Peter's Definitions

 

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Thu Mar 25, 2004 9:06 am
Subject: Tarjei on racial evolution

I found this bit from the exchange between Tarjei and Diana fascinating. After opining that species have missions just as races do, Tarjei writes:

And wouldn't the very creation of species and races be a eugenic activity, unless those species and races simply popped out of a happenstance chemical soup at random?

I think this explains a lot about the very different perspectives on racial evolution and racial missions on this list. Like Steiner, Tarjei conceives of evolution as a narrative of progress, within which specific forms have determinate missions to fulfill. Some bodies and some races are more suited to particular missions, and some are less suited. This does not strike Tarjei as racist because he extends the same logic to animal and plant species. The sticking point is that Tarjei apparently believes that speciation as such is a eugenic activity, thus entirely missing the point of eugenics. Eugenics is the opposite of natural selection. Evolution by natural selection, which is where species come from, is indeed a random process that is built around contingency, or happenstance in Tarjei's terms. It does not involve missions, and it is not directed toward a goal. It is entirely possible to disagree with what I just said without making any racist argument. But as soon as this logic of progressive evolution is applied to human races, and some racial forms are designated as higher and more advanced and more developed and more suited to specific missions than other racial groups, then this constellation of ideas can accurately be characterized as racist. I hope that helps clarify why discussions of racism, when instigated by critics of anthroposophy, have nothing to do with god or with diseases of the soul.

Peter Staudenmaier

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Thu Mar 25, 2004 9:30 am
Subject: Peter's definitions (was: Tarjei on racial evolution)

At 18:06 25.03.2004, Peter S wrote:

I found this bit from the exchange between Tarjei and Diana fascinating. After opining that species have missions just as races do, Tarjei writes:

And wouldn't the very creation of species and races be a eugenic activity, unless those species and races simply popped out of a happenstance chemical soup at random?

I think this explains a lot about the very different perspectives on racial evolution and racial missions on this list. Like Steiner, Tarjei conceives of evolution as a narrative of progress, within which specific forms have determinate missions to fulfill. Some bodies and some races are more suited to particular missions, and some are less suited. This does not strike Tarjei as racist because he extends the same logic to animal and plant species. The sticking point is that Tarjei apparently believes that speciation as such is a eugenic activity, thus entirely missing the point of eugenics. Eugenics is the opposite of natural selection. Evolution by natural selection, which is where species come from, is indeed a random process that is built around contingency, or happenstance in Tarjei's terms. It does not involve missions, and it is not directed toward a goal. It is entirely possible to disagree with what I just said without making any racist argument. But as soon as this logic of progressive evolution is applied to human races, and some racial forms are designated as higher and more advanced and more developed and more suited to specific missions than other racial groups, then this constellation of ideas can accurately be characterized as racist. I hope that helps clarify why discussions of racism, when instigated by critics of anthroposophy, have nothing to do with god or with diseases of the soul.

With your definitions of "large audience" and "tour" in mind, I don't think anyone capable of common sense can take your definition of "racism" seriously, Peter. It's only word play on your part. And I really don't understand what you mean by "missed opportunity". Do you really think that those who don't bother with everything you post is missing something of great importance?

The lectures you quote from are self-explanatory, but you seem completely incapable of grasping any of it, simply because you think only in words. In order to understand spiritual science, it is necessary to think through those pictures and imaginations that arise from the poverty of ordinary language. If you're not capable of that, whoever tries to explain anything to you is wasting his or her time. And I don't think there are many people who are interested in influencing your points of view in any way. You're proceeding like a Young Earth Creationist who studies geology and astrophysics in order to prove that the universe is a few thousand years old. Explaining geology to a creationist is like explaining anthroposophy to you.

The application of eugenics in evolution by higher powers, especially among the Hebrews, does not strike me as racist. But you have your own definitions of such words and your own Erasmus Montanus argumentation that makes sense only to yourself and to those you have persuaded to think like yourself. You may even have succeeded in convincing some people that a visit to a city is a tour of the country and that a large audience is less than a hundred; that almost beats selling the Brooklyn Bridge to unsuspecting Japanese tourists.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Fri Mar 26, 2004 8:02 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Peter's definitions (was: Tarjei on racial evolution)

Hi Tarjei, you wrote:

With your definitions of "large audience" and "tour" in mind, I don't think anyone capable of common sense can take your definition of "racism" seriously, Peter.

You don't have to take my definition of racism seriously. I don't take your definition of "large audience" seriously, and that hardly prevents me from responding to your arguments. If you believe that it is not racist to describe some races as higher and other races as lower, go ahead and say so. That would be a fine way to move the discussion forward.

And I really don't understand what you mean by "missed opportunity".

A missed opportunity to discuss Steiner's racial doctrines. If we want to make sense of those doctrines, it seems to me, we first need to figure out what Steiner himself had to say on the topic, and then we can argue about what constitutes racism and whether it applies to Steiner's doctrines.

The application of eugenics in evolution by higher powers, especially among the Hebrews, does not strike me as racist.

Yes, I can see that. Many other people do see the application of eugenics as racist, whether overseen by higher powers or doctors or bureaucracts. This plays an important role in perceptions of anthroposophy as racist. You shouldn't be surprised when non-anthroposophists read about the application of eugenics in evolution, or about higher races and lower races, and conclude that these notions are racist. That's exactly what a lot of people mean by racism.

Peter

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

From: holderlin66
Date: Fri Mar 26, 2004 9:26 am
Subject: Re: Peter's definitions (was: Tarjei on racial evolution)

Peter Staudenmaier wrote:

Yes, I can see that. Many other people do see the application of eugenics as racist, whether overseen by higher powers or doctors or bureaucracts. This plays an important role in perceptions of anthroposophy as racist. You shouldn't be surprised when non-anthroposophists read about the application of eugenics in evolution, or about higher races and lower races, and conclude that these notions are racist. That's exactly what a lot of people mean by racism.

Peter

Bradford comments;

Sorry, you #$*#$%%$, Eugenics is handing the reins of intelligence over to unethical d-- wits like yourself which has people scared to death. The fact that we equate a human being, Christ and the history of the I AM by Steiner as not equal to every dim wit who has had a scientific training and is ready to serve Corporate Military agendas, makes a lot of people worried about how humanity looks at Eugenics.Because for you all unethical humans are equal. Now that is prime directive is it not?

There is no Spiritual Path of Education into higher forms of Buddhistic Graduate school work. No St. Francis hallucinations. Man is just matter. Unethics is the coin of the realm and any thoughtful contemplation, such as well... honey, I want a fair universe, therefore let us not call each other names.. let us all be equal and Tarjei is correct... It is a Grey Mass of immoral and unethical soup which is the same sort of nonsense that floats around in your theory of God and the Big Bang.

I hope the CDC can come up with a cure for this mental infection, so that dialectical materialism is finally cured. Our scientists are working on it. We all want a better world.

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sat Mar 27, 2004 6:32 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Peter's definitions (was: Tarjei on racial evolution)

At 17:02 26.03.2004, Peter S wrote:

You don't have to take my definition of racism seriously. I don't take your definition of "large audience" seriously, and that hardly prevents me from responding to your arguments. If you believe that it is not racist to describe some races as higher and other races as lower, go ahead and say so. That would be a fine way to move the discussion forward.

In other words, you wish to manipulate a few dialogues of your choosing in a direction that suits you, using definitions that others don't take seriously? Personally, I believe I've said all I need to say about race and racism and racial topics and so on within the context of hostile, definition-bending inquiries. But if you make false public claims about Anthroposophy, I will counter such claims and back it up. There is a difference between that and "discussing" with you, which is pointless. It's only possible to discuss with people who are at least intellectually honest enough to refrain from twisting the meaning of words to get off the hook at any cost when they're plain wrong.

And I really don't understand what you mean by "missed opportunity".

A missed opportunity to discuss Steiner's racial doctrines.

And who would feel that as a loss except yourself?

If we want to make sense of those doctrines, it seems to me, we first need to figure out what Steiner himself had to say on the topic, and then we can argue about what constitutes racism and whether it applies to Steiner's doctrines.

From the looks of it, you'll never make sense of Steiner's take on race in your lifetime, Peter.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Mar 31, 2004 10:15 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Peter's definitions (was: Tarjei on racial evolution)

Hi Tarjei, you wrote:

Personally, I believe I've said all I need to say about race and racism and racial topics and so on within the context of hostile, definition-bending inquiries. But if you make false public claims about Anthroposophy, I will counter such claims and back it up. There is a difference between that and "discussing" with you, which is pointless.

No, there isn't a difference between those two things, Tarjei. If you think that some of my claims about Steiner's racial doctrines are false, then public discussion is exactly what you'll need to engage in on order to back up your argument. And once you're engaged in public discussion, it's silly to pretend that "racism" doesn't include eugenics, racial missions, higher and lower races, and so forth. Since you do not dispute that Steiner taught a version of spiritual eugenics structured around the notion of racial missions, racial evolution, and and higher and lower racial forms, what you and I apparently disagree on is whether these ideas can accurately be described as racist. No definition bending required.

And who would feel that as a loss except yourself?

Anybody who is interested in exploring Steiner's racial theories, and getting a more detalied sense of what Steiner actually taught along these lines, ought to see this as a lost opportunity. You certainly don't need to be critical of Steiner's racial doctrines in order to appreciate substantive discussion of them. What's holding you back?

Peter

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Thu Apr 1, 2004 10:11 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Peter's definitions (was: Tarjei on racial evolution)

I wrote:

Personally, I believe I've said all I need to say about race and racism and racial topics and so on within the context of hostile, definition-bending inquiries. But if you make false public claims about Anthroposophy, I will counter such claims and back it up. There is a difference between that and "discussing" with you, which is pointless.

Peter S wrote:

No, there isn't a difference between those two things, Tarjei. If you think that some of my claims about Steiner's racial doctrines are false, then public discussion is exactly what you'll need to engage in on order to back up your argument.

You don't have a clue about Steiner's "racial doctrines". The only thing you're doing is to analyze the sentences and dissect the words. That's bad enough with ordinary texts, but with Anthroposophy, it's like trying to do an autopsy on a corpse while lacking the ability to understand a living organism.

If a discussion is needed for any reason by anyone, discussions with you simply don't quality. You keep ignoring questions addressed to you, thus ignoring those who do wish to dicsuss with you.

For instance, Detlef asked you the following question:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/3460

Before I continue my argument regarding Steiner (where I do consider myself an expert), I want to be sure that it is well founded regarding the relationship to Theosophy and Blavatsky's thinking. This is why am I would politely like to ask you to be so kind and to respond to my last question: were the "yellow and red, brown and black" races ever "main races" for Blavatsky? I could, of course, equally well ask: were the "yellow and red, brown and black" races ever "root races" for Blavatsky?

As you seem to have a thorough overview over Blavatsky's thoughts on races, I am sure you will be able to help me here.

So if you're so eager to discuss race, racism, racial issues and topics and how it all relates to Theosophy and Anthroposophy, you should also be eager to answer Detlef's question quoted above, right?

I also believe Paulina is still waiting for an answer from you.

Personally, I find it useless and pointless to discuss anything with someone who alters the definitions of commonly used words in order to get off the hook. You find it so impossible to admit being wrong about something that you reach for the most absurd devices. You remind me of a guest I saw on Dr. Phil. His racism and your alleged anti-racism are almost identical. Dr. Phil's guest had completely turned his back on his niece because she'd married a Mexican. He said he was not a racist, because he regarded all races as EQUAL. He even ate at Mexiacn restaurants and had Mexixan and black friends, but he was against interracial marriage and wanted nothing to do with his niece because what they were doing was destroying two races and making a new one, and this was awful and so on. And he stressed over and over that he was not a racist. When confronted with the fact that he was the one who created division in the family and nobody else, he kept saying that his niece caused it, so it was her fault. She married that Mexican, so it was her fault that her uncle caused problems for the family.

You're doing the same thing, Peter. You're creating divisions and racial controversy and what-have-you, and when confronted with your responsibility in this, you say that anthroposophists caused it or Rudolf Steiner caused it.

And once you're engaged in public discussion, it's silly to pretend that "racism" doesn't include eugenics, racial missions, higher and lower races, and so forth.

Your definition of racism is identical to that lady's uncle on Dr. Phil.

Since you do not dispute that Steiner taught a version of spiritual eugenics structured around the notion of racial missions, racial evolution, and and higher and lower racial forms, what you and I apparently disagree on is whether these ideas can accurately be described as racist. No definition bending required.

There is another thing you and that guy on Dr. Phil have in common. He said from the start that he was going to leave the show with the same opinion he arrived with. So Dr. Phil didn't bother to discuss the definition of racism with him. It would have been a waste of time.

You have no notion about race understood through spiritual science, because you don't see anything except the racial body of a person. The real human being is non-existent to you. You see nothing but race, just like that old man who didn't see a good father and husband that everybody in the family loved including his mother-in-law. His wife's uncle saw nothing but a Mexican. He didn't think Mexicans were better or worse than other races, so he wasn't a racist he said. You and he would probably get along fine.

And who would feel that as a loss except yourself?

Anybody who is interested in exploring Steiner's racial theories, and getting a more detalied sense of what Steiner actually taught along these lines, ought to see this as a lost opportunity.

If you want a more detail sense of this, you'll have to understand how the higher hierarchies work into human evolution, and especially the role of Archangeloi. When you have understood this, you'll have a better chance with involving people on this list in such discussions.

You certainly don't need to be critical of Steiner's racial doctrines in order to appreciate substantive discussion of them. What's holding you back?

Nothing is holding me back except work and family and choosing my priorities. I just think you should follow your own rules by answering Detlef's question.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: zapdingo
Date: Thu Apr 1, 2004 11:00 am
Subject: Re: Peter's definitions (was: Tarjei on racial evolution)

Tarjei wrote:

You're doing the same thing, Peter. You're creating divisions and racial controversy and what-have-you, and when confronted with your responsibility in this,

Mr. Staudenmaier,

You spend so much energy trying to convince Anthroposophists that they believe in a racist cosmology, when you could instead be going after those groups who are truly and proudly racist. Anthroposophists would even help you in this task, you know. Why create enemies to fight with when there are so many real ones out there. What a waste of time.

Waiting for your answer to Detlef's question as well. The suspense is becoming unbearable...

Bryan

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Thu Apr 1, 2004 11:37 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Peter's definitions (was: Tarjei on racial evolution)

Hi Tarjei, you wrote:

You don't have a clue about Steiner's "racial doctrines". The only thing you're doing is to analyze the sentences and dissect the words. That's bad enough with ordinary texts, but with Anthroposophy, it's like trying to do an autopsy on a corpse while lacking the ability to understand a living organism.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say about the status of anthroposophy as a doctrine. Do you mean that doctrines in general cannot be analyzed by paying attention to the texts on which they are based? Or do you mean that anthroposophy does not count as a doctrine in this sense?

For instance, Detlef asked you the following question:

Yes, indeed he did. Last we heard from Detlef, he was still scouring Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine trying to find the term "main races". This is highly amusing; both Daniel and Detlef apparently still believe that this phantom term, which is in fact a figment of their imaginations, appears in Blavatsky's book. And they conclude, on this imaginary basis, that generations of anthroposophists have been mistaken in their reading of Blavatsky's and Steiner's term "Hauptrassen". I don't know what more I might say on the matter, except to make fun of Detlef.

So if you're so eager to discuss race, racism, racial issues and topics and how it all relates to Theosophy and Anthroposophy, you should also be eager to answer Detlef's question quoted above, right?

I have answered those questions, many times over. Both theosophical and anthroposophical literature in Steiner's day consistently used the terms "race" and "root race" interchangeably, as well as the terms "Rasse", "Hauptrasse", and "Wurzelrasse". I have provided a number of examples from Blavatsky and from Steiner. Indeed the German terms "Hauptrasse" and "Wurzelrasse", as well as various combinations of the two, were both used interchangeably for the term "root race" in the original German translation of Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine, the one that Steiner relied on, as I have pointed out several times. Steiner himself used the terms interchangeably in his book Aus der Akasha-Chronik (Cosmic Memory). This fact alone renders Detlef's argument about "mistakes in translation" entirely absurd.

I also believe Paulina is still waiting for an answer from you.

She is? About what?

Personally, I find it useless and pointless to discuss anything with someone who alters the definitions of commonly used words in order to get off the hook. You find it so impossible to admit being wrong about something that you reach for the most absurd devices.

I am very frequently wrong, about all sorts of things. Since I do not think I am wrong about the meaning of the word "large", it would make little sense for me to pretend otherwise merely in order to placate you.

He said he was not a racist, because he regarded all races as EQUAL. He even ate at Mexiacn restaurants and had Mexixan and black friends, but he was against interracial marriage and wanted nothing to do with his niece because what they were doing was destroying two races and making a new one, and this was awful and so on. And he stressed over and over that he was not a racist.

Yes, this is a common form of racism.

You're doing the same thing, Peter. You're creating divisions and racial controversy and what-have-you, and when confronted with your responsibility in this, you say that anthroposophists caused it or Rudolf Steiner caused it.

Do you mean to say that you think "racial controversy" in the sense of critical discussion of racial thinking is a bad thing? Do you mean to say that you think such discussions will sow divisions and should therefore be avoided? I think that "racial controversy" in that sense is a very good thing, and I think we need more of it, not less of it.

Your definition of racism is identical to that lady's uncle on Dr. Phil.

Huh? I think what he said obviously counts as racist. He thinks what he said does not count as racist. How did you manage to conclude that our definitions are the same?

You have no notion about race understood through spiritual science, because you don't see anything except the racial body of a person.

That is what racism applies to. It doesn't apply to disembodied souls.

If you want a more detail sense of this, you'll have to understand how the higher hierarchies work into human evolution, and especially the role of Archangeloi. When you have understood this, you'll have a better chance with involving people on this list in such discussions.

But understanding is quite obviously not the issue here. You haven't challenged any of my descriptions of Steiner's views on racial evolution, in fact you have repeatedly confirmed them. What you and I disagree about is the proper evaluation of these doctrines. We agree that according to Steiner, the higher hierarchies work within human evolution to oversee a process of spiritual eugenics. We disagree about whether this idea is racist. If you have a non-racist interpretation to offer of the notion of higher races and lower races, advanced races and backward races, progressing races and decadent races, please go ahead and present it. I promise to respond.

Peter

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

From: Detlef Hardorp
Date: Thu Apr 1, 2004 2:48 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Peter's definitions (was: Tarjei on racial evolution)

Tarjei wrote:

For instance, Detlef asked you the following question:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/3460

where I asked:

were the "yellow and red, brown and black" races ever "main races" for Blavatsky? I could, of course, equally well ask: were the "yellow and red, brown and black" races ever "root races" for Blavatsky?

PS responded:

I have answered those questions, many times over. Both theosophical and anthroposophical literature in Steiner's day consistently used the terms "race" and "root race" interchangeably, as well as the terms "Rasse", "Hauptrasse", and "Wurzelrasse". I have provided a number of examples from Blavatsky and from Steiner. Indeed the German terms "Hauptrasse" and "Wurzelrasse", as well as various combinations of the two, were both used interchangeably for the term "root race" in the original German translation of Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine, the one that Steiner relied on, as I have pointed out several times. Steiner himself used the terms interchangeably in his book Aus der Akasha-Chronik (Cosmic Memory).

Mr. Staudenmaier, I put my question in boldface. Please take a second to compare my question to your response.

OK? Done that? My unanswered question concern the "yellow and red, brown and black" races, not whether "root race" and "main race" were used interchangably or not.

So, once again, a bit shorter will do: "were the "yellow and red, brown and black" races ever "root races" for Blavatsky?

Looking forward to an answer!

Best regards, Detlef Hardorp

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Thu Apr 1, 2004 8:55 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Peter's definitions

At 21:37 01.04.2004, Peter S wrote:

I'm not sure what you're trying to say about the status of anthroposophy as a doctrine. Do you mean that doctrines in general cannot be analyzed by paying attention to the texts on which they are based? Or do you mean that anthroposophy does not count as a doctrine in this sense?

Doctrines can be analyzed and summed up, but that's not what you're doing with Anthroposophy. You're caricaturing it in a tireless attempt to make it resemble the Third Reich ideology or the KKK. The irony is that you're using a line of reasoning that is strongly reminiscent of the groups with which you are trying to smear the Anthroposophical Movement.

For instance, Detlef asked you the following question:

Yes, indeed he did.

And you snip and ignore that question every time the it is repeated.

Last we heard from Detlef, he was still scouring Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine trying to find the term "main races". This is highly amusing; both Daniel and Detlef apparently still believe that this phantom term, which is in fact a figment of their imaginations, appears in Blavatsky's book. And they conclude, on this imaginary basis, that generations of anthroposophists have been mistaken in their reading of Blavatsky's and Steiner's term "Hauptrassen". I don't know what more I might say on the matter, except to make fun of Detlef.

Interesting. When you play that "others-are-ignorant-and-laughable-clowns" card, you're usually on very thin ice and wish to draw attention away from it by sticking your nose in the air. Besides, you SNIPPED the question: Were the "yellow and red, brown and black" races ever "root races" for Blavatsky?

I have answered those questions, many times over.

If you have already answered the above question, could you please post a link to your answer or repeat your answer?

Both theosophical and anthroposophical literature in Steiner's day consistently used the terms "race" and "root race" interchangeably, as well as the terms "Rasse", "Hauptrasse", and "Wurzelrasse". I have provided a number of examples from Blavatsky and from Steiner. Indeed the German terms "Hauptrasse" and "Wurzelrasse", as well as various combinations of the two, were both used interchangeably for the term "root race" in the original German translation of Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine, the one that Steiner relied on, as I have pointed out several times. Steiner himself used the terms interchangeably in his book Aus der Akasha-Chronik (Cosmic Memory). This fact alone renders Detlef's argument about "mistakes in translation" entirely absurd.

Of course any suggestion that you would make or support a mistake is entirely absurd :) And you STILL have not answered Detlef's question.

I also believe Paulina is still waiting for an answer from you.

She is? About what?

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/3075

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/3078

I am very frequently wrong, about all sorts of things.

But never about Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy, and racial evolution?

Yes, this is a common form of racism.

The definition of "racism" insisted upon by such racists is precisely the definition you are using. Such racists often say, "I'm nut a racist, but...." You say, "Most anthroposophists are not racists, but...." and then you use a rationale to justify your racism-baiting that has striking parallels to racist apology/justification/denial. Your next step is to project the "apology/justification/denial" syndrome on anthroposophists while it should be applied to yourself.

Do you mean to say that you think "racial controversy" in the sense of critical discussion of racial thinking is a bad thing? Do you mean to say that you think such discussions will sow divisions and should therefore be avoided? I think that "racial controversy" in that sense is a very good thing, and I think we need more of it, not less of it.

I do not consider your deliberate falsifications of Anthroposophy worthy of being called "discussions." What I'm getting at here is not discussions, but unwarranted accusations. You accuse Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy of causing you to make false accusations regarding its alleged links to Nazism and so on.

Your definition of racism is identical to that lady's uncle on Dr. Phil.

Huh? I think what he said obviously counts as racist. He thinks what he said does not count as racist. How did you manage to conclude that our definitions are the same?

You both agree that races are equal and that it is racist to think otherwise. You and the racist are reasoning in an identical manner when it comes to defining racism!

That is what racism applies to. It doesn't apply to disembodied souls.

If you're incapable of relating the concept of past human evolution through races with higher beings and reincarnating souls that are disembodied for longer stretches of time than they are embodied and so forth, you have no possibility of understanding the anthroposophical perspective on phenomena linked to human racial and spiritual development.

But understanding is quite obviously not the issue here.

Understanding is not a pre-requisite for offering an explanation of Steiner's texts?

You haven't challenged any of my descriptions of Steiner's views on racial evolution, in fact you have repeatedly confirmed them.

Exactly. Your idea of "describing" Steiner's evolution is tantamount to discrediting all of Anthroposophy on the ground of it being racist. Your idea of "challenging" such descriptions of yours amounts to saying that Steiner's ideas were not anthroposophical at all, because the words "anthroposophical" and "racist with a spiritual twist" are synonymous in myour own thesaurus, which you ought to publish along with your evolutionary theory.

What you and I disagree about is the proper evaluation of these doctrines. We agree that according to Steiner, the higher hierarchies work within human evolution to oversee a process of spiritual eugenics. We disagree about whether this idea is racist.

Without eugenics from antiquity, there would never have been different human races in the first place. This brings us back to the conclusion that if eugenic racial evolution is racist, then God is a racist for having created us in this way.

If you have a non-racist interpretation to offer of the notion of higher races and lower races, advanced races and backward races, progressing races and decadent races, please go ahead and present it. I promise to respond.

Your definitions of "racist" and "non-racist" are equally twisted and off the mark. Besides, you know very well indeed from my various public posts and articles what my interpretations are.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: zapdingo
Date: Fri Apr 2, 2004 8:12 am
Subject: Re: Peter's definitions

Mr. Staudenmaier,

It's rather moving to see how in love you are with your own words and thoughts. This love blinds you to their conspicuous faults and imperfections and I suspect nothing anybody tells you will make you see them. When it comes to your ideas, you, sir, seem to be unshakably monogamous. Very sweet.

Besides that, having studied law I spent enough years being trained in how to argue anything from any point of view, and to be honest meaningless word-swording became tiresome.

Therefore, I thank you for your attempt at addressing my previous comments but I'm not going to engage in any pointless back-and-forth with you. I respect your energy and I try to keep in mind that your goal, which unfortunately you address very little, is fighting things I believe are wrong as well, although as I said I don't see them where you do. Just my opinion.

Bryan

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Fri Apr 2, 2004 10:08 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Peter's definitions

Hi Tarjei, you wrote:

Doctrines can be analyzed and summed up, but that's not what you're doing with Anthroposophy. You're caricaturing it in a tireless attempt to make it resemble the Third Reich ideology or the KKK.

The KKK and the Third Reich are two different things. You seem to have trouble with the notion that there might have been some ideological similarities between parts of anthroposophy and parts of the Third Reich. Why is that?

And you snip and ignore that question every time the it is repeated.

I didn't ignore Detlef's question. I've answered it several times, complete with extensive quotations from Blavatsky and Steiner. How did you miss that?

Of course any suggestion that you would make or support a mistake is entirely absurd

No, not at all. I make lots of mistakes. It is Detlef's reasoning in this particular instance that is absurd. Every competent reader can see that. Did you skip my post with all the quotes from Blavatsky?

As for Paulina, you pointed to two posts where she disagreed that spiritual traits apply to individuals regardless of race, that races don't have missions, and that races don't evolve according to spiritual criteria. Since I have already explained many times over that I believe that spiritual traits do apply to individuals regardless of race, that races do not evolve according to spiritual criteria, and that races do not have missions, I don't know what else you are waiting to hear from me on the matter. But since we're on the topic, may I ask once again why some of you are so mortified when other people think your expressed views on race are racist? Did you really think that non-anthroposophists would endorse the idea that spiritual traits are dependent upon race, or that race is dependent upon spiritual criteria? Many, many people, including lots of deeply spiritual people, agree with me that spiritual traits apply to individuals regardless of race. Many of those people think it is racist to hold otherwise. Is this some sort of suprise to you?

If you're incapable of relating the concept of past human evolution through races with higher beings and reincarnating souls that are disembodied for longer stretches of time than they are embodied and so forth, you have no possibility of understanding the anthroposophical perspective on phenomena linked to human racial and spiritual development.

I do understand the anthroposophical perspective on these phenomena and the link to racial and spiritual development, as you can see. Your understanding of it is the same as mine. You just said once again that you do not challenge my description of Steiner's views on racial evolution. Where we part ways is on the matter of evaluation. I think some of these views are racist. You don't. That's where the disagreement lies. You believe in things like eugenics and racial missions (or, to use your own terms, "eugenic racial evolution"). You just don't think these beliefs are racist.

Peter

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Fri Apr 2, 2004 11:09 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Peter's definitions

Hi Bryan, you wrote:

It's rather moving to see how in love you are with your own words and thoughts. This love blinds you to their conspicuous faults and imperfections and I suspect nothing anybody tells you will make you see them.

My thoughts are rife with faults and imperfections (and thoughts are, by the way, an inappropriate object of love, in my view). If you'd like to point out some of the flaws in my thinking, I invite you to do so. A good way to do this is to present an argument that is internally cogent and combine it with some sort of relevant evidence. You might, for example, argue that Rudolf Steiner did not actually write or say the passages about racial evolution that I quoted, and provide evidence that it was all due to a mix-up at the printer's. Alternatively, you could argue that racism is fine and dandy as long as it is integrated into a lofty tale of spiritual redemption, and provide evidence of other similar doctrines whose loftiness, in your estimation, neutralizes their racist components. It seems to me that this approach would be a fine way of getting at why you don't see racism where I do.

Peter

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Fri Apr 2, 2004 10:40 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Peter's definitions

I wrote:

Doctrines can be analyzed and summed up, but that's not what you're doing with Anthroposophy. You're caricaturing it in a tireless attempt to make it resemble the Third Reich ideology or the KKK.

Peter S wrote:

The KKK and the Third Reich are two different things. You seem to have trouble with the notion that there might have been some ideological similarities between parts of anthroposophy and parts of the Third Reich. Why is that?

Ideologically, Anthroposophy and Nazism are diametrical opposites. You are incapable of comprehending that because your hyper-intellectualized thinking is totally amoral; you're not able to recognize that understanding ideologies requires a thinking of the heart that Harvey described in a recent post.

The relationship between Nazism and Anthroposophy as diametrical opposites, as Light and Darkness, is crystal clear from posts and articles by myself and others about this subject.

Tarjei:

And you snip and ignore that question every time the it is repeated.

Peter S:

I didn't ignore Detlef's question. I've answered it several times, complete with extensive quotations from Blavatsky and Steiner.

You're lying, Peter. You just snipped the question AGAIN! The question still is:

Were the "yellow and red, brown and black" races ever "root races" for Blavatsky?

How did you miss that?

Because your alleged answer is nowhere to be found! Please prove me wrong by posting a link to your answer to Detlef's question - or repost your answer:

Were the "yellow and red, brown and black" races ever "root races" for Blavatsky?

I do understand the anthroposophical perspective on these phenomena and the link to racial and spiritual development, as you can see.

I can't see that until you answer Detlef's question about Blavatsky, root races, and red, brown and black races.

Your understanding of it is the same as mine.

With a statement like that, it looks like you're losing it completely.

You just said once again that you do not challenge my description of Steiner's views on racial evolution. Where we part ways is on the matter of evaluation.

You're writing nonsensical gibberish here, and I suspect you're aware of it. You're forgetting that anthroposophists are not easy to hypnotize or mesmerize; I don't think there's anyone here who doesn't see through your jive totally void of substance.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Fri Apr 2, 2004 11:58 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Peter's definitions

Hi again Tarjei, you wrote:

The relationship between Nazism and Anthroposophy as diametrical opposites, as Light and Darkness, is crystal clear from posts and articles by myself and others about this subject.

Those posts and articles are mostly occultist nonsense, in my view. They tell us nothing about the ideological and historical parallels between early anthroposophy and parts of the Nazi movement, because they are fixated on ahistorical labels like "Light" and "Darkness".

Because your alleged answer is nowhere to be found! Please prove me wrong by posting a link to your answer to Detlef's question

You really can't find this for yourself in the archive? I thought you were the computer geek type? On March 15 I provided thorough quotes from The Secret Doctrine addressing this and every other foolish thing Detlef said about the book. You can find that post here:


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/3374

According to Blavatsky, the "yellow and red, brown and black" races are "remnants of the Atlanteans", the fourth of the five historical Root-Races; the yellow, red, brown and black races exist today because the "undeveloped tribes and families of the Atlantean stock fell gradually into a still more abject and savage condition." (Secret Doctrine vol II p. 786) Elsewhere she says that these "primitive" races are the descendants of both Atlanteans and Lemurians, a mixture of the third and fourth Root-Races (e.g. p. 206). At another point she calls the "the red-yellow, the black, and the brown-white" the "three distinct primeval Races" (ibid. p. 260). And so on and so forth.

With a statement like that, it looks like you're losing it completely.

But you just said, a couple of posts ago, that I had gotten it "exactly" right, in your own words. You then apparently changed your mind in the very next post. Which is it? If you now think my summary of Steiner's doctrine of racial evolution was inaccurate in some way, surely you can point to the specific inaccuracies? Do you now mean to say that Steiner did not teach a version of spiritual eugenics built around racial missions and progressive evolution through a series of ever higher racial forms?

Peter

Continued in thread "What is equality?"

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

From: zapdingo
Date: Fri Apr 2, 2004 12:31 pm
Subject: Re: Peter's definitions

Nice try, Mr. Staudenmaier. I suggest you read the end of my last message again. You must be pretty bored to try to engage in conversation with somebody who expressed clearly no desire to do so. Or maybe it's just your compulsive need to always have the last word, eh. As for thoughts being an inappropriate object of love, I completely agree, nothing to discuss here either. Maybe you should consider a girlfriend. Oh, and since you're so free and idle, why not answer Detlef's question?

Bryan

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Peter Staudenmaier wrote:

My thoughts are rife with faults and imperfections (and thoughts are, by the way, an inappropriate object of love, in my view). If you'd like to point out some of the flaws in my thinking, I invite you to do so. A good way to do this is to present an argument that is internally cogent and combine it with some sort of relevant evidence. You might, for example, argue that Rudolf Steiner did not actually write or say the passages about racial evolution that I quoted, and provide evidence that it was all due to a mix-up at the printer's. Alternatively, you could argue that racism is fine and dandy as long as it is integrated into a lofty tale of spiritual redemption, and provide evidence of other similar doctrines whose loftiness, in your estimation, neutralizes their racist components. It seems to me that this approach would be a fine way of getting at why you don't see racism where I do.

Peter

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

From: Detlef Hardorp
Date: Sat Apr 3, 2004 7:22 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Peter's definitions

PS wrote (#3962):

According to Blavatsky, the "yellow and red, brown and black" races are "remnants of the Atlanteans", the fourth of the five historical Root-Races; the yellow, red, brown and black races exist today because the "undeveloped tribes and families of the Atlantean stock fell gradually into a still more abject and savage condition." (Secret Doctrine vol II p. 786) Elsewhere she says that these "primitive" races are the descendants of both Atlanteans and Lemurians, a mixture of the third and fourth Root-Races (e.g. p. 206). At another point she calls the "the red-yellow, the black, and the brown-white" the "three distinct primeval Races" (ibid. p. 260). And so on and so forth.

I gather that Blavatky is thus saying that the "yellow and red, brown and black" races are either remnants of the fourth of the five historical Root-Races or the descendants of both Atlanteans and Lemurians, a mixture of the third and fourth Root-Races.

Would it be correct to conclude that any one of the "coloured races" (i.e. yellow or red or brown or black) correspond to any one of the five historical Root-Races themselves? I.e. could one claim that Blavatsky thought that, say, the yellow race corresponds to the fourth root race or the black race corresponds to the third root race, i.e. that Atlanteans were yellow and Lemurians were black (or some other colour)? Or are the root races Blavatsky speaks of not in 1-1 correspondence with the "coloured races"?

Detlef Hardorp

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Sat Apr 3, 2004 9:31 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Peter's definitions

Detlef writes:

I gather that Blavatky is thus saying that the "yellow and red, brown and black" races are either remnants of the fourth of the five historical Root-Races or the descendants of both Atlanteans and Lemurians, a mixture of the third and fourth Root-Races.

Uh, yeah, that's the idea. I gave you those quotes weeks ago. You didn't read them until now?

Would it be correct to conclude that any one of the "coloured races" (i.e. yellow or red or brown or black) correspond to any one of the five historical Root-Races themselves?

No, of course not. According to the first theosophical usage of "Root-Race", the first two root races did not have physical bodies.

I.e. could one claim that Blavatsky thought that, say, the yellow race corresponds to the fourth root race or the black race corresponds to the third root race, i.e. that Atlanteans were yellow and Lemurians were black (or some other colour)?

She's not clear on that, as on so many other things. At several points she says that non-white racial groups are largely mixtures of the third and fourth root races, sometimes with some "Aryan" admixture as well.

Or are the root races Blavatsky speaks of not in 1-1 correspondence with the "coloured races"?

No, of course not. They're not even in 1-1 correspondence with themselves. Her racial terminology was highly inconsistent, just as Steiner's was. I've explained this several times. You say you've read the book yourself. Why are you having trouble grasping that simple fact?

Peter

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

From: at
Date: Mon Apr 5, 2004 10:00 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Peter's definitions

Hi Bryan, you wrote:

Bryan:

It's rather moving to see how in love you are with your own words and thoughts. This love blinds you to their conspicuous faults and imperfections and I suspect nothing anybody tells you will make you see them.

Peter Staudenaier:

My thoughts are rife with faults and imperfections (and thoughts are, by the way, an inappropriate object of love, in my view). If you'd like to point out some of the flaws in my thinking, I invite you to do so. A good way to do this is to present an argument that is internally cogent and combine it with some sort of relevant evidence. You might, for example, argue that Rudolf Steiner did not actually write or say the passages about racial evolution that I quoted, and provide evidence that it was all due to a mix-up at the printer's. Alternatively, you could argue that racism is fine and dandy as long as it is integrated into a lofty tale of spiritual redemption, and provide evidence of other similar doctrines whose loftiness, in your estimation, neutralizes their racist components. It seems to me that this approach would be a fine way of getting at why you don't see racism where I do.

Daniel:

That is a false choice, in my estimation. There are plenty of other alternatives, such as pointing out that you have taken quotes out of context, in some instances mistranslated them, that you have not actually properly understood the quotes you present, and that a fuller picture, along with the proper historical context renders a picture completely the opposite of the one you are painting. These arguments would be nothing new to you, and I doubt you would consider them any more seriously the second time that the first.

Daniel Hindes

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

From: at
Date: Mon Apr 5, 2004 9:54 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Peter's definitions

Peter Staudenmaier:

I didn't ignore Detlef's question. I've answered it several times, complete with extensive quotations from Blavatsky and Steiner. How did you miss that?

Daniel:

Peter, why do you run away from every substantive question of your understanding of Anthroposophy? You have not answered Detlef. Why? Are you scared? Or is it too much work? You haven't answered my question about Blavatsky's view of races either. You go on and on about how simple it is, and how you have quoted at length, etc. But you have not established anything in this area, despite quite a few direct questions. That you choose not to answer does not bother me. What bothers me is lying about having done so (oh - that's right - it's not a lie because you honestly think you have - never mind). I find quite a disconnect between what you claim and what your posts have actually established. This carries over into a number of other areas as well. You still have not given me an explanation of the hierarchy planetary formative forces as described in GA 121 (there isn't one, which undermines your claimed of a hierarchy of racial forms in Steiner's work considerably, but you won't admit this).

Patrick: [Tarjei:]

Of course any suggestion that you would make or support a mistake is entirely absurd

Peter Staudenmaier:

No, not at all. I make lots of mistakes.

Daniel:

Just never on Steiner or Anthroposophy, right. I can't recall one mistake you have admitted to in this area.

Daniel Hindes

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 11:20 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Peter's definitions

Hi again Daniel, you wrote:

These arguments would be nothing new to you, and I doubt you would consider them any more seriously the second time that the first.

You're quite right that I do not consider these objections serious. I think they are obviously frivolous. For example, it is extremely easy to show when someone else has taken a quote out of context. All you have to do is provide the preceding or following portions of the text and show that they contradict the original quoted passage. None of you has ever done that. As for mistranslations, you and Detlef believe that other anthroposophists have mistranslated both of the texts in question; all you charge me with is agreeing with these anthroposophist translations. If you want me to take your arguments seriously, I'll have to request that you offer some serious arguments. What do you say?

Peter

Daniel:

That is a false choice, in my estimation. There are plenty of other alternatives, such as pointing out that you have taken quotes out of context, in some instances mistranslated them, that you have not actually properly understood the quotes you present, and that a fuller picture, along with the proper historical context renders a picture completely the opposite of the one you are painting. These arguments would be nothing new to you, and I doubt you would consider them any more seriously the second time that the first.

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 11:13 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Peter's definitions

Hi Daniel, you wrote:

Peter, why do you run away from every substantive question of your understanding of Anthroposophy? You have not answered Detlef."

I did answer Detlef's question. Three times over, in exactly the same way. Keep reading the accumulated posts, you'll figure it out. By the way, Detlef's query had nothing whatsoever to do with substantive questions about my understanding of anthroposophy.

You haven't answered my question about Blavatsky's view of races either.

Which one did I not answer?

But you have not established anything in this area

What does that have to do with whether I have answered the question? Are you really trying to say that I have refused to answer these questions, or do you just mean that you don't find my answers persuasive?

Peter

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

From: holderlin66
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 3:24 pm
Subject: Re: Peter's definitions

Peter Staudenmaier wrote:

Detlef's query had nothing whatsoever to do with substantive questions about my understanding of anthroposophy.

Bradford comments;

You have very little understanding of Anthroposophy. A one trick pony called bravo, Peter understands the word Racism; against the whole magnificence of how the I AM is the very key to Nature and Spirit, makes you a Professional Racist.

It is a very specialized, limited vision that being a professional racist, is like having a good duck dog, who can retrieve ducks very well. Become a golden retriever for brotherhood, now that is evolution. A Pointer who can raise it's tail and say, Yup, the word Racist, I know what that smells like is fine if you are training yourself to sniff out race and Jews, as the Nazi's could, they could smell races. It is a fine attribute, but not exactly worthy of human dignity as history has proven.

Now your next training session, is dear Peter, what do you understand about the I AM? That should get you closer to understanding the Core of Anthroposophy. We already know that you are a Professional Racist, hunter, a regular Indiana Jones of Racism, reminds me of a song, "Searching for Love in all the wrong places."

Remember a skunk smells his own Racist taint first, but it behooves us to learn to smell the greatness of Love...You have the opportunity to become a hunter for human brotherhood and love and that is indeed, excuse me... Buddha proved Evolution he Evolved to an Angel, which is what humans have in store for them. Obviously that is a sticky problem of evolution for you, but we need all the help we can get to become hunters for brotherhood. Anybody with less brains than you can be a Professional Racist, but to become a Hunter and defender of the I AM..

Well you still got some hefty work to do.

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

From: holderlin66
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 4:24 pm
Subject: Peter Staudenmaier ain't even a good Green

Peter Staudenmaier wrote:

Detlef's query had nothing whatsoever to do with substantive questions about my understanding of anthroposophy.

Bradford shrink wraps Peter;

Now Peter, because you think you know so much about anthroposophy, and you fancy yourself a Green Ecology critic, and you wish to trounce Dr. Steiner's good name, so that you can emerge as an expert, reveals your ignorant perspective of Anthroposophy from top to bottom.

You cannot place your tiny intellect in the same developmental stature of Steiner, so you disagree with a Master Initiate, placing your sub-level grasp against Steiner's stature of great human dignity in Science, Nature and Spirit. We all tried to put our intellects next to Steiner's and we all came up short. Let us understand your incompentence generally, by taking even one of your pet ideas on Greens and blow it back up your nose. Once again, a mere pup, wet behind the ears and who doesn't even have a clue what an I AM is.

Ecofacism indeed! (Could that be, Eco as in the greatest scienctist, Steiner, Eco and Steiner fascist.. could it be Eco-facist is your way of saying Steiner's greatness is destroyed because of your shrunken idea of racism)?

You want to be a humanist, okay. You want to be an ecologist, understand and save the Earth, okay. John Lennon, "you know we all wanna save the world." But for most of us, we thought it would be easy to digest Steiner, but it turned out that we had to walk around the base of this gigantic Tree, this enormous tree of Spiritual Science, that can take some thirty years to see the immensity of the thing. But you Peter Staudenmaier seem to think you can walk up to it and pick out some knots, a branch, a leaf and say, so what, it's a tree. It is a friggin big Tree and we who are educators, know much better than you on this subject and we have already eaten our humble pie, which I now serve back to you.

Understanding Green Ecology:

"Despite ethnoscientific training, I had, at first, an excruciatingly hard time understanding the motives, postulates and world-view of the community. The results these people were getting in their 'treatment' of the mentally handicapped, in their agriculture, in nutrition and the general effectiveness of their lifestyle were impressive. But, they did not proceed from the scientific methodology that I considered the only basis of reality.

Since I was there as an anthropologist doing research. I listened, observed and made notes of ideas about Invisible "etheric" forces at work, planetary and lunar influences, "beings" at work in the garden and village, etc.. My notebook was filled with observations of the following sort: Mountain crystals were pulverized and buried in a cow's horn in the ground for a year; of this, a pinch the size of a pea, was taken and stirred rhythmically clockwise alternating counterclockwise for one hour in a bucket of lukewarm water and then this was sprayed over the fields and gardens.

One time, noticing a leaking gutter on the roof, I fixed it. The next rain, it was leaking again and I fixed it again. A third time, the master gardener mumbled disconcertedly something about someone always fixing the gutter. I found out that it was intended to drip on a certain spot where a sheep's skull was buried with oak bark in it. It was supposed to rot there in a certain way for a reason that I did not comprehend at the time.

Another time, aphids appeared on the beans and I was ready to counter-attack with tobacco juice (figuring that was the organic way of destroying pests); but the gardener just sat there looking and thinking. "What is there to think about?" I demanded, "There is the problem and here is the solution." The gardener replied that it would be better instead to find out why the aphids were there in the first place. "Well, that is simple," I replied, drawing on my natural science studies, "They are most likely windborn or carried by another organism and we had better destroy them before they spread'." He then explained, "No, the reason they are here is more subtle than that; it has to do with how we fertilized the soil, what crop preceded it and what weather patterns exist which weakened the plants that they became susceptible."

Moles and gophers were, at times, a problem in the garden. Once in a while, the gardener's cat would catch one of these rodents. He would then take them, skin them and hang the hides to dry while his wife fried the carcasses for the cats to eat. At a certain time, when Venus was in a particular zodiac sign, he would burn the pelts and sprinkle the ashes over the fields, causing, he claimed the other gophers to reconsider where they had settled.

I kept notes on all of this and had my own anthropological explanations. By placing the phenomena into categories of 'survivals of a primitive early European world-view' or into Sir James Frazer's 'homeopathic and contagious magic' I was doing less for anthropology than for my own cognitive dissonance.

Other bio-dynamic gardeners and farmers that I met at this time engaged in strange practices, such as gathering water at the full moon or collecting and using herbs in unusual ways. One farmer boiled the shoots of the 'red pine' (Norway spruce-- Picea abies) for several hours, and, diluting the juice with rainwater, he poured it around his land to keep slugs out. He reasoned that the red pine belongs to Saturn and the slugs belong to the Moon.

The characteristics of Saturn are, among others, warmth and dryness, while those of the Moon are wet and cold. The slugs will feel that they are leaving Moon territory and entering Saturn and recoil at the prospect. This explanation, and others like it, seem like the product of unbridled fantasy and it was hard for me to consider them to be real in the 'real' world.

Despite this, Aigues Vertes and other biodynamic places were shining examples of good husbandry, of healthy stock and plentiful produce. I stayed nearly three years instead of the one I had originally intended, and found the individuals working in biodynamics to be much more sophisticated than I had at first suspected.

Rather than working with outmoded, hand-me-down superstitions, they were utilizing a meta-language, a complicated system of symbols to express and communicate fine and detailed observations about the workings of nature. I found out that many of the practitioners of this method were far from being uneducated; many had impressive academic and scientific credentials. In the meantime, my professor at the University of Bern with whom I was finishing my Ph. D. dissertation and exam, became worried that I had lost my scientific objectivity. He suspected me of the greatest heresy of anthropology; identification with the subjects under study. Besides, I had made none of my research public. I began to feel, however, that I had found a level of cognition superior to the one on which I was operating."

http://www.oregonbd.org/Class/Mod1.htm

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

From: at
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 6:04 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Peter's definitions

Daniel wrote:

You haven't answered my question about Blavatsky's view of races either.

Peter Staudenmaier:

Which one did I not answer?

This one:

Daniel wrote:

Have you found the Polarian, Hyperborian, Lemurian and Atlantean biological races?

Peter Staudenmaier:

The Polarians and Hyperboreans didn't have material form in the sense of biological races. The Lemurians did. Both Steiner and Blavatsky taught that there are still remnants of Lemurians and Atlanteans populating the earth today.

Daniel:

You are really confusing me here, Peter. I thought I asked a simple question. I'm not sure what this answer has to do with my question. But since you seem to want to hold forth on the relationship between biological race and root race in the "theosophical-anthroposophical" worldview, it would help if it were complete with examples. How, in your understanding of the "theosophical-anthroposophical" worldview, do root race and biological race correspond, and how do they differ?

Daniel was snipped to:

But you have not established anything in this area

Peter Staudenmaier:

What does that have to do with whether I have answered the question? Are you really trying to say that I have refused to answer these questions, or do you just mean that you don't find my answers persuasive?

Daniel:

Snip. Snip. I wrote:

Daniel quoting Daniel:

Peter, why do you run away from every substantive question of your understanding of Anthroposophy? You have not answered Detlef. Why? Are you scared? Or is it too much work? You haven't answered my question about Blavatsky's view of races either. You go on and on about how simple it is, and how you have quoted at length, etc. But you have not established anything in this area, despite quite a few direct questions. That you choose not to answer does not bother me. What bothers me is lying about having done so (oh - that's right - it's not a lie because you honestly think you have - never mind). I find quite a disconnect between what you claim and what your posts have actually established. This carries over into a number of other areas as well. You still have not given me an explanation of the hierarchy planetary formative forces as described in GA 121 (there isn't one, which undermines your claimed of a hierarchy of racial forms in Steiner's work considerably, but you won't admit this).

Daniel:

What I was saying is that your answers up until yesterday were so evasive that they did not, in fact, answer the question. They deliberately evaded the question. Usually rather snidely, too. So no, they weren't persuasive; they weren't actually answers.

Daniel Hindes

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

From: at
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 5:34 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Peter's definitions

Hi again Daniel, you wrote:

These arguments would be nothing new to you, and I doubt you would consider them any more seriously the second time that the first.

Peter Staudenmaier:

You're quite right that I do not consider these objections serious. I think they are obviously frivolous. For example, it is extremely easy to show when someone else has taken a quote out of context. All you have to do is provide the preceding or following portions of the text and show that they contradict the original quoted passage. None of you has ever done that. As for mistranslations, you and Detlef believe that other anthroposophists have mistranslated both of the texts in question; all you charge me with is agreeing with these anthroposophist translations. If you want me to take your arguments seriously, I'll have to request that you offer some serious arguments. What do you say?

Daniel:

Read the archives.

Steiner's definitions

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


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

Search this site powered by FreeFind