are talking about hunting and fighting), versus cultural and environmental. But what is the point?

The point is that you cannot deny categorically that some characteristics and abilities have been related to heredity, especially in the past when humanity lived in group-souls, and you cannot know for sure that no vestiges of such inherited characteristics still survive.

Why do you think I don't like to see him quoted on anything? Quote away; just don't expect the old discussion of "well he said this nice thing about Jews here," to convince critics that this cancels out his racial doctrines.

How many times do I have to repeat that I have no ambition whatsoever to convince so-called "critics" of anything? The reason why you don't like the quotes in question is that they are harmful to your crusade against Anthroposophy.

Tarjei, may I gently point out that making the mass gray is simply a metaphor, a pictorial device, a way of illustrating externally what would be (in your nightmare scenario of mass conformity) an internal situation, and not reflected in our physical features? The point was if we all have equal merit and abilities etc., why would we have to turn gray? In fact reality is we do all have equal merit and abilities (or rather, these things vary individually, and not by race), but we aren't all gray, so honestly, relax, we aren't going to turn gray.

In the science fiction movie I mentioned, people's complexions were literally made grey by the government in order to erase racial differences. The grey mass is the opposite of the rainbow.

Incidentally, "conformity" refers to behavior, which hopefully an individual has some control over, and not to inborn abilities or merit.

Conformity can evolve into 'obedient genes'. Perhaps governments are working on it.

Why? Why might I "as well" strip away all other spiritual notions, if I strip it away from race?

If race is something that exists and is a part of human existence, it's as spiritual as anything else in the universe. If you deny the Spirit in a grain of sand on the beach, you deny Neptune and all his oceans and beaches. So if you are going to deny the spirituality of races, you must also deny the very existence of races, past or present.

If you could, somehow, just theoretically, be convinced by me or convinced in some way by somebody, that the race you were born into is, after all, try to get over the shock, irrelevant. What would you do? Would you feel you no longer had a purpose in living?

I believe all races have become irrelevant, including my own. Racial identity has never given me a purpose of living, and I don't give a damn about it. At the same time, I recognize that some of my characteristics are inherited and thereby connected to something racial.

Don't you have something else to do? Don't you have some other, personal mission? in life Or just enough in common with your fellow humanity to somehow stagger on through daily life?

Now you're talking to me as if I were a racist or someone who identifies with his race. I have never done that, so you're barking up the wrong tree, but once again, you're exposing your bigotry and confusion.

If the authorities decided to eliminate racism by eliminating differences of complexion, isn't that actually what Steiner said will eventually happen?

Huh?

Sounds to me like their culture adopted a spiritual program akin to anthroposophy . . .

You've lost me.

You may prefer to believe that the universe is the result of a random explosion

Did I say that? Daniel, Daniel!! Where are you. Need you here to enforce accurate thread reconstruction. I said I don't believe it when Steiner says this or that race is on a given mission.

I said you may prefer to believe in a random explosion if you want. I didn't say you did, or that you said you believed that.

and that human consciousness just happens to be here as the result of an illusion created by a certain spot in the brain

Er, hang on, what did I say now about the origin of human consciousness and spots in the brain?

Nothing. That's why I gave you a suggestion that may or may not suit you. What do you believe?

So God created races, but they were completely meaningless and stupid then.

Hold on, why did anything become meaningless and stupid when races were no longer "meaningful" in your treasured spiritual sense?

Races are no longer meaningful. That's not what's meaningless and stupid. But if, as you say, the very existence of races never had any significance even when they came into existence, our creators must have done something meaningless and stupid.

My life is far from meaningless and stupid and I don't believe for a millisecond that I'm pursuing a "mission" connected to the white skin that I have during this "incarnation."

Neither do I, but for some weird, bigoted, confused reason you seem to think so.

They had no purpose. They were just spices in Carl Sagan's cosmic soup that we could have done better without.

Maybe so, or maybe they have a purpose, I dunno.

You dunno? What happened to your absolute certainty?

I see a lot more harm than good, so far, having come from any idea humans have yet come up with about the "purpose" of races.

The issue here is not purposes thought out by man, but by the gods, the creators. When a sculptor makes a statue, he has a purpose with it. What people say about the statue may have nothing to do with it.

Ignoring the irrelevant tends to help people get along better, as does ignoring superficial differences like the color of our skin. Fantasizing and mythologizing about the origins of these differences tends to start fights.

So in order to avoid fights, we should pretend that such differences have never existed and declare that they have no origin?

Everything has meaning, everything has a purpose, except human races, which are meaningless and absurd. I'm getting the picture.

Why do we have to choose between "meaningless and absurd" and "on a spiritual mission from God" (or some friggin' archangel)? I don't relate to my friends or family this way, or my cat or dog, or the trees and the rocks, etc., classifying them by spiritual mission.

Perhaps you should try, just for one day :)

Quit worrying about other peoples' spiritual missions or lack thereof.

I don't worry about it, but I do believe that all of existence, including every individual and every group of individuals, has a spiritual mission of one kind or another. I know that freaks you out, but I don't think your crusade against it helps very much.

You gonna give up on life in despair if the "races" haven't evolved the way your pet theories say?

The races you're talking about have already evolved far beyond the epoch when they were significant (Atlantis). Again, you're revealing bigotry by ascribing to me racist sentiments.

Poor stones. Shees, even the stones gotta have a meaning?

Yes. Everything is alive. Absolutely everything. Dead matter is only an illusion, maya. Reality consiste of living beings in different stages of consciousness. The stones and the rest of the mineral kingdom live in deep trance. We ourselves lived in deep trance during the Saturn evolution.

(Now you have that Jesus Christ Superstar song going through my head, where the rocks and stones themselves would start to sing: Hosanna, hey-sanna)

That's a good start. Keep singing :)

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

About N words

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow  

February/March 2004

The Uncle Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files

Anthroposophy & Anarchism

Anthroposophy & Scientology

Anthroposophical Morsels

Anthroposophy, Critics, and Controversy

Search this site powered by FreeFind