On PS on decadence, and non-comment on his
repeated untruthful demagoguery the last years
From: Sune Nordwall
Date: Mon Mar 8, 2004 2:26 pm
Subject: On PS on decadence, and non-comment on his repeated
untruthful demagoguery the last years
PS wrote:
There is no such thing as higher racial
forms.
When describing the successive human forms
during Cenozoic, that is Tertiary and Quartenary up to the end
of Pleistocene, being what the term "sub races of Atlantis"
in Steiner's view refers to, when looking closer at it (http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/comments1.htm),
I think it not is completely off the point.
I'm not aware of any point where RS refers
to "race" in terms of one or other of the "five
races of mankind" as they were understood in his time as
constituting "lower" or "higher" racial forms.
On:
There is no such thing as decadent peoples.
There are different levels of meaning and
contextual perspectives out of which different people look at
and understand the meaning of decadence, decadent people
or decadent peoples.
http://www.websters-dictionary-online.org/definition/english/de/decadent.html has some comments on it. During the period 1870-1910,
about the time when RS used the term decadence some times,
it played a central role, for example in Art (http://www.esotericart.com/fringe/art/symbolic/decandent/decad.htm)
One may also feel more or less personally
challenged by the term decadent if engaging on some form
of habitual basis in activities, that fall outside in one or
other sense normal behavior or activities, in a kinky,
transgender or other direction, or drug abuse in different forms,
and feeling that while these activities may stand out as "decadent"
to others, one at the core of ones own being has a something
that is not decadent in that same sense.
I think one needs to see the use by Steiner
of the term decadent out of the context of the time, take
away this context and try to see how he would express what he
referred to today, in present day language.
I very much doubt he then would use the term
decadent in the same, or moralizing way it was 80-90 years
ago and is taken today.
Also, one perspective on the term decadence
are what maybe may be understood as evolution and devolution.
While some changes of what is normal are
part of something that may be characterized as "evolutionary",
other changes maybe more may tend in a direction of devolution.
While RS description of the loss of instinctive
clairvoyance and the development of a more externally oriented
thinking among the "original Semites" of Atlantean
time not seldom is interpreted by secular humanist critics of
anthroposophy as being an expression of regret and something
bad by Steiner, the opposite is the case and in his view needs
to be understood as something making the Original Smites into
the small "elite" of Atlantean times in Stiner's view,
out of which the seed to human development of post-Atlantean
times developed as an Original Indian-"Aryan" culture
under the leadership of Noah-Manu.
When looking at for example Homo Neanderthaliensis
in relation to Homo Habilis as human forms of late "Atlantean
time" one probably gets some picture of what RS referred
to with the term more "decadent" human forms.
That as such does not necessarily say something
about individuals at different times belonging to the different
groups, neither at the time in question, nor at a later time.
PS argues about the term "race"
in a far to loose and sweeping sense to be meaningful in more
than a superficial sense, like also when arguing about the use
terms like "evil races" and "good races"
(in 1908?) as something that out of the perspective of the Apocalypse
will develop in the future, as being "racist" in any
in any way similar to the meaning of using the term "race"
today in relation to the fading remains of the "five (or
three or seven or other number of) races of humanity" today.
To my preliminary understanding it refers
in the direction of what in the Apocalypse is described with
the terms "sheep" (in the sense of people having overcome
their egotism) and "goats" (in the sense of being stuck
in one's personal egotism and ever more struggling against other
people similarly stuck in their egotism and ever more developing
as flock creatures in an animal direction, as exemplified by
the future people developing as subterranean cultures of New
York in the movie with the I think Mad Max actor(?) as hero.
How about commenting on your descriptions
the last years as "historical scholar" on Mission of
Folk Souls, the first lecture and the totality of the lectures,
as pointed out at http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Staudenmaier.html
and http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Untruths-of-Staudenmaier.htm
?
And maybe do some better work at "revising"
it than the new version you made more public last summer as found
at http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/pseudovetenskap/Staudenmaier-New.htm
where you persist in telling that RS went on a lecture tour
of Norway in June 1910 even in the revised version of
your fairy tale without once giving a source documenting this
and no well known source does this, and - while deleting the
reference in the introduction to the first lecture of the lecture
series, that you have defended so vigorously with a number of
word- and mind games the last years - still continuing to insist
on the second part of your first introduction to your first master
piece on anthroposophy as describing the lecture series in
its totality, in the version you lured John Holland into publishing
at his site last summer.
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/pseudovetenskap/Staudenmaier-mail.htm documents your faint efforts at some time to to a
probably very small extent "revise" your original all
to obvious untruths into something not so obviously untrue (the
version you made John Holland publish last year at hit 'Openwaldorf'
site?), as also how unseriously you at that time viewed the importance
that what is found by you on the net actually is true.
The "revised" version you made John
publish last summer indicates your seriousness regarding
truthfulness had not changed much last summer in relation to
2001. Not seeing to it that the Swedish publishers and republishers
of your demagogical fairy tales, now in improved external layout
to all large media in Sweden last time only four months ago did
not do it (did they ask you about it before republishing them
again) indicates no great improvement in your seriousness regarding
truthfulness in more than a superficial sense on this list.
How about some comments?
If you object to my republishing your mail
from 2001 at my site, tell me and I will replace it with a description
of it instead.
Sune
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
March/April
2004
The Uncle
Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files
Anthroposophy & Anarchism
Anthroposophy & Scientology
Anthroposophical
Morsels
Anthroposophy,
Critics, and Controversy
