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
