RS about racial evolution

 

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sat Mar 27, 2004 9:58 am
Subject: RS about racial evolution

Perhaps this is a good time to let Rudolf Steiner explain Rudolf Steiner about this issue:

At the beginning of Earth-evolution, the human being was part of a group-soul - as expressed in race, blood, family and so on - to a far greater extent than was the case later on. As evolution continues he becomes more and more of an individual, develops his individuality. We have heard what an important part certain forces play in the development of the individuality during Earth-evolution: consciousness that is dependent on the physical body; memory and remembrance which are dependent upon the ether-body; and karma, whereby a man can make real progress, in that his imperfections and faults do not remain but can be overcome by him as he passes through one incarnation after another. But the 'forms' or 'forces' created by thoughts and feelings, although they detatch themselves from the human being and lead an independent existence, are nevertheless closely united with him, in that they leave vestiges behind; these vestiges, as they are sent out by the 'I', contribute to the definition of the individuality and man gradually divests himself of the qualities belonging to the group-soul. The trend which will become more and more general over the globe and will form the essential, fundamental character of the Sixth epoch of culture, is no kind of approach to a new group-soul, but far rather the laying aside of the attributes of the group-soul. Intimately connected with this is the fact that the spiritual guidance of human beings will become more and more a matter individual to each one; they will have greater inner freedom in this respect.

Anyone who has understood the trend of the little book The Spiritual Guidance of Mankind will realise that a movement in this direction is in very truth taking place in the human race. It is a fact that in ancient times men lived under external leaders and teachers, but even in those days, leadership was gradually becoming an inner concern. Just as the outer form becomes an expression of the Individuality, so does the path to the spiritual worlds taken by human beings become more and more their individual concern. It is the duty of those who have insight into the signs of the times to insist that human beings have not remained stationary at an earlier stage of development, that the forces once employed, cannot be repeated in the same form, simply because men have gone forward in their evolution. In the age that is coming, the souls of men will become more and more mature, able to discern and perceive those things of which Spiritual Science teaches today.

The 'Mystery of Golgotha', as the essential Christ event, was an outer happening, striking into the physical world; a future Christ Event will be an inner concern, inasmuch as the soul of man has been so quickened by the first Christ Event that in days to come, the way to Christ will be found in the Spirit, out of the life of soul.

Wherever you look in Spiritual Science as it is presented here, you will always find - even in the case of very specialised details - that it is consistent with your own powers of reason and free judgement, provided only that you make a real effort to apply this free power of judgement. In that the individual human being is all the time becoming more accessible to influences from the spiritual world, the authority of external leadership will gradually lose its weight. It is very important to realise that the ancient wisdom exists and must be understood, that understanding of it can constantly increase if men's souls are open to the spiritual worlds and if they strive to grasp this wisdom with their powers of reason. This is the very essence of progressive evolution. However specialised the subjects may be, appeal to individual reason and judgement must never be excluded."

- Earthly and Cosmic Man, 20 June, 1912

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sat Mar 27, 2004 11:17 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] RS about racial evolution

I quoted RS:

In that the individual human being is all the time becoming more accessible to influences from the spiritual world, the authority of external leadership will gradually lose its weight.

And humanity is headed straight for anarchosophy, i.e. individualistic spiritualized anarchism. That's what seems to freak out the dialectical materialists of the left wing, who wish to hijack the concepts of individual autonomy, alternative lifestyles, and the erosion of racial differences in order to usurp them for their own political agenda. Anthroposophy teaches that racial differences and extermal authority are disappearing as a result of the influences of Spiritual Hierarchies. So to get rid of these Spiritual Hierarchies and discredit anthroposophists, politically oriented materialistic anarchists invent ways to accomplish this by insisting that spiritual science is an ideology seeking to keep people locked up in their racial group souls forever and send them on various Star Trek-inspired "racial missions", subjected to some anthroposophical fascist, semi-Nazi authority. The result is utter falsehood and misrepresentations, of course - a fact of which they are probably very much aware.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Mar 31, 2004 10:21 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] RS about racial evolution

Tarjei quoted Steiner on progressive evolution:

At the beginning of Earth-evolution, the human being was part of a group-soul - as expressed in race, blood, family and so on - to a far greater extent than was the case later on. As evolution continues he becomes more and more of an individual, develops his individuality. We have heard what an important part certain forces play in the development of the individuality during Earth-evolution: consciousness that is dependent on the physical body; memory and remembrance which are dependent upon the ether-body; and karma, whereby a man can make real progress, in that his imperfections and faults do not remain but can be overcome by him as he passes through one incarnation after another.

It seems to me that Tarjei and other list members are not quite decided about which tack they prefer to pursue in this exchange. We could either discuss what we think Steiner said about racial evolution and its ostensibly progressive nature, or we could discuss whether his stated views on this and related topics qualify as racist. Or we could do both. But it would move things along if Tarjei (or anyone else) could clarify which of these is at stake -- do you think that the Steiner passages I quoted do not express his actual views, or do you simply disagree that some of these views can be characterized as racist?

What Tarjei quotes here is quite compatible with what I quoted earlier; in Steiner's teachings, racial theory and evolutionary theory went hand in hand. Hence if we want to talk about Steiner's views on racial evolution, as Tarjei's chosen title for this post puts it, then we'll need to relate the several quoted passages to one another. Here is a brief attempt to do so.

In Tarjei's preferred passage, Steiner addresses the overcoming of imperfections and faults. When these imperfections and faults are correlated to particular racial groups, this idea is racist. (Whether it is immoral is another question.) Souls do not overcome their imperfections by incarnating in ever higher racial and ethnic forms. To hold otherwise is, in my view, to endorse a very obvious variety of racism.

Just as the outer form becomes an expression of the Individuality, so does the path to the spiritual worlds taken by human beings become more and more their individual concern. It is the duty of those who have insight into the signs of the times to insist that human beings have not remained stationary at an earlier stage of development, that the forces once employed, cannot be repeated in the same form, simply because men have gone forward in their evolution.

There is no such thing as going forward or backward in evolution. When the notion of moving forward in evolution is directly tied to race, this idea becomes racist. No race is more evolutionarily advanced than any other race. To hold otherwise is to endorse a very obvious variety of racism.

In that the individual human being is all the time becoming more accessible to influences from the spiritual world, the authority of external leadership will gradually lose its weight. It is very important to realise that the ancient wisdom exists and must be understood, that understanding of it can constantly increase if men's souls are open to the spiritual worlds and if they strive to grasp this wisdom with their powers of reason. This is the very essence of progressive evolution.

When the idea of progressive evolution is mixed in with the idea of racial missions and successive incarnations in a series of racial forms, it becomes inescapably racist, since these racial forms are then placed into an imagined ascending order. In reality, no race is higher or lower than any other race. To hold otherwise is to endorse a very obvious variety of racism. Furthermore, to claim that certain peoples and races are less open to the spiritual worlds than others, as Steiner did, exacerbates the racist elements in this theory of racial evolution. No racial or ethnic group as such is any more or less open to the spiritual worlds than any other. To hold otherwise is... well, you get the picture.

I do not think that this assessment involves any peculiar definition of racism. There is nothing unusual about saying that the idea of higher and lower races, more advanced and less advanced races, more perfect and less perfect races, is racist. I encourage some anthroposophist, any anthroposophist, to offer an argument to the contrary.

Tarjei also writes:

Anthroposophy teaches that racial differences and extermal authority are disappearing as a result of the influences of Spiritual Hierarchies. So to get rid of these Spiritual Hierarchies and discredit anthroposophists, politically oriented materialistic anarchists invent ways to accomplish this by insisting that spiritual science is an ideology seeking to keep people locked up in their racial group souls forever and send them on various Star Trek-inspired "racial missions", subjected to some anthroposophical fascist, semi-Nazi authority.

That is not what critics of anthroposophical racism argue. We argue that spiritual science is an ideology seeking to free people from their racial group souls via a process of racial advancement toward the Universal Human, by progressing from lower racial forms to higher racial forms and eventually escaping racial and ethnic particularity itself. Racial missions, good and evil races, and racial evolution are all necessary steps along the way to this concept of perfection. Since Tarjei and I seem to agree on the broad outlines of what Steiner actually taught about racial evolution, I think it would make considerably more sense for Tarjei to explain, at long last, why he thinks this ideology is not racist.

Peter

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

From: holderlin66
Date: Wed Mar 31, 2004 11:27 pm
Subject: Re: RS about racial evolution

Peter Staudenmaier's utter foolishness!

There is no such thing as going forward or backward in evolution. When the notion of moving forward in evolution is directly tied to race, this idea becomes racist. No race is more evolutionarily advanced than any other race. To hold otherwise is to endorse a very obvious variety of racism.

Peter you are an idiot! Forward, retardation, going backward, Oh what an unlearned child you are. Because Evolving is seemingly forward it makes a nice term doesn't it? The condition of retardation doesn't merely come from races... or races at all. Retardation comes from Retarding beings. You are such a retard. And with every shrunken headed concept you prove how you serve the very retarded thinking that has set back entire cultures with utter stupidity.

Retarding beings keep idiots like you in service presenting retarded concepts and these then infect, and inflame the various retarded ideologies that you dally with. Racism is retarded when it comes out of your mouth. Antisemeitism is just common intellectual fodder, divorced from Archangels or any thing to do with concepts and ideals beyond your immature and narrow scope. You Serve Retarded thinking and therefore evolution does go backward you dim with. Racism for you is leveling and dismissing qualites inhereent in different language based cultures, but the individual I Am who goes forward to brotherhood and idealism transcends all this bullshit you wallow in.

Upwards in the thinking world, where idealism lives, brotherhood prevails. Descending into the constipation of your body which you call thinking, narrows down to your own small intestinal tract and amounts to digestive will thinking. Thank you, Hitler felt the same way as you. How, how ever did such creatures as yourself ever imagine that you could equally participate with thinking individuals who have attained actual ideals?

Obviously someone who makes such idiot blanket statements that have no grounding, no reality and no substance has no idea about how true brotherhood is won. It is not won by not understanding the virtues of various cultures, Italian, French, German, Native American, Jewish..Chinese... it means that one studies the general and specific, but certainly, far above your examination of second hand reality, is the fact of how the distrubution of various qualites were meted out by the Divine. A divine that has to pass the test of your egotism and stupidity before it can be taken up. Meanwhile, you serve active retardation of human ideals. In other words, evolution does goe backward just beccause of your thinking.

Another reason for calling you an idiot is that there is no Divine in you examination of reality. It is all a fatal show, a play, a ploy and you have failed to touch the depth of the science of how the etheric body, releases the life tableau, and NDE experiences reveal enormous dimensions of the godhead that your egotism will not allow. Now Nietzsche could call Christ an idiot and one saw who was doing the speaking for Nietzsche. I call you an idiot because you don't know who is doing the speaking for your own pathetic, immature, unexplored and failed ideas.

To even have an idea, might mean you have to think... but retardation of ideas, retardation of humanity, retardation of brotherhood is professed with shere egotism, blindness and cold cunning. It destroys your whole Ecological and Green as well as social marxist idealism, because these ideas are not rooted in any reality what so ever. They have never been researched with the depth of Consciousness that grasps the whole framework of evolution and divinity as the unfolding magnificence of the I Am in humanity.

The fact that you cannot detect the difference between true idealism and dialectical materialism allows anybody with half a heart to scorn and reject your illogical platforms as both immature and lacking in understanding the sweep of I AM history all the way back to Saturn evolution. You are an unlearned, unresearched, one track intellectual without a compass for truth.

You are a pygmie and everyone who thinks as you do, prove themselves to be pygmies and slaves of Ahriman's intellectual college of idiots. You haven't had an original thought ever. You ride on a stream of idiots just like yourself and you are jealous and envious that Dr. Steiner did his homework and so ourshines any of you egotistical worms that you think you can come to the dead carcass of sprirtual science and, like some dumb ass buzzard peck at his flesh.

WRONG! The level of insight on this list alone, reveals the shrivelled, dried husks of thought you devour as food. Steiner is not buzzard food for the likes of you. The gods themselves feast on the communion that Steiner shared with humanity. You, however, failed to get an invitation to the party.

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

From: holderlin66
Date: Thu Apr 1, 2004 5:30 am
Subject: Re: RS about racial evolution

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, holderlin66 wrote:

Peter Staudenmaier's utter foolishness!

There is no such thing as going forward or backward in evolution. When the notion of moving forward in evolution is directly tied to race, this idea becomes racist. No race is more evolutionarily advanced than any other race. To hold otherwise is to endorse a very obvious variety of racism.

http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Lectures/19080904p01.html

"In the latter Atlantean time men were different one from another, some having retained a high degree of clairvoyant ability. This faculty did not vanish suddenly, but was still present in many of the men who took part in the great migration from west to east. In others, however, it had already disappeared. There were advanced persons and retarded persons and, in accordance with the whole nature of evolution at that time, we can understand that the least advanced were those who were the most clairvoyant, for in a certain way they had remained stationary and had preserved the old Atlantean character. The most advanced were those who had already achieved a physical perceiving of the world, thus approaching our form of day-consciousness. It was they who, ceased to see the spiritual world clairvoyantly at night, and who during their waking hours saw objects with sharper contours. That little handful of whom we have already spoken, who were led by the greatest initiate (generally known as Manu*) and his pupils deep into Asia and thence fructified the other cultures, just this handful, being composed of the most advanced men of that time, first lost the ancient gift of clairvoyance for the ordinary relationships of life.

For them the true day-consciousness, in which we see physical objects sharply contoured, became ever clearer. Their great leader led this group farthest into Asia, so that they could live in isolation; otherwise they would have come too closely in touch with other peoples who still preserved the old clairvoyance. Only because they remained separated from other peoples for a time could they grow into a new type of man. A colony was established in inner Asia, whence the great cultural streams could flow into the most varied peoples.

Northern India was the first country to receive its new cultural current from this center. It has already been pointed out that these little groups of cultural pioneers nowhere found un-populated territory. Earlier still, before their great migration from west to east, there had been other wanderings, and whenever new stretches of land rose from the sea, they were peopled by the wanderers. The persons sent out from this colony in Asia had to mix with other peoples, all of whom were more backward than they who had been led by Manu. Among these other peoples were many persons who had retained the old clairvoyance.

It was not the custom of the initiates to establish colonies as this is done today; they colonized in a different way. They knew that they had to start with the souls of the persons whom they met in the lands that were to be colonized. The emissaries did not impose what they had to say. They reckoned with what they found. A balance was reached that took into account the needs of the old inhabitants. This reckoned with their religious views, which were based on the memory of earlier epochs, and also with the old clairvoyant disposition. So it was natural that only a handful of the most advanced could develop true concepts. The great masses could form only ideas that were a sort of compromise between the old Atlantean and the post-Atlantean attitudes. Therefore, we find in all these countries, in India, in Persia, in Egypt, whenever the different post-Atlantean cultures appeared, religious ideas which for that age are less advanced, less cultivated; which are nothing but a sort of continuation of the old Atlantean ideas."

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Thu Apr 1, 2004 10:25 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] RS about racial evolution

At 08:21 01.04.2004, PS wrote:

It seems to me that Tarjei and other list members are not quite decided about which tack they prefer to pursue in this exchange. We could either discuss what we think Steiner said about racial evolution and its ostensibly progressive nature, or we could discuss whether his stated views on this and related topics qualify as racist. Or we could do both. But it would move things along if Tarjei (or anyone else) could clarify which of these is at stake -- do you think that the Steiner passages I quoted do not express his actual views, or do you simply disagree that some of these views can be characterized as racist?

There was nothing wrong with the passages you quoted; of course they expressed what Steiner had in mind. His books and lectures are self-explanatory. But you've proven yourself incapable of grasping anything Steiner said or wrote.

What Tarjei quotes here is quite compatible with what I quoted earlier; in Steiner's teachings, racial theory and evolutionary theory went hand in hand.

Of course everything Steiner said and wrote is mutually compatible, but you're determined never to understand why.

There is no such thing as going forward or backward in evolution.

Perhaps you should write your own evolutionary theory and see how well it catches on.

Since Tarjei and I seem to agree on the broad outlines of what Steiner actually taught about racial evolution,

No Peter, we do not agree on what Steiner taught about evolution, racial or otherwise, for the simple reason that you deny the influence of the spiritual world in this context. You also deny that evolution involves any progress whatsoever, backwards or forwards.

I think it would make considerably more sense for Tarjei to explain, at long last, why he thinks this ideology is not racist.

I don't think the gods are racists. But if you insist upon understanding evolution and race in the theosophical-anthroposophical context better than me, you should answer Detlef's question about Blavatsky and the yellow, red, brown and black races.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Thu Apr 1, 2004 10:40 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: RS about racial evolution

Hi Bradford, you wrote:

Because Evolving is seemingly forward it makes a nice term doesn't it? The condition of retardation doesn't merely come from races... or races at all. Retardation comes from Retarding beings.

We don't disagree about that. Steiner did indeed teach that retardation comes from retarded beings (for example, those who decline to accept Christ as the Leader of humankind). He also taught that these retarded beings will incarnate into lower racial forms, into backward races, because for Steiner spiritual advancement and retardation were directly tied to physical and racial advancement and retardation. That idea is racist, in my view. The entire notion that some racial and ethnic groups are "more backward" than others, as Steiner says in the snippet on the Aryan myth that you posted today, is patently racist. If you disagree, you just need to provide a non-racist account of the notion of backward races and lower racial forms and so forth.

Racism for you is leveling and dismissing qualites inhereent in different language based cultures, but the individual I Am who goes forward to brotherhood and idealism transcends all this bullshit you wallow in.

That is beside the point. The individual I Am is not and cannot be the object of racist thinking. Only particular incarnations and specific embodiments can be the object of racist thinking. That is how Steiner used the term 'race', and that is how critics of racist thought use the term. The conflation of language, culture, ethnicity, and race is one of the fundamental roots of modern racist thought.

Upwards in the thinking world, where idealism lives, brotherhood prevails.

That may well be, but it has nothing to do with whether some of Steiner's doctrines were racist. Lots of racists were idealists who believed in brotherhood.

it means that one studies the general and specific, but certainly, far above your examination of second hand reality, is the fact of how the distrubution of various qualites were meted out by the Divine.

The question is simply whether these qualities are distributed along racial lines. Racists believe that they are. Non-racists believe that they are not.

Peter

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

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Thu Apr 1, 2004 11:41 am
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: RS about racial evolution

----- Original Message -----

[Bradford:]

or races at all. Retardation comes from Retarding beings.

PS wrote: , making a perfect own-goal , just to say it in a soccer-like way.

That is beside the point.

No this IS the point.

The individual I Am is not and cannot be the object of racist thinking. Ditto... Well, let's try to develop a little this point.. The Individual I AM , in Spiritual Science, is the core of the Human Being . Only the I AM can say "I" to Himself. Such an I AM develops himself working over the astral body, ether body, physical body, transforming them via different span of times, So inside a weltanschauung that depicts the I AM as the center of this work NO RACISM IS POSSIBLE.

Only particular incarnations and specific embodiments And what "particular incarnations" are , but the subsequent stages of an "I AM " evolution life after life ?. If someone agrees, as PS does, that the I AM is the core of the human beings there is no actual further chance anymore to call "racist" Spiritual Science.

BTW : A racist is a guy who is unable to grasp the I AM that, at a particular moment in time, can manifest Himself via the sheats of an American or an European and so on . The racist is someone compelled to judge "the book by the cover". since he is able to see only what he thinks the "cover" is! Ergo: Since Anthroposophy is based on the fact of "reading the book" and not "to judge the cover" the racist, able to see only "the cover" is out of her paths.

What a beautiful own-goal people!

A.
(Sorry Brad for my jump'in !)

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Thu Apr 1, 2004 11:59 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] RS about racial evolution

Hi again Tarjei, you wrote:

There was nothing wrong with the passages you quoted; of course they expressed what Steiner had in mind.

Okay, so we agree that what Steiner says in the texts I quoted is that individual souls undergo a process of self-improvement via successive incarnations in ever higher racial and ethnic forms, eventually moving toward a perfected human type. In his account, race development is tightly correlated to soul development; as souls become better, they incarnate in more advanced races and peoples. Lower races and peoples gradually die out as the mass of souls moves upward toward perfection, thus requiring more perfected bodies to house them. Souls that fail to develop themselves in a progressive fashion (by rejecting Christ, for instance) incarnate in lower racial and ethnic forms; Steiner names Chinese and Jews as examples. These backward peoples and races still have a residual function, as long as there are less developed souls that need to incarnate in declining and decadent racial and ethnic forms. Meanwhile, small select racial and ethnic groups continue their development upward in order to host those souls that are advancing spiritually and approaching the ideal human type. Is that an accurate summary, in your view?

In reply to my observation that there is no such thing as going forward or backward in evolution, you wrote:

Perhaps you should write your own evolutionary theory and see how well it catches on.

A very large number of contemporary evolutionary theorists already agree with "my" theory, Tarjei. It is one of the dominant approaches within the field. I recommend consulting the work of Stephen Jay Gould, Ernst Mayr, Steven Rose, Richard Lewontin, Ruth Hubbard, Evelyn Fox Keller, and Richard Levins, among others.

No Peter, we do not agree on what Steiner taught about evolution, racial or otherwise, for the simple reason that you deny the influence of the spiritual world in this context.

Don't be silly. Far from denying this, I emphasize that in Steiner's eyes the influence of the spiritual world on racial identity is crucial. That is exactly what makes his doctrine racist, in my view.

You also deny that evolution involves any progress whatsoever, backwards or forwards.

Yes, indeed I do. That has nothing whatsoever to do with whether you and I agree about what Steiner taught. We both agree that Steiner believed that evolution is progressive.

Last, when I said that it would make more sense for you to explain why you think the ideology of higher races and lower races etc. is not racist, you wrote:

I don't think the gods are racists.

So what? The question was simply: do you think that the idea of higher and lower races and advanced and backward races and so forth is racist? Try to keep in mind that you're speaking for yourself here, not for the gods.

Peter

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

From: Patrick
Date: Thu Apr 1, 2004 12:14 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] RS about racial evolution

Mr. Staudenmaier,

Before we proceed further into discussion there are a few points I would like clear up. Before that , however, a few words regarding your comment to Tarjei about discussion. The word discussion is a broad term. It could include slicing up the other's comments and responding singly with agreement, disagreement, and sarcasm. I would prefer that you embrace the concept of dialogue, however. And I would like to define it. Dialogue is a conversation between two or more people in which all participants subscribe to a common discipline. That discipline is characterized by a quality of openness. That is, all participants are open to the ideas of others and show a willingness to have their opinion altered in some way. The dialogue thereby inheres a spirit of social ecology. It is a noncombative, non-polemic enterprise. Anyone who violates this in the dialogue invites verbal war; when this happens dialogue is finished. Although I think you likely prefer polemic, I also think that you can probably find meaning in that polemic is basically warlike in its tendency. Care to respond?

Before my altruism got the better of me, I had decided not to enter into further discussion with you because it seemed that you either did not understand or were not interested in dialogue as I described it. To wit, and that not withstanding, I jump in again...In your response to my last post, and I paraphrase, you stated you did not think that at any one time in history any culture could exist that was more advanced than the other's. This goes against a basic understanding of evolution. Now I wonder if you agree with evolution. Do you? What is your understanding of evolution? If several cultures exist and only one of them has discovered the wheel then are they all at the same level, or just different? Do you believe in the concept of advancement? I do think that certain things are advanced over others. For example, in the evolutionary sequence of musical instruments, the sitar is more advanced than the banjo although both are related to the same primal instrument. Now, this judgment is based on my recognition that the sitar is capable of more scales and therefore more musical moods are possible than with the banjo. This has to do with the idea of movable frets. Now recognize this as only one way to judge it. I might recognize this but actually prefer the banjo because I like the particular mood it offers. I like the exhilarating feeling of the banjo that moves me to stomp my feet, clap my hands and holler. It is also clear to me that the sitar offers more subtleties of tone and interval; the sitar offers the potential of exploring more complex musical idioms. I think that the human body is the instrument of the human spirit. Human bodies are of course different and part of that is due to heredity. I do not have the same sort of body that J. S. Bach had, nor his genius for that matter. I believe that genius is in the province of spirit. My body does have, however, gifts and limitations which I can utilize, overcome, or transform by virtue of my enterprising spirit. This spirit is activated through self-knowledge. Through self-knowledge I recognize that which I must overcome. That may mean overcoming a "tin ear". My wife achieved this through a love of music and six or seven years hard work. The woman who could not sing in a choir or ensemble because of her problems staying on pitch developed a beautiful mezzo soprano voice who brought true musical enjoyment to her listeners. She encountered along her way someone who almost killed her enthusiasm. She took a course in the music department of a local university and the teacher informed her one afternoon that she had no business taking such a course because she did not to have the talent to do it justice. Then she was lucky enough to find a teacher who understood her problem and helped her overcome it. The first teacher I liken to a racist who sees the person as limited by his or her lack and attributes it to heredity and thereby passes judgment on the person. Another person may see a limitation but look through it to the individual. The person may note that the limitation is due to heredity and yet trust in the genius of the individual to overcome it. This person is not in my estimation, a racist. So, I ask you, is noting differences between peoples or cultures, racist? Is seeing that cultures, through time, bring humanity to higher and higher stages of development, racist? I await your response. Please respond to all of my questions and not just the ones that further your argument.

In hopes of a dialogue,

Patrick

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Thu Apr 1, 2004 12:32 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] RS about racial evolution

Hi Patrick, you wrote:

The word discussion is a broad term. It could include slicing up the other's comments and responding singly with agreement, disagreement, and sarcasm. I would prefer that you embrace the concept of dialogue, however. And I would like to define it. Dialogue is a conversation between two or more people in which all participants subscribe to a common discipline.

I don't think that's possible here. Several listmates are beholden to ideas about public dialogue that I consider puerile, and they are evidently baffled by my approach to public dialogue. Hence I think there is little point in trying to come to a common understanding of the proper framework; it makes more sense to me to try to work around these procedural differences of opinion by focusing on the substantive issues at stake.

That discipline is characterized by a quality of openness. That is, all participants are open to the ideas of others and show a willingness to have their opinion altered in some way.

It is very easy to alter my opinion. Just present a persuasive argument and provide some evidence for it.

In your response to my last post, and I paraphrase, you stated you did not think that at any one time in history any culture could exist that was more advanced than the other's.

That's basically correct.

This goes against a basic understanding of evolution.

No, it doesn't. Evolution is about plants, animals, and so forth. Cultures are fundamentally different things.

Now I wonder if you agree with evolution.

Yes. It largely operates by natural selection, a mostly random process that is not progressive and has no goal. None of this has anything to do with cultures.

If several cultures exist and only one of them has discovered the wheel then are they all at the same level, or just different?

They are plainly different. As for the question of levels, level of what? Level of wheel-making prowess? Yes, in that regard they are different.

Do you believe in the concept of advancement?

Yes. I hope that certain teams will advance in the semi-finals, for example. What does this have to do with either natural evolution or cultural differences?

I do think that certain things are advanced over others.

So do I. Not cultures, though. But this is all beside the point. The question at issue is simply, do you think that certain races are advanced over others? Please answer that question.

I think that the human body is the instrument of the human spirit.

Okay. Do you think that the particular race in which a given human body appears is the expression of the spiritual level of the soul that it houses?

The first teacher I liken to a racist who sees the person as limited by his or her lack and attributes it to heredity and thereby passes judgment on the person.

I think that is beside the point. This is a foolish way of avoiding the broader meaning of the term 'racism'.

The person may note that the limitation is due to heredity and yet trust in the genius of the individual to overcome it.

The belief that particular spiritual or mental limitations are due to race is racist, regardless of one's thoughts on their possible overcoming.

This person is not in my estimation, a racist.

Yep, that's the problem.

So, I ask you, is noting differences between peoples or cultures, racist?

Only if you say that the differences are ranked in order from lower to higher and are directly tied to race. As soon as you say that, then yes, this belief is obviously racist.

Is seeing that cultures, through time, bring humanity to higher and higher stages of development, racist?

Only if you say that these lower and higher stages are directly correlated to particular racial groups. As soon as you say that, then yes, this belief is obviously racist.

Peter

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Thu Apr 1, 2004 12:09 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] RS about racial evolution

Hi Bryan, you wrote:

[From the thread "Peter's Definitions"]

You spend so much energy trying to convince Anthroposophists that they believe in a racist cosmology

I think it's the other way around. Anthroposophists spend a lot of energy trying to convince me that they really do believe in Steiner's cosmology, and that they disagree that elements of this cosmology are racist. This simply makes them poor judges of racism in my eyes.

when you could instead be going after those groups who are truly andproudly racist.

But I think that portions of anthroposophy are truly racist, and a number of anthroposophists seem rather proud of these very portions.

Why create enemies to fight with when there are so many real ones out there.

My real enemies are ideas, not people. I realize that some of you can't tell the difference, and I have no good ideas on what to do about that.

Peter

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

From: holderlin66
Date: Thu Apr 1, 2004 4:40 pm
Subject: Re: RS about racial evolution

Peter Staudenmaier wrote:

The entire notion that some racial and ethnic groups are "more backward" than others, as Steiner says in the snippet on the Aryan myth that you posted today, is patently racist. If you disagree, you just need to provide a non-racist account of the notion of backward races and lower racial forms and so forth.

That is beside the point. The individual I Am is not and cannot be the object of racist thinking. Only particular incarnations and specific embodiments can be the object of racist thinking.

Bradford comments;

Well there you have it, as Andrea indicated and you agree, "The individual I AM is not and cannot be the object of racist thinking". Spiritual Science is I AM core history and I AM core education, with a full focus on I AM development and therefore cannot be racist. We finally agree 100%

Now to update you on progressive and retrogressive or as planets sometimes do, go retrograde there was a distinct difference in how the Atlanteans viewed those who failed to see the gods, and had lost their atavistic dream participation, as really the new retards.

Let us look at what the issue was. The issue during and just after Atlantis was the shift from atavistic and ancient unconscious clairvoyance and the shift to new Science based cognition of Nature. The Retards in this case had two sides of exclusion. One. The old forces had remaining antavistic clairvoyance and the new, rejected group, didn't have that, and they were considered outcasts, different, lacking in someway.

Steiner presents this several different ways. Progressive were those who suddenly no longer had atavistic clairvoyance. They were treated as people who were different and stunted, yet that was to be the future shift of cogniton onto physical, five sense observation of the physical plane. Previous Charkras, and wheels, as well as "Altered State" mushrooms.. a no go.

Now today, we catch up on the curve around, that leads us back to conscious cognition of the Spiritual World. This gathered conscious Cognition loses old traces of atavistic clairvoyance and gains Exact Senorial Observation coupled with rebuilding consciously new Spiritual Cognition and recharging, the Charkras in a totally new way.

The curve of being embedded in the godhead of divine revelation, hanging back in the divine, and those who lost the ancient dominating vision of the gods, shifted to the clarity of the physical plane, eventually leads Aristotle upwards through the Sciences. These Sciences are the dead point before the new upward tendency begins. Atlanteans still retained ancient clairvoyance, the move with Manu to the Gobi desert brought a school of beginning to ground humanity on the physical plane.

After the Christ event and in very highlighted Specific, and historically earth shattering force, The Michael School begins the public training to regain the gods, not atatvistically, but consciously. You, are still ignorant of the process of I AM history, so presently you are behaving in a retarded thinking direction.

The problem here is not races at all. The problem here is that the advanced, merely seeing the physical plane sense bound group were considered retarded by the clairvoyant ancient Atlanteans. They were indicators of the future and Manu developed the first school to train the cognition to the physical plane, with full knowledge that the lifting of the entire ecological and moral framework of human evolution would require full consciousness of the physical plane and a new form of thinking.

R.S.

"In the latter Atlantean time men were different one from another, some having retained a high degree of clairvoyant ability. This faculty did not vanish suddenly, but was still present in many of the men who took part in the great migration from west to east. In others, however, it had already disappeared. There were advanced persons and retarded persons and, in accordance with the whole nature of evolution at that time, we can understand that the least advanced were those who were the most clairvoyant, for in a certain way they had remained stationary and had preserved the old Atlantean character. The most advanced were those who had already achieved a physical perceiving of the world, thus approaching our form of day-consciousness. It was they who, ceased to see the spiritual world clairvoyantly at night, and who during their waking hours saw objects with sharper contours. That little handful of whom we have already spoken, who were led by the greatest initiate (generally known as Manu*) and his pupils deep into Asia and thence fructified the other cultures, just this handful, being composed of the most advanced men of that time, first lost the ancient gift of clairvoyance for the ordinary relationships of life. For them the true day-consciousness, in which we see physical objects sharply contoured, became ever clearer. "

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Thu Apr 1, 2004 6:06 pm
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: RS about racial evolution

Hi Andrea, you wrote:

The Individual I AM , in Spiritual Science, is the core of the Human Being . Only the I AM can say "I" to Himself. Such an I AM develops himself working over the astral body, ether body, physical body, transforming them via different span of times, So inside a weltanschauung that depicts the I AM as the center of this work NO RACISM IS POSSIBLE.

Well, that would certainly explain why you're having trouble recognizing the racist aspects of Steiner's teachings: you've decided a priori that these aspects cannot possibly exist. This is a foolish way of approaching the matter, in my view.

And what "particular incarnations" are , but the subsequent stages of an "I AM " evolution life after life ?. If someone agrees, as PS does, that the I AM is the core of the human beings there is no actual further chance anymore to call "racist" Spiritual Science.

Why not? A theory of soul development that is linked directly to racial development and slots specific racial groups into categories of higher and lower, advanced and backward, and states that spiritual characteristics determine which race a given soul will incarnate into, qualifies as racist. Racism is a set of ideas about race. It is not a set of ideas about the core of the human being.

A racist is a guy who is unable to grasp the I AM that, at a particular moment in time, can manifest Himself via the sheats of an American or an European and so on .The racist is someone compelled to judge "the book by the cover". since he is able to see only what he thinks the "cover" is!

That is true of some racists. But a racist is also a guy who says that certain races are higher than others, are more advanced than others, are more spiritually developed than others. If you disagree, just explain how any non-racist could endorse the notion of higher and lower races.

Peter

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Thu Apr 1, 2004 6:20 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: RS about racial evolution

Hi Bradford, you wrote:

Spiritual Science is I AM core history and I AM core education, with a full focus on I AM development and therefore cannot be racist.

That is a non sequitur. The word "therefore" makes no sense in your sentence above. You may as well say that the ideology of the White Man's Burden was focused on improving the lot of poor unfortunate colored folk and therefore could not be racist. Anthroposophy is indeed a theory of I AM development, of soul development, of the evolution of the I. Anthroposophy is also a theory of racial development, of racial evolution, of the evolution of ever higher racial and ethnic forms. These latter aspects of anthroposophy are racist, in the sense that many people understand the term. A theory that sorts different racial groups into different spiritual categories, and designates some racial groups as retarded and others as progressive, counts as racist.

Peter

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

From: Patrick
Date: Thu Apr 1, 2004 8:08 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] RS about racial evolution

Mr. Staudenmaier,

There you go again! Calling my listmates "puerile" and pretending to make fun of Mr. Hardrop. You are saying that you only want to deal with the substantive issues at stake. I do not think whether or not someone is puerile or needs to be poked fun at is substantive. If you're not going to follow my lead to engage in dialogue, the least you can do it is to be civil. I don't care how you act towards others but I do care how you respond to me. It does nothing for your argument and in fact detracts when you say, "This is a foolish way of avoiding the broader meaning of the term 'racism'." What broader meaning of the term "racism" am I avoiding when I say that someone who judges another on the basis of his heredity is racist?

If I understand you rightly, evolution is only pertinent as a concept for minerals, plants, and animals, in other words, the natural world. So, you are not including human beings, am I right? It seems to follow therefore that you do not believe in the evolution of ideas and that certainly one idea is not more advanced than another. So, what's all this fuss over your idea about Steiner and racism? This of course seems absurd that one idea is not more advanced than another and I do not really think that you believe this but logic dictates that I ask you, "are you being consistent in your thinking?" Are you saying that being racist is not necessarily a bad thing? Are you implying that the word racist should have no sting? Whether or not racism is immoral is the question! Of course, it is. The problem is that we are not facing that question in this discussion. And this is the issue that keeps being shouted towards you from the rooftops of most members of this list. If you practice what anthroposophy teaches, you train yourself to look at the spiritual striving of the individual and not at the color of his skin. In the third lecture of The Spiritual Foundations of Morality -- you quote from the second lecture -- we find the statement "progress is not gained by the mere preaching of universal love, but by the extension of our interests further and further, so that we come to interest ourselves increasingly in souls with widely different characters, racial and a national peculiarities, with widely different temperaments, and holding widely differing religious and philosophical views, and approach them with understanding. Right interests, right understanding, calls forth from the soul the right moral action." With regard to the issue of racism, the acid test for a teaching should be what does it calls forth from its practitioners, not is this or that comment taken out of context, racist. So, against today's modern moral climate, why are you pursuing this line of thinking? I can think of no other reason than that you think that these ideas will generate racist action. In effect, you are working against a teaching that opposes separatist, nationalist, and racist action. Are you afraid to go after the real racists?

Now you asked me a direct question and I will answer. You asked, "The question at issue is simply, do you think that certain races are advanced over others?" And I answer, "No." In our time, race is no longer important. It hasn't been since the exodus out of Atlantis. Since the migrations, cultures have carried the evolution of humanity. Tribes and races have intermingled. There is no Indian race. There is no Egyptian race. There is no Greek race. All of these cultures have resulted from peoples who met and interacted in a protected geographical region guided by spiritual beings. Of course heredity was active but more important was the archangelic guidance. Culture is largely a spiritual phenomenon, but it too evolves and invariably crosses familial, tribal, communal and racial lines.

Patrick

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 12:32 PM
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] RS about racial evolution

Hi Patrick, you wrote:

The word discussion is a broad term. It could include slicing up the other's comments and responding singly with agreement, disagreement, and sarcasm. I would prefer that you embrace the concept of dialogue, however. And I would like to define it. Dialogue is a conversation between two or more people in which all participants subscribe to a common discipline.

I don't think that's possible here. Several listmates are beholden to ideas about public dialogue that I consider puerile, and they are evidently baffled by my approach to public dialogue. Hence I think there is little point in trying to come to a common understanding of the proper framework; it makes more sense to me to try to work around these procedural differences of opinion by focusing on the substantive issues at stake.

That discipline is characterized by a quality of openness. That is, all participants are open to the ideas of others and show a willingness to have their opinion altered in some way.

It is very easy to alter my opinion. Just present a persuasive argument and provide some evidence for it.

In your response to my last post, and I paraphrase, you stated you did not think that at any one time in history any culture could exist that was more advanced than the other's.

That's basically correct.

This goes against a basic understanding of evolution.

No, it doesn't. Evolution is about plants, animals, and so forth. Cultures are fundamentally different things.

Now I wonder if you agree with evolution.

Yes. It largely operates by natural selection, a mostly random process that is not progressive and has no goal. None of this has anything to do with cultures.

If several cultures exist and only one of them has discovered the wheel then are they all at the same level, or just different?

They are plainly different. As for the question of levels, level of what? Level of wheel-making prowess? Yes, in that regard they are different.

Do you believe in the concept of advancement?

Yes. I hope that certain teams will advance in the semi-finals, for example. What does this have to do with either natural evolution or cultural differences?

I do think that certain things are advanced over others.

So do I. Not cultures, though. But this is all beside the point. The question at issue is simply, do you think that certain races are advanced over others? Please answer that question.

I think that the human body is the instrument of the human spirit.

Okay. Do you think that the particular race in which a given human body appears is the expression of the spiritual level of the soul that it houses?

The first teacher I liken to a racist who sees the person as limited by his or her lack and attributes it to heredity and thereby passes judgment on the person.

I think that is beside the point. This is a foolish way of avoiding the broader meaning of the term 'racism'.

The person may note that the limitation is due to heredity and yet trust in the genius of the individual to overcome it.

The belief that particular spiritual or mental limitations are due to race is racist, regardless of one's thoughts on their possible overcoming.

This person is not in my estimation, a racist.

Yep, that's the problem.

So, I ask you, is noting differences between peoples or cultures, racist?

Only if you say that the differences are ranked in order from lower to higher and are directly tied to race. As soon as you say that, then yes, this belief is obviously racist.

Is seeing that cultures, through time, bring humanity to higher and higher stages of development, racist?

Only if you say that these lower and higher stages are directly correlated to particular racial groups. As soon as you say that, then yes, this belief is obviously racist.

Peter

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Thu Apr 1, 2004 8:21 pm
Subject: Re: RS about racial evolution

Peter:

A theory that sorts different racial groups into different spiritual categories, and designates some racial groups as retarded and others as progressive, counts as racist.

Peter, part of me wants to say, 'just shut up, will ya'. Jesus. I mean this is just too much misunderstanding for the normal human being. Seriously. You keep beating this dead dog over and over and over and you are fixiated on a thing that has no bearing in reality to Dr. Steiners teachings. Stunning.

Dottie

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

From: holderlin66
Date: Thu Apr 1, 2004 9:16 pm
Subject: Re: RS about racial evolution

Peter Staudenmaier wrote:

Anthroposophy is indeed a theory of I AM development, of soul development, of the evolution of the I.

Peter

Bradford comments;

Well there you have it, as Andrea indicated and you agree, "The individual I AM is not and cannot be the object of racist thinking". Spiritual Science is I AM core history and I AM core education, with a full focus on I AM development and therefore cannot be racist. We finally agree 100%"

Well let me rephrase it for you. Spiritual Science is I AM core history and I AM core education, with a full focus on I AM development, and, therefore, Spiritual Science cannot be racist.

Now that was well worth the endless wrangling over the issue. There is no one, there is no previous human being who has ever devoted his entire body of research, some 6000 odd texts, to understanding, unfolding and investigating the full depth of the I AM in human history and science other than Rudolf Steiner. Therefore Rudolf Steiner, as the first historical researcher into the lofty immortality, earth history, and cultural development of the I AM, and standing firmly on this I AM research, does not present a Racist theory but an unfolding foundation of the immortal I AM as it developed through Time and SPace, to the present moment.

As far as your exposed Darwinian grasp of disjointed half assed survival of the fittest, abstraction theory as pointed out by Dottie; Pure 19th century stale nonsense. Does Mankind, Do human beings have a lofty goal ahead of them that brings Freedom back to the bosom of the Gods who gave birth to the I AM, and did Steiner present the higher unfolding of human capacities, Spirit Self, Life Spirit and Spirit Man in logical and current language? He did.

That is what the Gobi desert, Manu, Atlantis and humanities chakras are about. Why are you strangely silent about Chakras? Why so dumb on Angels and Archangels? Could it be that you must cringe at all the accurate, medical, heart is not a pump research, Etheric body and out of the body testimones and related reality, science and history that is condensed in Spiritual Science? Could it be that you are a person who thinks the brain secretes thoughts like the liver secrets bile and that indeed ideas and ideologies are the same for you as they were for Hitler, digestive juices?

There is no way around the fact that failure to understand Idealism, not ideologies as games, but inner idealism, prevents your I AM from understanding brotherhood as anything but abstract humanism. And I am very fond of humanism. The communion of humanity with the Angelic world is constantly happening. It happens even on this list because thinking has become consecration of Living ideals. Here the Folk Souls lectures describe how each human being has an Angelic Nurturing guide. The child in his cradle knows this.

But for adult cognition, the Science of Angels, their history and their relation to how the I AM is carried and inserted into hereditary and karmic configurations is an advanced Star Wisdom. Now, When Buddha graduated from Earthly Karma, he no longer carried around his physical body. The achievement of Buddha allowed Buddha's Angel to advance. Every human being who progresses along the path of karma and higher education, eventually frees their Angel. Buddha's Angel logically, and consistently becaome an Archangel.

This progressive, individualized development allowed the Archangel Michael to become the Archai Michael. Therefore, above and within the I AM of the human being, the gods themselves and each human Angel will advance and this would include the goal of the Angelic Kingdom and the Human Kingdom, i.e. Brotherhood.

This is the Science that you have never understood that moves from mineral, plant, animal, human, angel, archangel, archai, kyriotetes, dynamis, Exusai-Serpahim, Cherubim and Thrones. let us count them. Well what do you know 13. 13 at the Last Supper. Arthur and his 12 knights. Bodhisattvas...but wait, America.. Pyramid with the I above the pyramid, tells us that 13 steps to the top of the Eye. But wait, America had 13 colonies. But wait the dollar is riddled with thirteen arrows.. so Even the founding Fathers had more understanding in their big toes than you have ever understood.

But Steiner didn't just present the rudiments, he presented the details, the organized unfolding rhythm of human development far into the future and back into the past of Ancient Saturn. Insects, Planets, Solar System, Stars, matter, atomic table... and Christ was master of all of them from having schooled, as Jesus, all that has only briefly here been indicated.

Steiner was the first Historian, Scientist and Prophet of the I AM in the twentieth century. There has been nothing of the magnitude of Spiritual Science that has impacted humanity, since the Vedas and Ancient India. This was not only a gift to the West, but it stirred up the most fearsome retarding Beings, and that is how the twentieth century got fouled in racism.

"I knew Jack Kennedy, and you are no Jack Kennedy, Senator Quayle," I know Rudolf Steiner and you Mr. Staudenmaier are no historian.

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Thu Apr 1, 2004 9:20 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] RS about racial evolution

At 21:59 01.04.2004, Peter S wrote:

Okay, so we agree that what Steiner says in the texts I quoted is that individual souls undergo a process of self-improvement via successive incarnations in ever higher racial and ethnic forms, eventually moving toward a perfected human type.

No, we don't agree on anything in this field, Peter. Nothing at all. Or if we do, you're not revealing it. You miss entirely the effects Steiner is getting at when he talks about incarnating "into different racial lineages". You miss these effects because they are soul-spiritual. Your paraphrasings and summaries don't match the quotes, because you're not capable of reading such literature.

It is interesting to note that when quotes you have selected are supplemented by other quotes in order to clarify Steiner's views, you appear to be provoked by such supplementary quotes.

Is that an accurate summary, in your view?

No.

A very large number of contemporary evolutionary theorists already agree with "my" theory, Tarjei.

What is your theory of evolution? How did human races originate? What happens to an evolution that does not progress at all and does not move forwards or backwards? Does it stand still, waiting for Judgment Day, like the creationists say?

It is one of the dominant approaches within the field. I recommend consulting the work of Stephen Jay Gould, Ernst Mayr, Steven Rose, Richard Lewontin, Ruth Hubbard, Evelyn Fox Keller, and Richard Levins, among others.

I'm convinced that you your invitations to discuss evolution and races would meet much better responses here if you would elaborate on your own theory with some enthusiasm instead of repeating your twisted caricature of Anthroposophy.

Far from denying this, I emphasize that in Steiner's eyes the influence of the spiritual world on racial identity is crucial. That is exactly what makes his doctrine racist, in my view.

What you try to emphasize is that racial identiry itself is crucial to Anthroposophy, only spiced up with a little spirituality.

do you think that the idea of higher and lower races and advanced and backward races and so forth is racist? Try to keep in mind that you're speaking for yourself here, not for the gods.

It is not racist to understand that racial forms disappear and are replaced by new ones and that this is connected with progressive evolution. This is a view that recommends race-mixing, integration, and assimilation and is therefore anti-racist. See my article about Steiner, Christ, and Racial Intermarriage at

http://www.uncletaz.com/steinchrmar.html

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Thu Apr 1, 2004 9:38 pm
Subject: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: RS about racial evolution

: Friday, April 02, 2004 4:06 AM
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: RS about racial evolution

Hi Andrea, you wrote:

The Individual I AM , in Spiritual Science, is the core of the Human Being . Only the I AM can say "I" to Himself. Such an I AM develops himself working over the astral body, ether body, physical body, transforming them via different span of times, So inside a weltanschauung that depicts the I AM as the center of this work NO RACISM IS POSSIBLE.

Well, that would certainly explain why you're having trouble recognizing the racist aspects of Steiner's teachings:

Troubles ? The only troubles here are your obsession about it,

you've decided a priori

This is not an "a priori". It is a result of an EXPERIENCE of the wholeness of RS's inisghts.. This explains well, on the contrary, that you don't grasp actually nothing (or you don't WANT to grasp) nothing of Spiritual Science.

This is a foolish way of approaching the matter, in my view.

The only foolish thing here is your approach to the matter since you lost from the beginning the core of the object of your "research".

And what "particular incarnations" are , but the subsequent stages of an "I AM " evolution life after life ?. If someone agrees, as PS does, that the I AM is the core of the human beings there is no actual further chance anymore to call "racist" Spiritual Science.

A theory of soul development

It' s not a "soul development". It's a development of I AM (Spirit) Astral Body (Soul) Ether-Physical (Body) you have not the tiniest idea of what you re talking about.

that is linked directly to racial development and slots specific racial groups

Your usual twitsing of concepts. It is not a "direct" link but is the choice of a "dress" for a spiritual experience on Earth.

Again: today it's impossible to judge in advance by the "dress" an human being. (racist attitude) In Spiritual Scienve any rigid determinism is out of place. Yaaawnnn......

On and On you seem to mistake RS's insights with Evola's one !

into categories of higher and lower, advanced and backward,

Oh the point! you are obsessed by the differences among human beings and call "racist" any of them!

qualifies as racist. Racism is a set of ideas about race. It is not a set of ideas about the core of the human being.

A racist is a guy who is unable to grasp the I AM that, at a particular moment in time, manifest Himself via the sheats of an American or an European and so on .The racist is someone compelled to judge "the book by the cover". since he is able to see only what he thinks the "cover" is!

That is true of some racists. But a racist is also a guy who says that certain races are higher than others, are more advanced than others, are more spiritually developed than others

This bullshit, again ! Yaaawn. Well let's summarize:

1) The core of Spiritual Science is the "I AM " teaching . (No racism here, as you said)
2) Today there is no "spiritual race" anymore. There are only individuals who lives in different community of languages (nations) The "races" are fading away
3) . The picture that Steiner gives us for the future development of Mankind have nothing to do with the "racial" insights of past times cultures but are depicting a possible full spiritualization of Mnkind and Earth.
4) In Spiritual Science there are no racial prejudices since the core of Steiner's teachings is about the link between single "I AM" and single "I AM" (in this case it can be said "soul-spirit")

I should carry it on for an hour . but , yaaawn....:

If you disagree, just explain how any non-racist could endorse the notion of higher and lower races.

And having said the above the consequence is that the notion of higher and lower "races" is out of Spiritual Science.

So you will not agree and I don't care ,,,,,,OH : WHY AM I SO STUPID TO WASTE MY PRECIOUS TIME DISCUSSING WITH A BROKEN RECORD????????????

A.

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

From: Harvey Bornfield
Date: Thu Apr 1, 2004 11:03 pm
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: RS about racial evolution

At 04:06 AM 4/2/2004, you wrote:

Hi Andrea, you wrote:

The Individual I AM , in Spiritual Science, is the core of the Human Being . Only the I AM can say "I" to Himself. Such an I AM develops himself working over the astral body, ether body, physical body, transforming them via different span of times, So inside a weltanschauung that depicts the I AM as the center of this work NO RACISM IS POSSIBLE.

Well, that would certainly explain why you're having trouble recognizing the racist aspects of Steiner's teachings: you've decided a priori that these aspects cannot possibly exist. This is a foolish way of approaching the matter, in my view.

Dear Peter:

We must speak a little further of the "I-AM", and warn of wolves that prowl in thought.

Racism does not admit of aspects, but is rather a statement of an underlying intent to exalt some and demean others. Failing conspicuous telltale evidence of such intent within the life of an individual, there is no hope that any campaign or crusade, however ferocious or subtle, however penetrating or enchanging, which would be capable of getting to first base in attempt either indict or exonerate an individual of such a label. For it is not written, "By their deductions", but rather "By their fruits ye will know them" This is the standard, whether it pleases or insults you, that in the estimation of the Christ, who has a slight possibility of knowing more than a Ph.D., it is possible to define and defend the Human path through the bard's voice, as in "my brain I'll prove the female to my soul" (Richard II). The rest's but footnote, embroidery, encore, maraschino cherry, yet I'll hammer it out, (what are friends for?)

Racism, I think it could fairly be said is one of the tragic echoes of a behavior which promulgates an intent to harbor twin prejudices of privilege and malice, and to project these upon group membership. The imagined entitlement or the exclusion of entitlement, based upon the tenacious, atavistic, Neanderthal-like clinging to criteria of human identity focused through externally-definable criteria, characterizes what one can come to regard as "template thinking", a term I substitute as more creative and expansive a depiction of what others might refer to as dogmatic or parochial behavior, also known in rude circles in America as "Redneck".

Now the real question Peter S "must" answer, like everyone who will soon be left, as my friend Cornman once said, "standing on what he's standing for", : ) , is one he will ask in front of the mirror, as he checks, like a 500 year-old Dracula before him to see if there is anything which reflects at all in it, is this: ..............whether he wishes to regard himself for the rest of this reincarnation as a person who insists that identity is only to be focused, pursued and defined by the widely accepted though utterly futile resort to non-phenemonologically, (i.e., non-self-evidencing) verifiable forms of reflective experience, or.............. whether he will invite himself to indulge the notion of seeking to dissolve henceforth from the house arrest of racial, tribal, national and ethnic identity, and so come to see such mercurial parole from these long-standing curses as something unspeculative, worth cherishing, embracing and championing. This is the stuff of which decisions "to die for" are made on. Not to answer too soon, with prepared press-releases and syndicated reruns, for you are in front of your own mirror.

The most fundamental contribution of Rudolf Steiner was to impart an understanding of the Anthroposophical world view as progressive in attitude, rather than paralyzed by obsession with defining and living within the psychologically myopic confines of a freeze-framed reality, from static, non-mysterious, brass-like, dictionary forms of identity.

Because of the evolve-ability, the re-thinkability of ideas and purposes, magnetisms and currents of spiritual influence which have in ages past, played significant roles in conferring, belief infrastructures and purpose to people when forces of individuation had not progressed as far as they have now, now may be understood to be on the wane and are losing hold as determinants of aspiration.

Throughout the near and in the upstream of the more legendary domains of the sweep of history, when the racial garb, the clothing of the biological basis for life held far greater sway than it does now, initiates and sages have nonetheless regarded race and tribe and nation as gloves, beneath which is the Invisible Hand of God. And so these are ever mere epicenter of Divine purposes and the Hierarchies which sire those lofty intents, through which they revealed and matured genius, talents and capacities within groups through instinctive, less conscious, less independent, focusing in more stereotypic rather than in what can be regarded as "lone and maverick'd" ways, those self-initiated impulses we see and affirm as appropriate for the present.

The danger, the tar-pit into which you persist it is necessary to continue sinking is reversible by developing an interest in the balance between beauty and criticism, that through such pursuit of equilibrium you can evolve the gift of individuality, which is but promise which only choice can fructify. So how to become a species unto oneself; this honor comes about through the forging of courage to break through the cocoon of the collective and become an author of influences out of the "I-AM." This is the esoteric meaning of pulling Excalibur from the sheath of one's own Stone. Just as religion is to group identity as the emerging ability, the "artistic license" to reveal and perfect the work of art is to the individual, so also, whoever wishes to define his own conscious access by self-emancipating from "Template Thinking", will regard intuition as an antidote to spin and all prejudice, and see in its inspired cultivation the single sine-qua-non fundamental to the core and living essence of Anthroposophia.

To remain mired, seeking strength of your own self-definition by resort to agitating sympathy and antipathy in others, squanders valuable energy which could, pending spiritual maturity, be spent in blessing and empowering others to focus their attention towards the liberation of men from the blind slavery of nationalism, racism, and every "ISM". For slowly it becomes clear that the "Anything-ISM" stereotype is a pathology which fractures the One Human Race into kingdoms of turf-bound claustrophobia, and makes competition a euphoria, and is the primary campaign contributor to what populates this great stage with fools. "Then we must labor to destroy the animal condition, til the true meaning of humanity come to light"

Good luck on opening the cover and reading your own book. May your for-and-against, black-and-white hot-and-cold running Zebra stripes all turn to Joseph's coat of many rainbows............

Warm Regards,
Abraham Van Helsing

"Music is the one incorporeal entrance into the higher world of knowledge which comprehends mankind, but mankind cannot comprehend."
Ludwig van Beethoven

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Fri Apr 2, 2004 9:08 am
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: RS about racial evolution

Harvey:

We must speak a little further of the "I-AM", and warn of wolves that prowl in thought.

Dearest Harvey, you are the most beautiful heart mind I have ever met or even hope to meet in this lifetime. Truly your words are a consistant study of pulling ones self up from the bootstraps of humanity to its counterpart in the spiritual worlds.

Thank you always for your inspiring words today tomorrow and yesterday.

Sincerely,
Dottie

And Harvey said,

Racism does not admit of aspects, but is rather a statement of an underlying intent to exalt some and demean others. Failing conspicuous telltale evidence of such intent within the life of an individual, there is no hope that any campaign or crusade, however ferocious or subtle, however penetrating or enchanging, which would be capable of getting to first base in attempt either indict or exonerate an individual of such a label. For it is not written, "By their deductions", but rather "By their fruits ye will know them" This is the standard, whether it pleases or insults you, that in the estimation of the Christ, who has a slight possibility of knowing more than a Ph.D., it is possible to define and defend the Human path through the bard's voice, as in "my brain I'll prove the female to my soul" (Richard II). The rest's but footnote, embroidery, encore, maraschino cherry, yet I'll hammer it out, (what are friends for?)

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Fri Apr 2, 2004 9:25 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] RS about racial evolution

Hi Patrick, you wrote:

There you go again! Calling my listmates "puerile" and pretending to make fun of Mr. Hardrop.

I didn't call our listmates puerile, I said that some of them are beholden to ideas about public discourse that I consider puerile. One good example is the refusal to distinguish people from ideas.

You are saying that you only want to deal with the substantive issues at stake.

That would be nice, don't you think? There's lots of Steiner texts we could be discussing. I say let's get on with it.

What broader meaning of the term "racism" am I avoiding when I say that someone who judges another on the basis of his heredity is racist?

The broader meaning of the term racism which recoginizes that judging another on the basis of heredity is only one among many varieties of racist thinking. Another variety is the insistence on classifying some races as higher and others as lower. You don't seem particularly interested in discussing that variety. Why not?

If I understand you rightly, evolution is only pertinent as a concept for minerals, plants, and animals, in other words, the natural world.

That is what the term 'evolution' generally refers to in a biological context. Do you disagree?

So, you are not including human beings, am I right?

No, you are not right. Human beings are part of the natural world and one of the products of natural evolution, in my view.

It seems to follow therefore that you do not believe in the evolution of ideas and that certainly one idea is not more advanced than another.

I do believe in the evolution of ideas. This has nothing at all to do with natural evolution. They are fundamentally different things.

So, what's all this fuss over your idea about Steiner and racism?

Beats me. I was hoping maybe one of you could explain that. For some reason a lot of you get very upset when other people read about racial missions, racial souls, eugenics, higher and lower races, and conclude that these ideas are racist.

This of course seems absurd that one idea is not more advanced than another

What does that have to do with one race being more advanced than another?

Are you saying that being racist is not necessarily a bad thing?

Obviously it isn't necessarily a bad thing. Lots of racists were and are proud of their racism. I think that racism is always a bad thing, but racists themselves often disagree.

Are you implying that the word racist should have no sting?

Whether it has a sting depends entirely on one's own attitude toward racism.

Whether or not racism is immoral is the question!

No, it isn't. Whether or not some of Steiner's doctrines are racist is the question. The question of morality is separate. There are people who like some of Steiner's doctrines precisely because of their racist character.

So, against today's modern moral climate, why are you pursuing this line of thinking? I can think of no other reason than that you think that these ideas will generate racist action.

No, that isn't what worries me (though it's not a far-fetched possibility). My focus is on racist ideology.

Are you afraid to go after the real racists?

Most of my research is on Nazis and their predecessors. I trust they meet your standard of "real racists". The problem here, from my point of view, is that your standard is wrong. People who believe in higher and lower races, advanced and backward races, are real racists. If you disagree, please explain why.

Now you asked me a direct question and I will answer. You asked, "The question at issue is simply, do you think that certain races are advanced over others?" And I answer, "No."

Great. So you disagree with Steiner on that one. Or maybe you think Steiner didn't really mean all that stuff about more advanced races?

In our time, race is no longer important. It hasn't been since the exodus out of Atlantis.

Are you trying to say that you think some races were more advanced than others in the past? Which ones?

Peter

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Fri Apr 2, 2004 10:16 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: RS about racial evolution

Hi Bradford, you wrote:

Well let me rephrase it for you. Spiritual Science is I AM core history and I AM core education, with a full focus on I AM development, and, therefore, Spiritual Science cannot be racist.

That is an obvious non-sequitur, Bradford, as I pointed out yesterday. The "therefore" is nonsensical, because the premise and the conclusion have nothing to do with one another. If somebody writes, "spiritual science is about epistemology and esotericism and, therefore, spiritual science cannot be racist", competent readers will laugh at this. If you want to know what other people think is racist about Steiner's doctrines, you'll have to take a look at his published works on race.

Peter

Continued in"Anthroposophy can't be racist because it's about the "I Am"?"

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Fri Apr 2, 2004 10:21 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] RS about racial evolution

Hi Tarjei, you now say that you find something inaccurate about my summary of Steiner's teachings on racial evoltion. This is a reversal from your prior post, of course, but we can set that aside if you like. Could you simply state what you think was inaccurate in my summary? Thanks,

Peter

Is that an accurate summary, in your view?

No.

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Fri Apr 2, 2004 10:33 am
Subject: Re: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: RS about racial evolution

Hi Andrea, you wrote:

It' s not a "soul development".

I recommend you re-read Steiner's extensive and repeated explanations of the relationship between soul development and race development. I quoted a number of them for you some time ago. You can find that post here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/3469

You also evidently disagree with my observation that a racist is also a guy who says that certain races are higher than others, are more advanced than others, are more spiritually developed than others. You called this observation "bullshit". I think this is the heart of our disagreement. You don't recognize that such beliefs are racist in the first place.

Peter

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Fri Apr 2, 2004 10:40 am
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: RS about racial evolution

Hi Harvey, you wrote:

Racism does not admit of aspects, but is rather a statement of an underlying intent to exalt some and demean others.

I disagree. Racism is not a matter of intentions, it is a matter of beliefs.

Racism, I think it could fairly be said is one of the tragic echoes of a behavior which promulgates an intent to harbor twin prejudices of privilege and malice, and to project these upon group membership.

That is much too narrow a standard. By this logic, very many historical racists would not qualify as racist.

Peter

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

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Fri Apr 2, 2004 11:05 am
Subject: R: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: RS about racial evolution

----- Original Message -----

You also evidently disagree with my observation that a racist is also a guy who says that certain races are higher than others, are more advanced than others, are more spiritually developed than others.

Peter, i' ll tell it to you in the mildest possible way. I see that we are running in circles.

Several listmates tried to explain to you what Spiritual Science has to say about the topic that you twist and pervert every line you are writing. I have no more time to waste with you., really. I sdtmit to have also enjooyed this ping pong bot now I'm really bothered.

So you can read Patrick's answer about it , since I agree at all with him on this topic.
De hoc satis, Nyarlatothep.
(Beware of Prof: Scaccabarozzi, Mr Ward!)

A:

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Fri Apr 2, 2004 12:02 pm
Subject: Re: R: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: RS about racial evolution

Okay, so is it accurate to say that Andrea and Patrick agree that it is not racist to say that certain races are higher than others, are more advanced than others, are more spiritually developed than others? Or am I twisting and perverting someting or other again? I would be very interested in learning what both of you actually think on this question. Thanks,

Peter

You also evidently disagree with my observation that a racist is also a guy who says that certain races are higher than others, are more advanced than others, are more spiritually developed than others.

Peter, i' ll tell it to you in the mildest possible way. I see that we are running in circles.

Several listmates tried to explain to you what Spiritual Science has to say about the topic that you twist and pervert every line you are writing. I have no more time to waste with you., really. I sdtmit to have also enjooyed this ping pong bot now I'm really bothered.

So you can read Patrick's answer about it , since I agree at all with him on this topic.
De hoc satis,Nyarlatothep.
(Beware of Prof: Scaccabarozzi, Mr Ward!)

A:

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Fri Apr 2, 2004 3:06 pm
Subject: Peter S about HPB and races (was: RS about racial evolution)

At 20:21 02.04.2004, Peter S wrote:

Hi Tarjei, you now say that you find something inaccurate about my summary of Steiner's teachings on racial evoltion. This is a reversal from your prior post, of course, but we can set that aside if you like. Could you simply state what you think was inaccurate in my summary?

The answer to that question depends upon whether or not the yellow, red, brown and black races were "main races" according to HPB.

Tarjei

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

From: winters_diana
Date: Fri Apr 2, 2004 8:00 pm
Subject: Re: RS about racial evolution

Peter you are an idiot! Forward, retardation, going backward, Oh what an unlearned child you are. Because Evolving is seemingly forward it makes a nice term doesn't it? The condition of retardation doesn't merely come from races... or races at all. Retardation comes from Retarding beings. You are such a retard.

Bradford this is just a shameful rant. What is wrong with you people? Why doesn't somebody tell him to act like a human being? This is garbage, this isn't "spirituality."

Diana

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

From: holderlin66
Date: Fri Apr 2, 2004 7:45 pm
Subject: Peter Staudenmaier Celebrates the I AM

Peter Staudenmaier wrote:

Anthroposophy is indeed a theory of I AM development, of soul development, of the evolution of the I.

"The individual I AM is not and cannot be the object of racist thinking".

Peter

Please enshrine these words above the Portal: Quote of the Year!

Bradford comments;

Well there you have it, as Andrea indicated and you agree, "The individual I AM is not and cannot be the object of racist thinking". Spiritual Science is I AM core history and I AM core education, with a full focus on I AM development and therefore cannot be racist. We finally agree 100%"

Well let me rephrase it for you. Spiritual Science is I AM core history and I AM core education, with a full focus on I AM development, and, therefore, Spiritual Science cannot be racist.

Now that was well worth the endless wrangling over the issue.

Comments;

Well there is no other system of complete I AM education other than Anthroposophy and Spiritual Science and as Peter has said, I Am education, by it's very nature cannot be considered Racist. We have a BINGO winner. You can write home and call your friends, Peter has seen the light. Lets uncork a few bottles and celebrate Peter's mighty Epiphany. Peter we are proud of you for arriving at research that befits a human being in the 21st century. Now lets work on those tics.

Now to add this momentus celebration we should look directly into the area of kernel I AM development where it appeared after Atlantis. This has always been a problem area for Peter.

Steiner;

"Those other people who had gone the farthest into Asia included a small company from whom the divine spiritual world had withdrawn the most. In its place they had acquired something else, something that had been saved from the world, which had withdrawn into profoundest darkness — this was the ego, or the "I am." They felt that what was preserved within them as the "I am" was the eternal core of their being, and that it had sprung from the spiritual world; they felt all the forms they had previously seen were like a sacred memory, and that their strength depended upon this firm core which remained within them.

As yet they did not perceive the ego in its complete form; this only came later, but those who were the most advanced, who had descended most deeply, developed a certain tendency which they might have expressed as follows: What we have to treasure above all else is the consciousness of our divinity, consciousness of that in which is to be found the deepest memories of our soul. Even if this soul has forgotten the divine beings which once it knew, we can find the way back to them by looking within our own being — by being conscious of our ego. In short, the consciousness of a formless God was now evolved, a God who does not appear in outward form, but who must be sought within man's innermost being. This conception, which is a very old one, was transformed in the course of man's further development into the commandment: Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image or likeness of thy God. "

Bradford comments;

Students of the Michael School, how clear do we have to be? What Peter and most of us need to understand is that several forms of Retardation and Insight were arising in different peoples and cultures. Steiner indicates, that by normal Atlantean standards, we could say that the Retards, were used to create the basis for New Groups who could consolidate this fundamental weakness.

This is part of the details of the Noah story left undiscovered by our Biblical fables, revisionist and mythic history; yet this weak new capacity reveals the closing, the loss of ancient insights and the new capacity, the retarded capacity to take hold of ones own memory, not racial memory. This weakened memory was totally new and undeveloped. This weak and fragile new capacity shatters Staudenmaier's particular autistic focus on race and Advanced Race. Peter suffers from Asperger's Syndrome when it comes to race.

Paying attention and thanking Peter for coming to such a logical conclusion takes us back to amazing details, that go all the way back to Paulina. Paulina had indicated exactly what the problem was. The problem was that heredity and blood line memory allowed someone in the Bible to claim they had living memory all the way back several hundred, in some cases 5 to 900 year memory spans. Which they did. The had ancient group soul memory and the Chinese had a natural capacity for this.

Those with group soul memory capacity were strong tribal leaders. But I AM's were fashioning their own connections to the spiritual worlds and were ostercized even from their own tribes, because inwardly they had lost the old connections to race and they were different.

Ancient memory and atavistic clairvoyance connected souls to the group, their tribe, their blood and not the newly dawning, and lonely, I AM capacity. It was those Atlantean retards, a complete reversal of what Peter Staudenmaier imagines, it was those who had lost the capacity for group soul memory that were the foundation of the new advanced retards.

Steiner:

http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Lectures/UniEarMan/19080813p01.html

"Then there was a certain small colony consisting of the most advanced men of the Atlantean epoch who had settled near the Gobi desert. What kind of people were these, and what do we mean when we say they were the "most advanced?" It means those least able to see into the spiritual world, for advancement consisted in their having proceeded from the spiritual world and having entered into the physical world. They were the people who felt constrained to say: "Formerly we had connection with the spiritual world, but we have it no longer." This loss filled their hearts with sorrow; they longed for the spiritual world from which they had come and which they valued more than that in which they now dwelt.

Conditions varied among the different European populations. Under certain conditions many could still see into the spiritual worlds. When the Mysteries still existed in Europe, and Initiates — who through occult development could rise in full consciousness to the spiritual world — spoke of those worlds and of the beings dwelling there, or of the varied parts men had to play after death; when the initiates brought all this in mighty pictures before the people by means of myth and legend, they found some who understood them, for some still had vision.

The peculiar conditions of life and of environment in ancient Europe caused even uninitiated persons to experience the spiritual world. Though they could not come in contact with the higher Gods they believed in the spiritual worlds and trusted in them. These worlds were real to them, hence they felt their humanity in a quite different way from other peoples. Let us try to enter into the feelings of these ancient Europeans.

They said: "I am indeed connected with the Gods." Through consciousness of this a strong sense of personality developed in them, a special sense of the divine worth of the human personality, and, above all, a strong sense of freedom. We must picture this state of feeling vividly, for it was this consciousness of the personality which the people of Europe took with them when they went south and peopled the Grecian and Italian peninsulas.

We can note stragglers from those who were possessed of this feeling, particularly among the ancient Etruscans. Even in their art we can observe this strong sense of freedom, for it had a spiritual foundation. Before the rise of the true Roman kingdom there was an Etruscan population in the Italian peninsula which had a high degree of freedom in its system of government; on one hand it was somewhat hierarchical, and, on the other, free in the highest sense. Each town made provision for its own freedom, and an ancient Etruscan would have felt any kind of confederacy, in our sense of the word, as unbearable. Everything which passed southwards in the peninsula as a sense of freedom, or a feeling for personality, sprang from the causes we have mentioned. "

Bradford concludes;

Now if you study Spiritual Science you are a victim of the Easter Mysteries. Those who study Spiritual Science are Ostercized by the current hanger ons to Dead Science and dialectical materialism. At one Time Dead Science was a path, and to those who have managed to pass through this dead science field, light must be earned to come through the tunnel to the Christ Event with scientific certainty. Black Sheep and Students of the Michael School are still Ostercized or Eastericized because they are now the new little Noah group of retards of the expanding I AM. The rest of humanity is in denial.

To peel away the layers, like an Onion, around physical bodies, races, language and Archangelic influences, and trace threads and migrations of peoples and observe their inner changes, Steiner tackled rich, mature issues so that the most precious issue of the Earth and the core issue of Spiritual Science could be recorded, highlighted and traced towards the Mid-Point of Logically developing Earth and humanity.

What Peter Staudenmaier thinks as natural selection and mere biology was something different very different when considered from the inner side of things. Souls that had lost the common vision of the gods, became the retards that bore the future.

What is happening right now, is that those who work with and investigate with inner integrity, Science and Spiritual Science combined, are now beginning to ascend back into the Spiritual World with newly won Insights from their I AM developments on Earth. Like Joan of Arc or Giordano Bruno, their Ostercized awakenings create the karma of the new Michael School. The problem that Peter has had is that this has nothing to do with racial memory, bodily memory, but rather Spiritual Intelligence meeting at the cross roads of the Consciousness Soul. This is where the I AM is most alone like Hamlet between motives he sees and intuition from the spiritual world, his dead father.

Now we all know this is far beyond Peter's comprehension, but it is not beyond our comprehension. It is as if those who most mightily clung to atavistic clairvoyance and opposed those who were retarded and had lost the ancient vision - has now shifted to millions of people like Peter, who, now cling to failed physical world materialism in the same way that older cultures clung to remnants of ancient clairvoyance. If you cling to the "Church of the Unrisen Light" you are also duped and we know that everyone has a pocket in themselves that is in denial that the Christ could do and be the Science of what the I AM is. Steiner did not doubt it.

The insights into the mighty divine, compassion and empowering the I AM are the pivotal shifts and details that Steiner worked out for understanding the I AM in human evolution and the I AM manifestation in full glory from Golgotha. Which as Peter has admitted, Anthropsophy as Spiritual Science, connected to Steiner's research, cannot be racist.

You see the advanced ideas that Peter is talking about, are the common things people cling to i.e. materialism, dialectical materialism and atheism. These same souls avidly martyred, ostercized and cast out those who in ancient times had lost the vision of the divine as outcasts of their tribe. Now the tables are once again turned in the time we are living in. Those who approach Spiritual Science are merging consciously with their I AM's and thinking, with the new capacities connected to Rising and expansion of the Etheric Christ, after his narrow physical passage way, as the I AM, into the core of Earth life.

Those who fight vigorously against such opening, Rising Etheric clarity, are terrified that they have not located their I AM yet. Materialism is the same or equates with clinging to old superstition, memory and racism. Fundamentalism, clinging to dogma, or pathological, illogical ideas become psychological tics in the soul when failed education infects ideas. Therefore Peter manifests Asperger's Syndrome as a psychopathology of undeveloped, imbalance of the I Am and its integration with the Astral body and higher members of his being.

But we're here to help. We love ya Peter.

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Fri Apr 2, 2004 9:27 pm
Subject: Re: RS about racial evolution

Bradford to guess who:

Peter you are an idiot! Forward, retardation, going backward, Oh what an unlearned child you are. Because Evolving is seemingly forward it makes a nice term doesn't it? The condition of retardation doesn't merely come from races... or races at all. Retardation comes from Retarding beings. You are such a retard.

Diana to guess who:

Bradford this is just a shameful rant. What is wrong with you people? Why doesn't somebody tell him to act like a human being? This is garbage, this isn't "spirituality."

Diana, I did try. I did I did I did. I tried to get this politically correct by changing the word 'retard' to backwards thinking. So, maybe you could imagine my politically correct understanding: 'Peter you are such a backward thinker'. The 'Peter you are such an idiot I can do nothing about. Peter is giving as much as he is getting so it all flies out in the wash.

Dottie

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

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Fri Apr 2, 2004 10:24 pm
Subject: R: R: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: RS about racial evolution

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 10:02 PM
Subject: Re: R: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: RS about racial evolution

Okay, so is it accurate to say that Andrea and Patrick agree that it is not racist to say that certain races are higher than others, are more advanced than others, are more spiritually developed than others? Or am I twisting and perverting someting or other again?

Ok Peter. it's Eastertime and I'll be kind, maybe for the last time and I'll repeat things written thousands of times here.

Obviously, one who thinks about "higher" and "lower" races could be., and often is, a racist. But the point is what is the meaning of "race" in our discussions ? Since you jumped in here you went on writing on and on that Steiner, in his early times as a Teos.Soc's memeber, made "racist" statements . The truth, as tens of litmates have demonstrated almost 109876 times, is that he used the term "root race" and "race" in his early writings in a totally different from the "nazilike" way you try to impose to it with your ill-minded fantasy.

The truth is THAT he used such terms to be easily understood by his fellows. The truth is that he used those terms just in the way he used during the following years, as founder of GAS, the term "cultures" : namely to explain his historical insights and the links among them and Mankind's development.

The truth is also what i've been asking two months ago in the beginning of this ping pong , and now YOU HAVE TO ANSWER!

Peter, ARE YOU REALLY NUTS (DO YOU BELIEVE IN THE CRAP YOU WRITE) OR ARE YOU ONLY HAVING A JOB ?

Bye Mr. Charles Dexter Ward.

A.

I would be very interested in learning what both of you actually think on this question. Thanks,

Peter

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

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Fri Apr 2, 2004 10:28 pm
Subject: R: R: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: RS about racial evolution

Uhu, Mr.Ward. Another little thing

I gave you my corr answer ..

Why the heck you don't answer to the question of "yellow, black, white" races in HBP 's writings ?
(If you need a memory-booster you can always use Mr. Scaccabarozzi's cure!!)

A.

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

From: winters_diana
Date: Sat Apr 3, 2004 6:17 am
Subject: Re: RS about racial evolution

Tarjei said:

It is not racist to understand that racial forms disappear and are replaced by new ones and that this is connected with progressive evolution.

Of course it's racist, it's a bedrock belief of many racists! One race isn't more evolved than another, Tarjei – now or in the past. We just aren't divided that way by race. We're all in this together. "Evolving racial forms" doesn't hold water scientifically, morally, religiously, humanistically, or anywhich way. It is an idea that has been assigned to the junk heap of science and religion. (Much as anthroposophists would like to cast the problem as a conflict between science and religion, it's not. It's generally rejected by both.)

A view that recommends race-mixing, integration, and assimilation and is therefore anti-racist.

Totally ridiculous. Do you think racists just think people of other races have cooties or something and don't want to "mix" with them? Often racists have no problem mixing with other races and certainly often want them integrated into society in all kinds of ways. (Since you think if you sleep with or marry people of other races, you can't be racist, maybe you really do think "mixing" makes you not racist.)

Diana

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

From: Detlef Hardorp
Date: Sat Apr 3, 2004 6:56 am
Subject: Peter S about HPB and races (was: RS about racial evolution)

At 20:21 02.04.2004, Peter S wrote:

Hi Tarjei, you now say that you find something inaccurate about my summary of Steiner's teachings on racial evolution. This is a reversal from your prior post, of course, but we can set that aside if you like. Could you simply state what you think was inaccurate in my summary?

The answer to that question depends upon whether or not the yellow, red, brown and black races were "main races" according to HPB.

Tarjei

Detlef Hardorp adds: Let's settle on the way I phrased the question in my last post, otherwise PS will simply say that HPB didn't use "main races". She certainly did use "root races", though! So permit me, Tarjei, to rephrase your statement thus:

The answer to that question depends upon whether or not the yellow, red, brown and black races were "root races" according to HPB.

I'm glad you folks all agree that it is time for an answer! But maybe PS has been desperately leafing through the collected works of Blavatsky for the past weeks, looking for a quotation, without success so far. Is that why he's been off-list for days at a time? Or maybe his dog chewed up some of his occult literature and he is unable to check. Let's give the poor man the benefit of the doubt! I'm sure he has a good reason for not answering.

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sat Apr 3, 2004 6:56 am
Subject: Dysfunctional polemics (was: RS about racial evolution)

At 16:17 03.04.2004, Diana wrote:

Tarjei said:

It is not racist to understand that racial forms disappear and are replaced by new ones and that this is connected with progressive evolution.

Of course it's racist, it's a bedrock belief of many racists! One race isn't more evolved than another, Tarjei – now or in the past. We just aren't divided that way by race. We're all in this together. "Evolving racial forms" doesn't hold water scientifically, morally, religiously, humanistically, or anywhich way. It is an idea that has been assigned to the junk heap of science and religion. (Much as anthroposophists would like to cast the problem as a conflict between science and religion, it's not. It's generally rejected by both.)

You're playing a broken record, Diana, and throwing a lot of irrational polemical claims into it, about having scientists and priests and popes and wise philosophers agreeing with you and so forth. Why not throw in a few initiates too? Reminds me of my teenage years when my dad had a fallout with his second wife and it looked as if they were headed for a divorce. Remember hearing her mouthing off on the phone about my father's drinking and my pot smoking and she being so perfect, although she was the most dysfunctional of us all with a heavy hangover every other day, which put her in one helluva mood. And yes, she was going to do us in, my dad and me, because she had her doctors and her police and her lawyers and who-knows-what, and it was all a balloon full of hot air.

A view that recommends race-mixing, integration, and assimilation and is therefore anti-racist.

Totally ridiculous. Do you think racists just think people of other races have cooties or something and don't want to "mix" with them? Often racists have no problem mixing with other races and certainly often want them integrated into society in all kinds of ways. (Since you think if you sleep with or marry people of other races, you can't be racist, maybe you really do think "mixing" makes you not racist.)

Frankly my dear, I don't give damn about whether or not you call me a racist or anything else of your choosing. Besides, your obviously twisted definitions of words like "racism" have invalidated your broken records of confused polemics long ago.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: Deborah
Date: Sat Apr 3, 2004 8:28 am
Subject: RS about racial evolution

Tarjei said:

It is not racist to understand that racial forms disappear and are replaced by new ones and that this is connected with progressive evolution.

and then Diana said:

Of course it's racist, it's a bedrock belief of many racists! One race isn't more evolved than another, Tarjei – now or in the past. We just aren't divided that way by race. We're all in this together. "Evolving racial forms" doesn't hold water scientifically, morally, religiously, humanistically, or anywhich way. It is an idea that has been assigned to the junk heap of science and religion. (Much as anthroposophists would like to cast the problem as a conflict between science and religion, it's not. It's generally rejected by both.)

and now Deborah says:

I've got a problem with the broad generalizations you're presenting Diana. There is certain scientific research that debunked the racist assumptions that used to be common. And then there is the "sense of the times" or what is generally assumed to be true. What it looks like to me is that you are taking the current set of general assumptions of our current time (say the last 40 years) and treating these assumptions as 1)scientifically proven and 2)eternally right. People used to be stupid and they had all sorts of silly ideas, but we have now got it figured out, the whole thing is completely settled and anybody who says anything that doesn't fit into the current set of assumptions is wrong, big time. That seems to me to be the underlying line of reasoning. Also inherent (to me) in this line of reasoning is a closing off of any new thoughts on the topic or further development or understanding. There is a sort of "Whew! That's settled quality!"

Steiner talks about prehistory and racial differences. None of his statements have been scientifically debunked. They've just been ignored. They haven't been disproven. Perhaps somebody could disprove them by some means. I'm open to the possibility. Your statements that such concepts (and I am talking only about prehistory) are wrong because everyone now understands them to be wrong don't really hold up.

I'll see if I can find the race entry from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica to give a flavor of the commonly accepted truth of 100 years ago.

Nothing personal in my disagreement.

Deborah

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

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Sat Apr 3, 2004 8:47 am
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: RS about racial evolution

----- Original Message -----

Peter you are an idiot! Forward, retardation, going backward, Oh what an unlearned child you are. Because Evolving is seemingly forward it makes a nice term doesn't it? The condition of retardation doesn't merely come from races... or races at all. Retardation comes from Retarding beings. You are such a retard.

Bradford this is just a shameful rant. What is wrong with you people? Why doesn't somebody tell him to act like a human being? This is garbage, this isn't "spirituality."

Diana

No it's only truth!

Andrea

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Sat Apr 3, 2004 8:56 am
Subject: Re: R: R: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: RS about racial evolution

Hi Andrea, you wrote:

Obviously, one who thinks about "higher" and "lower" races could be., and often is, a racist.

Great, we agree on something. Why isn't it racist when Steiner talks about higher and lower races? Just because it's all part of a nice spiritual narrative?

But the point is what is the meaning of "race" in our discussions ?

That certainly is not the point. Racists and their critics rarely agree on what the term "race" means. This scarcely means that we can't discuss racism.

Since you jumped in here you went on writing on and on that Steiner, in his early times as a Teos.Soc's memeber, made "racist" statements . The truth, as tens of litmates have demonstrated almost 109876 times, is that he used the term "root race" and "race" in his early writings in a totally different from the "nazilike" way you try to impose to it with your ill-minded fantasy.

That makes no sense, Andrea. Very many racist statements are totally different from Nazi racism. There are many forms of racist thinking. Nazism is not a particularly representative form. People who use the term "race" by ranking it into higher and lower categories are using the term in a racist fashion, regardless of whether their version of "race" lines up with Nazi versions.

The truth is THAT he used such terms to be easily understood by his fellows.

But a lot of his fellows understood Steiner's message in a racist fashion, from Karutz to Heise to Uehli etc etc. Why do some of you keep ignoring this fact?

The truth is that he used those terms just in the way he used during the following years, as founder of GAS, the term "cultures"

Using the terms "race" and "culture" interchangeably is a common hallmark of racist discourse. It ties cultural differences into purportedly biological ones.

Peter, ARE YOU REALLY NUTS (DO YOU BELIEVE IN THE CRAP YOU WRITE) OR ARE YOU ONLY HAVING A JOB ?

Yes, I really believe in the crap I write. When Steiner says that black people do not belong in Europe, I think that statement is racist. When Steiner says that indigenous peoples are decadent and degenerated, I think that statement is racist. He made quite a few such statements. The fact that these statements appear alongside other warm and fuzzy statements does not magically transfrom their racist character.

Peter

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

From: winters_diana
Date: Sat Apr 3, 2004 9:03 am
Subject: Re: RS about racial evolution

Deborah:

What it looks like to me is that you are taking the current set of general assumptions of our current time (say the last 40 years) and treating these assumptions as 1)scientifically proven and 2)eternally right.

I'm quite comfortable with that. Present scientific understanding definitely suggests that the actual differences between races, in any meaningful way, are minuscule. They hold perhaps minor implications for medicine, genetic variation in susceptibility to disease (sometimes). There is far greater variation among individuals of the same race than between individuals of different races, if you discount very superficial things like skin pigmentation and hair texture.

I think this makes a very good premise for understanding race today. I'm quite willing to recognize it as tied to scientific understandings today. (I am not the one declaring my views to be written in some Cosmic Chronicle somewhere; I'm happy to acknowledge their source in the dreaded "materialist" science of the times.) It is a positive understanding of race because it is not socially divisive or spiritually arrogant, as is the search for "spiritual meaning" in race.

When, or if, this consensus changes, or new evidence shows hitherto unrecognized differences between racial groups that in fact suggests their spiritual inequality, I'll reconsider. I'm not likely to reconsider on the basis of a guru's mystical teachings.

Also inherent (to me) in this line of reasoning is a closing off of any new thoughts on the topic or further development or understanding.

No, I'm open and welcome to all sorts of new thoughts on the topic. Feel free to post some. Steiner's thoughts on these topics weren't "new," they were rehashed racial prejudices common to his era, similar to the examples you post in your next post. Why you're holding this up as something that exonerates Steiner, or provides enlightenment today, I can't imagine.

There is a sort of "Whew! That's settled quality!"

Yeah :) I think it would be real nice to get it settled that races are equal. I'd feel good about that, a nice "Whew" feeling exactly. Wishful thinking I guess. Too bad some people think it's a good idea to keep considering warmed-over, turn-of-last-century racial doctrines rather than "settling" for boring old, "politically correct" racial equality.

Steiner talks about prehistory and racial differences. None of his statements have been scientifically debunked. They've just been ignored. They haven't been disproven.

sigh This is the Daniel Hindes school of thought. If no one's written up all the scientific reasons the moon is NOT made of green cheese (well, bad example, since they have), we will stubbornly defend our right to recite our doctrine according to which the moon IS made of green cheese and you are attacking our spirituality if gimme a hard time about this. LOL okay by me if you want to believe the moon is made of green cheese. (Uh-oh am I smearing you with "association tactics"?) If you want to believe races have spiritual meaning, you're holding onto views that are dangerous and divisive, and you can continue to expect people to challenge them.

Perhaps somebody could disprove them by some means. I'm open to the possibility.

Yeah, me too. I'm open to anything anybody wants to prove or disprove. I'm not swayed by Tarjei's tantrums or Bradford's foaming at the mouth that people who dare to question his mystical truths are "retards."

>Nothing personal in my disagreement.

No, mine neither, but thanks for saying so.

Diana

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

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Sat Apr 3, 2004 9:25 am
Subject: R: R: R: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: RS about racial evolution

----- Original Message -----

Peter Ward writes:

Yes, I really believe in the crap I write.

Oh well. So we all know that your problem is a psychiatric one.

Bye

A..

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

From: at
Date: Mon Apr 5, 2004 9:45 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] RS about racial evolution

Peter Staudenmaier:

I didn't call our listmates puerile, I said that some of them are beholden to ideas about public discourse that I consider puerile. One good example is the refusal to distinguish people from ideas.

Daniel:

Peter, why is it that you are unable to distinguish people from ideas? You are getting quite a bit of milage accusing others of this fault, but you specifically rejected this approach to Steiner twice.

Patrick:

You are saying that you only want to deal with the substantive issues at stake.

Peter Staudenmaier:

That would be nice, don't you think? There's lots of Steiner texts we could be discussing. I say let's get on with it.

Daniel:

It would be nice, if you didn't keep running away from the discussion whenever the weakness of your argument became evident. (And for clarity, I don't mean taking a few days off from the list, I mean dropping threads and changing topics).

Patrick:

If I understand you rightly, evolution is only pertinent as a concept for minerals, plants, and animals, in other words, the natural world.

Peter Staudenmaier:

That is what the term 'evolution' generally refers to in a biological context. Do you disagree?

Patrick:

So, you are not including human beings, am I right?

Peter Staudenmaier:

No, you are not right. Human beings are part of the natural world and one of the products of natural evolution, in my view.

Patrick:

It seems to follow therefore that you do not believe in the evolution of ideas and that certainly one idea is not more advanced than another.

Peter Staudenmaier:

I do believe in the evolution of ideas. This has nothing at all to do with natural evolution. They are fundamentally different things.

Daniel:

So the human body evolved, and ideas evolve, but cultures (composed of bodies and ideas) don't evolve? Doesn't this seem a bit illogical to you? Oh, I forgot, logic is, well, somewhat difficult on a consistent basis.

Daniel Hindes

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

From: at
Date: Mon Apr 5, 2004 9:32 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] RS about racial evolution

Peter Staudenmaier:

It is very easy to alter my opinion. Just present a persuasive argument and provide some evidence for it.

Daniel:

Hah! You lack the ability to think well enough to recognize a persuasive argument, which is why you have not "heard" one yet. You can't even translate German accurately or grasp the differences between Theosophical root races and biological races.

I predict that you will never be persuaded or recognize a persuasive argument, regardless of how much effort your interlocutors put into the matter.

Patrick:

In your response to my last post, and I paraphrase, you stated you did not think that at any one time in history any culture could exist that was more advanced than the other's.

Peter Staudenmaier:

That's basically correct.

Daniel:

Cultural relativism.

Peter Staudenmaier:

[Evolution] largely operates by natural selection, a mostly random process that is not progressive and has no goal. None of this has anything to do with cultures.

Daniel:

Evolution is not progressive? Snails become apes with no intermediate stages? Where did you go to school?

Daniel Hindes

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

From: at
Date: Mon Apr 5, 2004 9:34 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] RS about racial evolution

Peter Staudenmaier:

My real enemies are ideas, not people. I realize that some of you can't tell the difference, and I have no good ideas on what to do about that.

Daniel:

Nice posturing. Nice statement of principles. Yet with Steiner you will toss all this to the side. Steiner was a racist and and an anti-Semite, right?

Daniel

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 10:53 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] RS about racial evolution

Hi Daniel, you wrote:

Evolution is not progressive? Snails become apes with no intermediate stages?

Snails do not become apes, Daniel. And no, evolution is not progressive in the sense that Steiner claimed. It does not proceed from less perfect to more perfect forms.

Peter

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 10:56 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] RS about racial evolution

Hi Daniel, you wrote:

Nice statement of principles. Yet with Steiner you will toss all this to the side. Steiner was a racist and and an anti-Semite, right?

Yes, I think that Steiner was a racist and an antisemite, among many other things. This does not meant that Steiner is my "enemy". It means that his racist and antisemitic ideas are my "enemy".

Peter

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 11:18 am
Subject: Peter about biological evolution (was: RS about racial evolution)

At 19:53 06.04.2004, Peter S wrote:

Snails do not become apes, Daniel. And no, evolution is not progressive in the sense that Steiner claimed. It does not proceed from less perfect to more perfect forms.

Could you please elaborate on your theory of biological evolution, giving us an outline?

Tarjei

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

From: winters_diana
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 5:32 am
Subject: Re: RS about racial evolution

Daniel

So the human body evolved, and ideas evolve, but cultures (composed of bodies and ideas) don't evolve?

Good grief, Daniel, "culture" doesn't mean "bodies."

Diana

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 11:07 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] RS about racial evolution

Hi Daniel, you wrote:

So the human body evolved, and ideas evolve, but cultures (composed of bodies and ideas) don't evolve?

Not by natural selection. If you believe that cultures evolve by natural selection, then I think you have an inadequate grasp of the concept. Cultures are neither genetic nor hereditary.

Peter

Patrick:

If I understand you rightly, evolution is only pertinent as a concept for minerals, plants, and animals, in other words, the natural world.

Peter Staudenmaier:

That is what the term 'evolution' generally refers to in a biological context. Do you disagree?

Patrick:

So, you are not including human beings, am I right?

Peter Staudenmaier:

No, you are not right. Human beings are part of the natural world and one of the products of natural evolution, in my view.

Patrick:

It seems to follow therefore that you do not believe in the evolution of ideas and that certainly one idea is not more advanced than another.

Peter Staudenmaier:

I do believe in the evolution of ideas. This has nothing at all to do with natural evolution. They are fundamentally different things.

Daniel:

So the human body evolved, and ideas evolve, but cultures (composed of bodies and ideas) don't evolve?

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 3:03 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: RS about racial evolution

Daniel wrote:

So the human body evolved, and ideas evolve, but cultures (composed of bodies and ideas) don't evolve?

Diana wrote:

Good grief, Daniel, "culture" doesn't mean "bodies."

Good grief, Diana, did you read Daniel's whole sentence? It should be short enough to understand. Isn't culture connected with ideas? And don't we need bodies to create culture?

Tarjei

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

From: holderlin66
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 3:05 pm
Subject: Re: RS about racial evolution

Peter wrote:

Snails do not become apes, Daniel. And no, evolution is not progressive in the sense that Steiner claimed. It does not proceed from less perfect to more perfect forms.

Peter

Bradford balks;

Gettin' a little punchy here ain't ya Peter? Ya know a butterfly, and a caterpillar are the most elementary lessons in progress. Not even to include a reality from Jesus to Christ. If I wanted to make a plant have mobility, cloning has also the potential to inch forward. But since you are in the caterpillar phase of understanding the I Am, we must go easy on you.

Science talks a great deal about dolphins and Dogs. But if you need help in understanding such concepts, please, don't be afraid to ask. For it is gonna be a long road for you to understand curious realities of nature, let alone the magnificent realities of the human I AM. tish! tish!, such a long way to go for you.

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 3:09 pm
Subject: Re: RS about racial evolution

Diana:

Good grief, Daniel, "culture" doesn't mean "bodies."

What is culture to you Diana and does it evolve through different groups of people and or epochs of time in your understandings? Have various cultures added and or subtracted from the ongoing existance of mankind? Or is it all the same in your mind nothing good and nothing bad?

d

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

From: Deborah
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 4:35 pm
Subject: RS about racial evolution

Diana said:

Good grief, Daniel, "culture" doesn't mean "bodies."

Dottie replied:

What is culture to you Diana and does it evolve through different groups of people and or epochs of time in your understandings? Have various cultures added and or subtracted from the ongoing existance of mankind? Or is it all the same in your mind nothing good and nothing bad?

d

Deborah says:

Contradiction arising somewhere around here. All cultures are of equal value and no culture is an improvement on a previous culture, nor a degeneration of a previous culture. Have I got that right?

Okay. At the same time, certain people tend to assume that the current round of cultural assumptions (evolution is not progressive) (attaching significance to tribe, family or racial stream, is always incorrect) (polygamy is now and has always been sexist, evil and mean) trump all past cultural assumptions. All cultures are equal but ours is right? And not only right, but eternally right. And not the diverse, confused, progressing, evolving real life culture represented by billions of people, but the culture represented by the opinions of one or two people on this list.

By the way, I threw in the bit about polygamy just to provide an example that I hoped would appeal to everyone. If there is anyone on the list who is a practicing polygamist, I'm sorry if I insulted your religious or ethical beliefs. (But I don't want to hear about it, there are limits to my tolerance.)

Deborah

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 7:31 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] RS about racial evolution

Hi Deborah, you wrote:

At the same time, certain people tend to assume that the current round of cultural assumptions (evolution is not progressive) (attaching significance to tribe, family or racial stream, is always incorrect) (polygamy is now and has always been sexist, evil and mean) trump all past cultural assumptions. All cultures are equal but ours is right? And not only right, but eternally right. And not the diverse, confused, progressing, evolving real life culture represented by billions of people, but the culture represented by the opinions of one or two people on this list.

I think you're missing the crucial distinction between saying that entire cultures as a whole are better or worse and saying that specific beliefs are better or worse. The first kind of claim is silly and pointless. The second kind of claim is a necessary part of public discussion.

Peter

Deborah says:

Contradiction arising somewhere around here. All cultures are of equal value and no culture is an improvement on a previous culture, nor a degeneration of a previous culture. Have I got that right?

Okay. At the same time, certain people tend to assume that the current round of cultural assumptions (evolution is not progressive) (attaching significance to tribe, family or racial stream, is always incorrect) (polygamy is now and has always been sexist, evil and mean) trump all past cultural assumptions. All cultures are equal but ours is right? And not only right, but eternally right. And not the diverse, confused, progressing, evolving real life culture represented by billions of people, but the culture represented by the opinions of one or two people on this list.

By the way, I threw in the bit about polygamy just to provide an example that I hoped would appeal to everyone. If there is anyone on the list who is a practicing polygamist, I'm sorry if I insulted your religious or ethical beliefs. (But I don't want to hear about it, there are limits to my tolerance.)

Deborah

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

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 10:24 pm
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] RS about racial evolution

----- Original Message -----

[Daniel:]

Nice statement of principles. Yet with Steiner you will toss all this to the side. Steiner was a racist and and an anti-Semite, right?

[PS:]

Yes, I think that Steiner was a racist and an antisemite,

Wow! We eventually found the right epitaph for Peter's tomb!!

A.

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 1:06 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] RS about racial evolution

At 04:31 07.04.2004, Peter S wrote to Deborah:

I think you're missing the crucial distinction between saying that entire cultures as a whole are better or worse and saying that specific beliefs are better or worse. The first kind of claim is silly and pointless. The second kind of claim is a necessary part of public discussion.

I wish El Eswahn (Lightsearcher) would play ping-pong with you, because I believe you guys have a lot in common. There are cultures dominated by brutality. As a whole, they're no better or worse than peaceful and tolerant cultures. There have been carnivorous warrior cultures that only prey on other cultures, where art and handicrafts are cultivated, through mayhem and robbery - but all these cultures are completely equal in the name of post-relativism or philo-primitivism or something like that.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 6:59 am
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] RS about racial evolution

Peter:

Yes, I think that Steiner was a racist and an antisemite,

Oooohhhhh Peter, you are so in trouble. :) Steiner was neither as can be seen by his volumes and volumes of written word. As can be shown by the many schools opening all over the world, and the students he has inspired to look past what society teaches us on race, he says over and over and over, look past the physical, national and blood ties.

Detlef has shown you the door. Red pill or Blue pill Peter, how much longer would you like to keep this charade going on?

Dottie
...................................................................................................................................

From: at
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 5:36 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] RS about racial evolution

Hi Daniel, you wrote:

Nice statement of principles. Yet with Steiner you will toss all this to the side. Steiner was a racist and and an anti-Semite, right?

Yes, I think that Steiner was a racist and an antisemite, among many other things. This does not meant that Steiner is my "enemy". It means that his racist and antisemitic ideas are my "enemy".

Daniel:

I don't think I have ever claimed that you find Steiner your enemy. I am calling you on your hypocritical tendency to whine about how other people can't separate the person from the argument, and then turn around and commit the very sin you accuse others of in Steiner's case. This is just another example of your repeated logical inconsistencies of argumentation.

Daniel Hindes

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

From: at
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 5:32 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] RS about racial evolution

Hi Daniel, you wrote:

Evolution is not progressive? Snails become apes with no intermediate stages?

Peter Staudenmaier:

Snails do not become apes, Daniel. And no, evolution is not progressive in the sense that Steiner claimed. It does not proceed from less perfect to more perfect forms.

Daniel:

Care to explain what all the geneological trees I saw in the dinosaur halls of the American Museum of Natural History in New York are about then? They had all sorts of evolutionary progressions illustrated in careful detail. They also had a nice progression of horse skeletons lined up to illustrate the issue. The entire point of the exhibit was about how forms progressed. An appendage that goes from a fin to a hand becomes more perfectly suitable for holding things. Increase in cranial capacity is linked to the development of a species capable of thought. In addition to deficiencies in logic, math and philosophy, I suspect your education lacks a comprehensive background in natural sciences as well.

Just how did Steiner explain evolution? (I'd like to know in more detail what you are denying).

Daniel Hindes

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

From: at
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 6:12 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: RS about racial evolution

Daniel

So the human body evolved, and ideas evolve, but cultures (composed of bodies and ideas) don't evolve?

Diana:

Good grief, Daniel, "culture" doesn't mean "bodies."

Daniel:

I have yet to see a culture that has no bodies.

Daniel Hindes

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

From: at
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 6:17 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] RS about racial evolution

Hi Daniel, you wrote:

So the human body evolved, and ideas evolve, but cultures (composed of bodies and ideas) don't evolve?

Peter Staudenmaier:

Not by natural selection. If you believe that cultures evolve by natural selection, then I think you have an inadequate grasp of the concept. Cultures are neither genetic nor hereditary.

Daniel:

Peter, one of the first things you learn in Biology is that evolution does not equal natural selection. There are many theories of evolution. Relativly few of them involve natural selection as the method of evolution (though the generally accepted ones do). Your education might benefit from a few basic biology courses.

Repeat: "Evolution does not equal natural selection."

Good, now I hope that you won't misapply the methods of biology to culture (you of all people should know what a mess that creates).

Back to my origional question:

So the human body evolved, and ideas evolve, but cultures (composed of bodies and ideas) don't evolve?

Note: I did not ask if cultures evolved through natural selection. I asked if they evolved at all by any mechanism.

Daniel Hindes

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 9:09 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] RS about racial evolution

Hi Daniel, you wrote:

Care to explain what all the geneological trees I saw in the dinosaur halls of the American Museum of Natural History in New York are about then?

Sure! That's an excellent example. This sort of visual progression of forms is exactly what misleads people who don't understand natural selection into thinking that it is a teleological and perfectionist process. But there's somebody who can explain it all much better than I can, the late Stephen Jay Gould, who wrote quite accessibly on that very topic. I recommended his work a few days back. I also recommended the work of several other major contemporary evolutionary theorists, such as Ernst Mayr. I think you would do well to look into this body of work. Mayr would be an especially good place to start; not only was he one of the architects of the modern evolutionary synthesis, but in one sense he's a bit closer to your position: he strongly defends the 'adaptationist paradigm' which Gould and Lewontin so incisively critiqued back in 1979. Even Mayr, while granting some versions of 'progress' in evolution, flatly rejects the perfectionism that Steiner espoused; see for example his recent book What Evolution Is. You could even go all the way back to George Gaylord Simpson, another architect of the modern evolutionary synthesis; his 1949 book The Meaning of Evolution contains a whole chapter on "The Concept of Progress in Evolution", which explains what sorts of progress are and are not applicable to natural evolution, while firmly refuting perfectionism.


Peter

Hi Daniel, you wrote:

Evolution is not progressive? Snails become apes with no intermediate stages?

Peter Staudenmaier:

Snails do not become apes, Daniel. And no, evolution is not progressive in the sense that Steiner claimed. It does not proceed from less perfect to more perfect forms.

Daniel:

Care to explain what all the geneological trees I saw in the dinosaur halls of the American Museum of Natural History in New York are about then? They had all sorts of evolutionary progressions illustrated in careful detail. They also had a nice progression of horse skeletons lined up to illustrate the issue. The entire point of the exhibit was about how forms progressed. An appendage that goes from a fin to a hand becomes more perfectly suitable for holding things. Increase in cranial capacity is linked to the development of a species capable of thought. In addition to deficiencies in logic, math and philosophy, I suspect your education lacks a comprehensive background in natural sciences as well.

Just how did Steiner explain evolution? (I'd like to know in more detail what you are denying).

Daniel Hindes

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 9:27 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] RS about racial evolution

Hi Daniel, you wrote:

There are many theories of evolution. Relativly few of them involve natural selection as the method of evolution (though the generally accepted ones do).

Yep. The generally accepted ones are the ones I was talking about. By all means feel free to disagree with the theory of natural selection.

Peter

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

From: at
Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 4:51 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] RS about racial evolution

Hi Daniel, you wrote:

There are many theories of evolution. Relativly few of them involve natural selection as the method of evolution (though the generally accepted ones do).

Peter Staudenmaier:

Yep. The generally accepted ones are the ones I was talking about. By all means feel free to disagree with the theory of natural selection.

Daniel:

I've been careful not to take any position on the issue. I don't feel I have sufficient training in biology or evolutionary theory to fob myself off as an expert on the issue. Unlike yourself I do not consider myself an instant expert in any area in which I have read the dust jacket for a dozen books. My own background is strongest in history - and there the debates around the various forms of evolution come up in a number of contexts. Personally I see no reason to disagree with natural selection as the means of evolution, but my opinion is worth very little in this area, as I have not studied it in depth. I do find Steiner's position relative to Lyell, Lamarck, Darwin and Haeckel interesting. I also enjoy Gould's writing on the issue. But that does not make me an expert, so I won't talk like one.

Daniel Hindes

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

From: at
Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 7:21 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] RS about racial evolution

Hi Daniel, you wrote:

So the human body evolved, and ideas evolve, but cultures (composed of bodies and ideas) don't evolve?

Peter Staudenmaier:

Not by natural selection. If you believe that cultures evolve by natural selection, then I think you have an inadequate grasp of the concept. Cultures are neither genetic nor hereditary.

Daniel:

Peter, one of the first things you learn in Biology is that evolution does not equal natural selection. There are many theories of evolution. Relativly few of them involve natural selection as the method of evolution (though the generally accepted ones do). Your education might benefit from a few basic biology courses.

Repeat: "Evolution does not equal natural selection."

Good, now I hope that you won't misapply the methods of biology to culture (you of all people should know what a mess that creates).

Back to my origional question:

So the human body evolved, and ideas evolve, but cultures (composed of bodies and ideas) don't evolve?

Note: I did not ask if cultures evolved through natural selection. I asked if they evolved at all by any mechanism.

Daniel Hindes

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

From: at
Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 3:25 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] RS about racial evolution

Another difficult question that Peter Staudenmaier continues to run away from: cultural evolution. He has indignantly declared that natural selection does not apply to cultures. I don't know why he thought anyone would claim such a thing. But he cannot explain if he feels cultures evolve at all, or how. Condescend to me, Peter. Try answering this.

Daniel Hindes

----- Original Message -----
From: at
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 10:21 PM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] RS about racial evolution

Hi Daniel, you wrote:

So the human body evolved, and ideas evolve, but cultures (composed of bodies and ideas) don't evolve?

Peter Staudenmaier:

Not by natural selection. If you believe that cultures evolve by natural selection, then I think you have an inadequate grasp of the concept. Cultures are neither genetic nor hereditary.

Daniel:

Peter, one of the first things you learn in Biology is that evolution does not equal natural selection. There are many theories of evolution. Relativly few of them involve natural selection as the method of evolution (though the generally accepted ones do). Your education might benefit from a few basic biology courses.

Repeat: "Evolution does not equal natural selection."

Good, now I hope that you won't misapply the methods of biology to culture (you of all people should know what a mess that creates).

Back to my origional question:

So the human body evolved, and ideas evolve, but cultures (composed of bodies and ideas) don't evolve?

Note: I did not ask if cultures evolved through natural selection. I asked if they evolved at all by any mechanism.

Daniel Hindes

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


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