Terms and Their Meanings

 

From: at
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 10:35 am
Subject: Terms and their meanings

This does bring up the interesting question of whether, when two people use the same terminology, they necessarily mean the same thing. Especially in the area of spiritual beliefs, and involving authors whose work is prolific, it may actually be that they refer to different concepts under the same name. That this is in principle possible is evident in the fact that numerous and very different conceptions exist under the name "God" and with this example, it should be very evident that "God" will have a very different meaning in different religious texts, even among such a narrow spectrum as protestant theologians, despite the fact that the same word is used. I would like to suggest that words like "Lemurian" will have very different meanings to different authors, and the simple occurrence of the term in a text is not sufficient to establish a similarity of outlook, either in the narrower area of that concept alone, or in the broader area of over all outlook.

Daniel Hindes

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 2:38 PM
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Hi Andrea,

my apologies for mixing up your gender. You wrote:

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

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

Peter Staudenmaier

Continued in the thread "Atheism"

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

From: winters_diana
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 10:45 am
Subject: Re: Terms and their meanings

Daniel wrote:

This does bring up the interesting question of whether, when two people use the same terminology, they necessarily mean the same thing. Especially in the area of spiritual beliefs, and involving authors whose work is prolific, it may actually be that they refer to different concepts under the same name. That this is in principle possible is evident in the fact that numerous and very different conceptions exist under the name "God"

Perhaps this explained the stunned confusion and ensuing uneasy joking-about here when it is pointed out that there are "atheists" who don't believe in "God" but don't necessarily reject all manner of spiritual reality. Gosh, even Dottie said she's not sure about "God" and Dottie seems quite sure about spiritual reality in general!

Diana
(still not washed)

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 11:39 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Terms and their meanings

Diana wrote:

Gosh, even Dottie said she's not sure about "God" and Dottie seems quite sure about spiritual reality in general!

Hi Diana,

Dottie is quite sure of God as in her own personal understanding but not in how others believe what God is? Nor does she really care what others think God is. But she is sure there is a greater reality and in that reality she believes we all make up the entity so called as God. So she believes in God, just not in mans definition of God, she has her own. So, maybe Mr. Staudenmaier would say at one point because I contemplated exactly what God is, or came to a different perspective than others I was at an atheist moment in my life. And he would be so full of shit in the same manner he is when speaking of Steiner.

And why do you think Steiners students should leave it up to the Staudenmaier, Dugans and the Snells of the world to define Dr. Steiners work? You seem to hold the idea that one should not speak on a falsity because one shoulnd't have to defend his work. Why not? Why shouldn't they speak up to such twisted interpretations as have been offered up by Staudenamier, who has Steiner flip flopping every which way but loose, and every couple of years, to serve his own personal thesis of Dr. Steiners culpabilitiy to a nazi ideology? He's embarrasing in the way he comes to a reason why it is as he depicts. He has to make one jump through fire, do tumblesauts, stand on his head and stick his tongue out while holding his breath,(how do you spell that word) in order to get what he wants. Seriously. His argument is that ridiculous.

I love that those participating on this list get to see first hand the outragiousness of Peter, how he is unbendable in his determination of a thing in the face of hardcore facts speaking to the opposite of his claim. He has absolutely no facts to back up his theory. None. It is a watershed moment.

Steiner was not against Judaism as put by you just a bit ago. Judaism is the heart of the inner workings of the Kabbalah and the spirit world. Which is why Staudenmaier would be hard pressed to find a learned Rabbi to agree that Steiner was a anti-semetic. And even Frank has shared that the Rabbi in Germany spoke to the opposite. If you can not get a Jewish Rabbi to agree with you on Steiners culpability what is that really saying? Steiner, it seems to me felt that the Jewish people did not move along with the rest of the world in as far as a community of brotherhood. They keep themselves seperate for the most part and he commented on that. This does not make him anti-semetic. And I am not speaking of non practicing Jews rather the Jews that live the life of the Torah day in and day out and raise their children in this same manner. Or maybe in your eyes one shouldn't even have the conversation as that in and of itself is anti-semetic.

Dottie

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 11:59 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Terms and their meanings

Hi Daniel, welcome back. I think you make a good point here:

This does bring up the interesting question of whether, when two people use the same terminology, they necessarily mean the same thing.

I'd say our recent discussion of 'atheism' is a fine example.

Especially in the area of spiritual beliefs, and involving authors whose work is prolific, it may actually be that they refer to different concepts under the same name.

I agree, that happens often.

I would like to suggest that words like "Lemurian" will have very different meanings to different authors, and the simple occurrence of the term in a text is not sufficient to establish a similarity of outlook, either in the narrower area of that concept alone, or in the broader area of over all outlook.

That is also true; a number of 19th century scientists believed there had once been a continent called "Lemuria", and the idea held no occult associations for them. But the case of Evola and Steiner is importantly different; they didn't simply use the same term, they used the exact same series of five terms in the exact same order, which just happened to coincide exactly with theosophical doctrie at the time. This suggests that both figures inherited the scheme of root-races from Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine. On Evola, I recommend the recent book by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke (a fan of Steiner, by the way): "Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism, and the Politics of Identity". Chapter three is all about Evola.

Peter

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

From: at
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 12:44 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Terms and their meanings

If you've been following my recent posts, you will notice that if someone possesses spiritual beliefs, then BY DEFINITION they are not an atheist. The moment of stunned silence is perhaps people wondering "who rewrote the dictionary?"

Daniel Hindes

----- Original Message -----
From: winters_diana
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 1:45 PM
Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Terms and their meanings

Daniel wrote:

This does bring up the interesting question of whether, when two people use the same terminology, they necessarily mean the same thing. Especially in the area of spiritual beliefs, and involving authors whose work is prolific, it may actually be that they refer to different concepts under the same name. That this is in principle possible is evident in the fact that numerous and very different conceptions exist under the name "God"

Perhaps this explained the stunned confusion and ensuing uneasy joking-about here when it is pointed out that there are "atheists" who don't believe in "God" but don't necessarily reject all manner of spiritual reality. Gosh, even Dottie said she's not sure about "God" and Dottie seems quite sure about spiritual reality in general!

Diana
(still not washed)

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 12:58 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Terms and their meanings

Daniel wrote:

If you've been following my recent posts, you will notice that if someone possesses spiritual beliefs, then BY DEFINITION they are not an atheist. The moment of stunned silence is perhaps people wondering "who rewrote the dictionary?"

Hi Daniel,

Well it seems that Peter gets to make up his own definitions, which of course depends on his interpretations which he then does not share that that is exactly what they are. I get to make up my own words but at least they have my definition:)

Thanks for putting the dictionary up here. I remember when first hearing Peters idea that you are an atheist if you do not believe in God but that this did not include the spiritual worlds. One could be a Buddhist Atheist and so forth according to Peter. I was always under the understanding that the atheists did not believe in any spiritural reality until Peter set me straight: no it is a non belief in God. But it seems he did not set me straight, he just showed me to be silly because I did not check his definition/interpretation out in the dictionary.

Phooey on me.

Dottie

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

From: at
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 1:01 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Terms and their meanings

Peter Staudenmaier:

That is also true; a number of 19th century scientists believed there had once been a continent called "Lemuria", and the idea held no occult associations for them. But the case of Evola and Steiner is importantly different; they didn't simply use the same term, they used the exact same series of five terms in the exact same order, which just happened to coincide exactly with theosophical doctrie at the time. This suggests that both figures inherited the scheme of root-races from Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine.

Daniel:

I don't think you have completely understood what I was getting at. Is it possible that all three authors write about a succession of five phases of human development, and name them the same, but acutually concieve of different things in each of those phases? Such that the differences may even outweigh the similarities?

Daniel Hindes

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

From: holderlin66
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:30 pm
Subject: Terms and their meanings/Hebrew People

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

Steiner was not against Judaism as put by you just a bit ago. Judaism is the heart of the inner workings of the Kabbalah and the spirit world. Which is why Staudenmaier would be hard pressed to find a learned Rabbi to agree that Steiner was a anti-semetic.

Bradford comments;

There are aspects of such high respect and insight in Steiner's research of the Hebrew people that there is no doubt that he, and I hate to say this but I offer the proof, he really outshined most Rabbi's. Now my example for this has had me stunned in relation to Solomon. For my money Steiner knew the Hebrew People better than the Hebrew People know themselves. The following has such stunning cohesive detail and the reason why most insights are fragmented and lost is because the cohesive structure of the human being has been lost even from the ancient traditions of the Hebrew People themselves. They cling to an external doctrine and there is no room anywhere on Earth for people to merely cling, blindly, to an external doctrine.

http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Lectures/19100208p01.html

R.S.

"In order that he might become what he was to be, at that time a body had to be prepared, containing an extract, as it were, of what had been given to a whole people, a people who had to give to humanity the qualities which can only be communicated through physical inheritance. We have seen that the most essential thing in the old Hebrew people was the duty of developing in successive generations, from father to son, from son to grandson, and so on, those qualities which had to be inherited in a continually increased form, till they finally appear in their highest and best form in the body which was derived by inheritance from Abraham and Solomon and which was finally occupied by Zarathustra.

We have a great deal more to learn through our studies before we shall be able to understand the full mission of the old Hebrew people, in all its details. This necessitates that we should gradually learn how the qualities needed for the body of Jesus were more and more ennobled in the course of the descent from generation to generation. It had to be made as perfect as possible for the fulfilment of its world-historical mission, for that mission could only be carried out if all that pertained to the body of the Solomonian Jesus Being was as perfect as possible in itself as regards those qualities.

The germs of the perfection in the body of Jesus of Nazareth had to be prepared long before. We have seen how during the first period (extending from Abraham to Solomon or David), the generations were worked upon just as a man's physical body is worked upon during the time between his birth and the change of teeth. This work was so performed by the forces active behind evolution, that at a certain time there was actually an ancestor of Jesus who already contained within him, capacities as nearly perfect as possible, and these re-appeared in the body which became the vehicle of Zarathustra.

Thus in an ancestor of Jesus the foundations of a right development of all the seven principles of man's nature were present. In other words: If we trace back the ancestry of Jesus, we must find one ancestor who possessed the germ of the seven-principled-nature — although not so perfectly developed as in the body of Jesus of Nazareth — yet present in rudimentary form.

Although not expressed in their external tradition, the secret doctrine of the ancient Hebrews was cognisant of this fact. It was aware that once upon a time a man lived of whom it must be said that the seven principles worked in him in such a way that they had to be described as quite peculiarly worthy of note! The Initiates of the old Hebrew secret doctrine actually pointed to an ancestor of Jesus of Nazareth, knowing that be possessed these seven human principles in a quite remarkable degree!

They called the ego of this ancestor, `Itiel,' to indicate that in him the ego must have possessed that force (for Itiel signifies something like `possessor of force'). He must have possessed that dauntlessness, which would, when carried down through the generations, become the proper ego-vehicle for the high being who was to reappear in Jesus of Nazareth.

In the same way they called the astral body of this ancestor `Lemuel'; that would more or less describe an astral body so far developed that it does not merely feel the law, the conformity to law, outside itself, but feels that it bears the law within it.

They called the etheric body of this ancestor `Ben Jage'; that would signify an etheric body as far as possible transmuted within, which having attained a certain perfection, is able to take habits into itself.

The physical body of this ancestor they called `Agur', because the physical activity, the capacity of this ancestor on the physical plane, consisted in his having assimilated everything brought over from old tradition; for `Agur' signified a collector. `All the ancient conceptions of the world, all the old traditions, were gathered together in Jesus; and the rudiments of this were already developed in this ancestor.

What worked as Spirit-Man in this ancestor, was called, (because the Divine-Spiritual Beings gave loving attention to their work on the rudiments of Spirit-Man,) `Jedidjah', a word signifying something like `the darling of the Gods'.

What worked in this ancestor as Buddhi or Life-Spirit, was called `Kohelet'; for it was said: `In this ancestor there must have worked a Life-Spirit which was able to act as a teacher to the whole nation, so that its content could be poured out to them all'.

And finally, Manas or Spirit-self in this ancestor was known by the word, `Salomo', which signifies inner balance, for they said: Such a Spirit-self must have had within it the rudiments of being inwardly whole, of being in a state of balance within. Thus this ancestor, who is usually known only by the name of Schelomo, Schleimo, or Solomon, has three principal names: Jedidjah, Kohelet, Salomo; and four additional names: Agur, Ben Jage, Lemuel and Itiel, for these names signify the four coverings, whereas the three first names signify the divine inner part. The secret doctrine of the old Hebrews had seven names for this person.

If later, people were dissatisfied with Solomon, as was the case even among certain sects of the Jews themselves. (whether rightly or wrongly cannot be gone into here), this can easily be accounted for. In Solomon there were great, important rudiments, which were to be further propagated for a distinct purpose.

Now an individual human being, at a definite stage of his evolution, does not always display in his outer life the germs of the qualities he is to bequeath to his descendants; perhaps for the very reason that such great forces are within him he may even be more subject to failure in this direction. The lack of morality to be observed in Solomon is not in contradiction to what the old Hebrew secret doctrine saw in him; on the contrary it would explain his failings.

Thus the old Jewish secret doctrine looks back to an ancestor of Jesus, fully conscious of his significance for the whole mission of their people."

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 8:54 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Terms and their meanings

Hi Daniel, you wrote:

I don't think you have completely understood what I was getting at. Is it possible that all three authors write about a succession of five phases of human development, and name them the same, but acutually concieve of different things in each of those phases? Such that the differences may even outweigh the similarities?

Yes, that is entirely possible, in fact in this case it may well be likely. There are lots of differences among Blavatsky, Steiner, and Evola. A number of those differences, particularly between the latter two men, are striking. I thought that Andrea had claimed that there were no similarities at all between them, and that is what I replied to. I seem to have a knack for misunderstanding Andrea lately, though, so I may well have been replying to a straw man. In any case, I do not hold that the evident similarities between Steiner's doctrines and Evola's doctrines outweigh the differences.

Peter

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

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Wed Feb 25, 2004 3:01 am
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Terms and their meanings

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 5:54 AM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Terms and their meanings

Hi Daniel, you wrote:

Hi Daniel, you wrote:

I don't think you have completely understood what I was getting at. Is it possible that all three authors write about a succession of five phases of human development, and name them the same, but acutually concieve of different things in each of those phases? Such that the differences may even outweigh the similarities?

Yes, that is entirely possible, in fact in this case it may well be likely. There are lots of differences among Blavatsky, Steiner, and Evola. A number of those differences, particularly between the latter two men, are striking. I thought that Andrea had claimed that there were no similarities at all between them, and that is what I replied to. I seem to have a knack for misunderstanding Andrea lately, though, so I may well have been replying to a straw man. In any case, I do not hold that the evident similarities between Steiner's doctrines and Evola's doctrines outweigh the differences.

Peter


Well, since you seem, over and over, having understood nothing about Steiner and Evola i have decided to be patient and I'l reply, shortly, - mainly for the benefit of those listmates who are unaware of Evola's teachings- as follows:

Basically:

1) Steiner's cosmology is based upon an Initiatic path, mainly the experience known as "Lecture of Akasha's chronicle". Steiner described his cosmology not only in his written works but also in hundreds and hundreds of lectures, shaping and reshaping it all till his last days (See "Leading Thoughts" book). Doing so he EXPERIENCED not only the link between Mankind's and Universe's Evolution but also that the Christ as the Core of Worlds' Evolution )

For instance: a very important part of RS's cosmology is about Christ's path towards mankind along the Ages.

2
2) Evola worked on a strict intellectual level borrowing, here and there, from various different sources and traditions. The core of his beliefs was "the Four Ages" doctrine over and over depicted as a decadence process, in itself heavily deterministic.

He repeated this concept over and over without reforming or reshaping it in any way. A very bothering matter.

He didn't write about the Evolution of the Universe as Steiner but only - briefly-of recent history using theosophic terms - "Polar" for instance in a total different way. (He thought of those people to be like "physically" existing ).

At the core;
Following such a path he rejected any idea of "freedom", "individuality", "christianity" and so on due to his total misunderstanding of the I AM principle, becoming what he became.

This principle, on the contrary, is the foundation of RS's teachings and in itself is the opposite of any racist insight.

Whoever states the contrary knows really nothing about it.

Well, I stop here.

Like anyone can see: there is no "evident similiarity" at all but a gap big like the Universe!!

Again Peter. YOU MADE TENS OF FELLOWS LAUGH WITH SUCH A SENTENCE!!!!

Tks by them all for such an amusing experience.

Andrea

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

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Wed Feb 25, 2004 5:21 am
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Terms and their meanings

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 8:59 PM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Terms and their meanings

also true; a number of 19th century scientists believed there had once been a continent called "Lemuria", and the idea held no occult associations for them. But the case of Evola and Steiner is importantly different; they didn't simply use the same term, they used the exact same series of five terms in the exact same order, which just happened to coincide exactly with theosophical doctrie at the time. This suggests that both figures inherited the scheme of root-races from Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine. On Evola, I recommend the recent book by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke (a fan of Steiner, by the way):

GEEE ! People, Goodrick-Clarke a fan of Steiner???

This sentence is very helpful in orde to throw more light over Charlatanmaier's mind.

. If he calls "fan" a professor who has only been trying to gain a certain kind of objectivity in his work about the issue, we can easily see what, on the contrary, Don Pedro's precoinceved bias against RS (under his "aplomb mask") are

Tks for this penalty kick, Pedro!!

A.

"Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism, and the Politics of Identity". Chapter three is all about Evola.

Peter

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Wed Feb 25, 2004 5:41 am
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Terms and their meanings

Peter S wrote:

On Evola, I recommend the recent book by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke (a fan of Steiner, by the way):

Andrea wrote:

GEEE ! People, Goodrick-Clarke a fan of Steiner???

I wouldn't say that. In the book I read, he ascribed to him egoistical, self-serving motives for major career decisions. But he was taken aback by the sheer vehemence of the attacks against Steiner and thought such attacks and hatred inexplicable and totally undeserved and uncalled for. And he did not include Steiner's anthroposophical ideas as a part of the so-called voelkisch tradition, which Peter does. Perhaps that's why Peter calls Goodrick-Clarke a fan of Steiner.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Wed Feb 25, 2004 6:30 am
Subject: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Terms and their meanings

----- Original Message -----
From: Tarjei Straume
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 2:41 PM
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Terms and their meanings

Peter S wrote:

On Evola, I recommend the recent book by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke (a fan of Steiner, by the way):

Andrea wrote:

GEEE ! People, Goodrick-Clarke a fan of Steiner???

I wouldn't say that.

True, Tarjei!!!

(For the first time in my life I've been too kind with someone......Am I getting old?)

A.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Wed Feb 25, 2004 2:57 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Terms and their meanings

Diana
(still not washed)

Not since your Dulcinea incarnation. Wow, that's a record, possibly an unbreakable one.

Frank

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Feb 25, 2004 6:58 pm
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Terms and their meanings

Hi Tarjei, you wrote:

And he did not include Steiner's anthroposophical ideas as a part of the so-called voelkisch tradition, which Peter does. Perhaps that's why Peter calls Goodrick-Clarke a fan of Steiner.

I don't consider Steiner part of the voelkisch tradition (though other historians do, such as Helmut Zander), but I do think there were important areas of overlap between Steiner and many voelkisch thinkers. Steiner himself was an admirer of Friedrich Lienhard, a major voelkisch author and one of the leading lights of "idealistic antisemitism", as Uwe Puschner calls it.

The reason I describe Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke as a fan of Steiner is that Goodrick-Clarke wrote the preface to the book Rudolf Steiner: Essential Writings, and his discussion of Steiner there is entirely positive.

Peter

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

From: at
Date: Wed Feb 25, 2004 8:03 pm
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Terms and their meanings

Peter Staudenmaier:

The reason I describe Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke as a fan of Steiner is that Goodrick-Clarke wrote the preface to the book Rudolf Steiner: Essential Writings, and his discussion of Steiner there is entirely positive.

Daniel:

Isn't Goodrick-Clarke the acknowleged expert on the occult origins of National Socialism? What do you make of the fact that he doesn't consider Steiner to be among the occultists who exercised influential on the development of National Socialism?

Daniel Hindes

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Feb 25, 2004 9:08 pm
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Terms and their meanings

Hi again Daniel, you asked:

Isn't Goodrick-Clarke the acknowleged expert on the occult origins of National Socialism? What do you make of the fact that he doesn't consider Steiner to be among the occultists who exercised influential on the development of National Socialism?

I partly agree with him. I don't think that Steiner importantly influenced people like Rosenberg. I think that the range of ideological common ground between the various esotericist factions of the Nazis and early anthroposophy are not due primarily to direct influence of one on the other, but to shared philosophical and cultural roots. I think that Steiner's ideas did influence people like Darre, Seifert, and so on. I think that a number of early anthroposophists also found several aspects of Nazism appealing.

Peter

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Wed Feb 25, 2004 9:18 pm
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Terms and their meanings

Peter:

I think that a number of early anthroposophists also found several aspects of Nazism appealing.

Whooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Peter. Wake up Peter, earth to Peter. So, what do you think these early anthroposophists, and how many of them are we speaking of, two? is this correct so far in your mind, found APPEALING IN NAZISM? Please be very clear Peter what you are about to say or you are going to be flushed down the river with the biggest whopper ever caught. Ready? 1...2....3...

Dottie

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

From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Thu Feb 26, 2004 8:24 am
Subject: RE: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Terms and their meanings

Peter:

I think that a number of early anthroposophists also found several aspects of Nazism appealing.

Whooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Peter. Wake up Peter, earth to Peter. So, what do you think these early anthroposophists, and how many of them are we speaking of, two? is this correct so far in your mind, found APPEALING IN NAZISM? Please be very clear Peter what you are about to say or you are going to be flushed down the river with the biggest whopper ever caught. Ready? 1...2....3...

Dottie

It should be remembered that a large majority of Germans found several aspects of Nazism appealing. The anthroposophical community was a small percentage of the German population. Of that community, a percentage (I don't know how many) also found these aspects appealing. One would suppose, or hope, that it couldn't be the case, but it's not that surprising considering that anthropops aren't so different from "normal" people. In fact, I know at least one anthropsophical Republican

Frank

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Thu Feb 26, 2004 9:21 am
Subject: RE: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Terms and their meanings

Frank:

The anthroposophical community was a small percentage of the German population. Of that community, a percentage (I don't know how many) also found these aspects appealing. One would suppose, or hope, that it couldn't be the case, but it's not that surprising considering that anthropops aren't so different from "normal" people. In fact, I know at least one anthropsophical Republican

Frank, what ASPECTS of NAZISM did they find appealing in Peters opinion? And now I can ask you what aspects of NAZISM do you think these people founnd appealing according to Dr. Steiners work? Because this is what we are speaking about aren't we? Where Dr. Steiners work led or leads to anti-semitism?

Dottie

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

From: golden3000997
Date: Sun Feb 29, 2004 7:31 am
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Terms and their meanings

In a message dated 2/26/2004 12:10:45 PM Eastern Standard Time, franksmith writes:

In fact, I know at least one anthropsophical Republican

Now that's truly scary!

Do we all share in the guilt by association??

Christine - trying to catch up on her backlog of e-mail

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

From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Wed Mar 3, 2004 6:48 pm
Subject: RE: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Terms and their meanings

Dottie, you wrote:

Frank:

The anthroposophical community was a small percentage of the German population. Of that community, a percentage (I don't know how many) also found these aspects appealing. One would suppose, or hope, that it couldn't be the case, but it's not that surprising considering that anthropops aren't so different from "normal" people. In fact, I know at least one anthropsophical Republican

Frank, what ASPECTS of NAZISM did they find appealing in Peters opinion?

I don't know Peter's opinion.

And now I can ask you what aspects of NAZISM do you think these people founnd appealing according to Dr. Steiners work? Because this is what we are speaking about aren't we? Where Dr. Steiners work led or leads to anti-semitism?

Yes, we are talking about anti-Semitism, but I didn't mean that. I meant other aspects of Nazism. I say this because once an old, well known, honorable German anthroposophist who lived through the Nazi era told me how shocked he was that a few so-called (his word) anthroposphists, who completely misunderstood Steiner, hung Hitler's picture alongside Steiner's, because they thought the former to be realizing the latter's intentions regarding the threefold society. This was early on, and they were soon disillusioned. I don't know if this had anythng to do with anti-Semitism, but it probably did, (or maybe they chose to ignore that aspect) because Hitlers ideas concerning the Jews were well known from the beginning. This doesn't mean that Steiner's work led to anti-Semitism, only that a few idiots thought that the Nazis were good guys. My informant thought it was a mistake to try to keep the Waldorf schools and the Anthropsophical Society functioning at that time, and it was done because many didn't realize the extreme evil the Nazis represented until it was too late.

Frank

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

Re: To Peter 2


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