Races Disappearing - Steiner on Racial Evolution

Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver

 

From: holderlin66
Date: Wed Mar 17, 2004 8:49 pm
Subject: Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver

Peter Staudenmaier

...reincarnate in an advanced race; in the same way he who ignores the great teacher, who rejects the great leader of humankind, will always reincarnate in the same race, because he was only able to develop the one form. This is the deeper meaning of Ahasver, who must always reappear in the same form because he rejected the hand of the greatest leader, Christ. Thus each person has the opportunity to become caught up in the essence of one incarnation, to push away the leader of humankind, or instead to undergo the transformation into higher races, toward ever higher perfection. Races would never become decadent, never decline, if there weren't souls that are unable to move up and unwilling to move up to a higher racial form.

Bradford leans forward;

Now Steiner used Ahasver as an example of the old Moon condition that had much to do with the destiny of the elemental kingdom. I will bring this, Ahasver, together with another example in another post as well. Steiner drew a line to Ahasver in relation to, if humanity, after countless offers, as with certain elemental beings, still refused to move forward in evolution, what would be the result?

That if humanity refused to move forward in evolution they might very well become 'like' some of the retarded beings of the Old Moon, when the Old Moon moved onto the Earth condition. Retarded Angelic Beings, and elemental beings revealed their capacity or lack there of, to maintain a steady evolutionary course. Some became retarded and did not advance forward. (see folks, we are headed into deep and politically incorrect waters that mental midgets, really should stay away from)

The argument and explanation offered by Peter Staudenmaier is way over his head. He doesn't have the grounding to grasp, without Politically correct crutches - Just what Steiner was indicating with the repeated example of Ahasver. To describe higher beings that served a distinct purpose, as even some very lofty retarded beings above man, those that did not progress evenly from Saturn, Sun or Old Moon evolution, is something that is so far over the head of the Politically Incorrect Mr. Staudenmaier, that he gets the words but he can't place the meanings in his brain. Nor should he until he grasps the faintest understanding of the I AM.

This old Moon condition of Gold Spirit Lust, was brought over in the very early Ring Saga of Wagner in the character of Alberich: Part of the Elemental Kingdom that was tied to the False Etheric Gold, Fools Gold of the I AM. Fools Gold of the I AM is exactly what Peter Staudenmaier presents. The Stream where the Rhinegold is flowing might even be incarnational and hereditary waters, but the Gold, now the Gold is something that has followed us all through Earth Evolution, all the way to 1933 and the Etheric Christ Gold.

Peter S. has no grasp of the potential that was in Wagner, but any fool can see that the ARtist and his Art are two different potentials. We agree that Wagner was an unconscious Initiate. He brought things over from the past, that simmered in his subconscious soul life. The Man Wagner was going to pay a heavy price for the artist Wagner's insights. One of the things that Merlin saw, was the profound connection to the Elemental worlds, the stream of heredity, the incarnation of Arthur and the Celtic star and elemental kingdoms.

I should mention that the Celts plunked their Silver in streams and sacred lakes and the Water was purified through the Moon's working on the Silver in the waters. Minute quantities of gold, served and swirled into the Celtic world, and this Gold helped zero in on those souls who were coming from the time of the Last Supper and incarnating westward into the next phase.

It has been pointed out that Wolfram von Eschenboch and the Poet's Contest in Wartburg Castle were designed realities to bring into existence, fallen and distorted elemental star beings, that became the inspiration for dialectical materialism. This was the actual facts of Klingsor's interference and magical attempt to poison thinking. The Michael School had to take this into consideration as part of aspects of failed thinking, like Peter's. These were historical events and they play into the entire development of thinking that we have today. There were purified and castigated as well as poisoned elemental star beings that entered human thinking, and Klingsor was an active agent in polluting thinking and the soul conditions of men. Anthro babble is very specific, but you do have to know the code.

Wagner depicted the Old Moon Gnome/Dwarf being of a previous condition of the Earth as Alberich. The Old Moon condition was held over under the ancient Nordic and Celtic understanding of Mistletoe as the fallen Hodar aspect. The failed forces of vision that arose form the death of Baldur, the New Adam, would be attacked under Loki and fallen sense and thinking agents. Proof remains that the Mistletoe does not belong to the soil of the Earth, it was left over from a previous condition of the Earth, and was the source of a cure for terminal materialism, Cancer.

"In the beginning, there was an empty hall. Then came the gold. And with it, the curtain opened on the theater of the world. "Das Rheingold" begins with the creation of Wagner's mythological world: As the earth goddess Erda dreams, the Rhine Daughters swim and play with the river's golden treasure. When the dwarf Alberich disturbs them, they thoughtlessly reveal the secret of the treasure: Whoever renounces love can forge the gold into a ring that will allow him to rule the world. Alberich steals the gold, thus setting in motion a chain of events that runs through the four operas and ultimately leads to the destruction of this world."

Bradford having left Peter way behind and others I'm sure, gives Peter a cookie:

"Steiner geht nicht weiter auf Ahasver oder irgendwelche Konnotationen dieser Gestalt ein, die im zeitgenössichen antisemitischen Diskurs möglicherweise eine Rolle spielten. Er gibt dieser Gestalt eine völlig neuartige, allmenschliche Deutung, durch die er sie aus jedem antijudaistischen Kontext herauslöst. Steiner hätte ebenso gut die Gestalt des Fliegenden Holländers anführen können, die einen vergleichbaren symbolischen Gehalt besitzt.

Er spricht von Ahasver nicht als dem „ewigen Juden", sondern als von einer symbolischen, mythischen Figur, deren Bedeutungsgehalt in einem präzisen Sinn er auslegt. Er ist der symbolische Ausdruck eines seelischen Verhaltens, das in jeder einzelnen Menschenseele liegt, unabhängig von ihrer etwaigen religiösen oder ethnischen Zugehörigkeit.

Eine rekonstruktive, sinnerschließende Hermeneutik wird sich darum bemühen, den Gesamtzusammenhang zu erfassen, in dem die betreffenden Äußerungen Steiners stehen. Sie bilden einen erläuternden Exkurs im thematischen Kontext einer Erörterung über die sogenannten Elementarwesen, Wesen, die von der abendländischen Tradition als Gnome, Sylphen, Undinen und Salamander bezeichnet werden. Steiner entwickelt ein komplexes gedankliches Modell, um diese Elementarwesen in die gegliederte Struktur des Kosmos einzuordnen, ihre Herkunft und ihr zukünftiges Schicksal zu beschreiben.

So wie die gegenwärtigen Elementarwesen aus „Gruppenseelen" von Tieren hervorgegangen sind, werden in der künftigen Evolution aus der Menschheit Elementarwesen hervorgehen. Der Mensch ist als geistiges Wesen ausgespannt zwischen seinen verschiedenen Leibern (physischer Leib, Ätherleib, Astralleib), die das Ergebnis eines vergangenen Evolutionsprozesses sind und einer künftigen Existenzform, in der das Ich, die von den Schöpfermächten geschaffenen Leiber zu seinem freien geistigen Eigentum umgewandelt haben wird.

Das Ich steht gegenwärtig vor der Aufgabe, den Astralleib in ein solches geistiges Eigentum, in das Geistselbst umzuformen. Menschliche Vervollkommnung bedeutet in diesem Zusammenhang, Triebe, Begierden und Leidenschaften zu veredeln und sie in Willensstärke, Enthusiasmus und selbstlose Tatkraft umzuwandeln.

Steiner versucht, die Frage zu beantworten, wo der jeweils höhere Grad an Vollkommenheit eigentlich herkommt. Er ist nicht Ergebnis eines vom Menschen und seiner Verantwortlichkeit unabhängigen Prozesses, sondern liegt in der Verantworung des Einzelnen. Die sittliche Höherentwicklung lässt sich nur in einer Reihe von Inkarnationen erreichen, durch die sich der Mensch als geistiges Wesen hindurchbewegt. Er nimmt die Früchte der vorangegangenen Inkarnation in die folgende mit. Er gestaltet seine folgende Inkarnation, ihre Form, ihre Fähigkeiten und ihr Schicksal mit.

Die Wirkungen seiner Handlungen in der Außenwelt kommen als Schicksal zu ihm zurück; was er sich durch das vergangene Leben selbst einprägte, metamorphosiert sich in seine Fähigkeiten und Begabungen. Er ist also für die Gestaltung seines Schicksals und seiner „inneren Organisation" mitverantwortlich. Die menschliche Vervollkommnung besteht darin, dass der Einzelne immer mehr mit dem göttlichen Grundwesen der Liebe verschmilzt, das seit der Zeitenwende in den Tiefen der Menschheit wirkt, um diese in die Gestalt einer neuen Schöpfung überzuführen.

Diese neue Schöpfung ist die aus dem Auferstandenen wiedergeborene Menschheit. Je mehr der Mensch von der göttlichen Liebe in sich aufnimmt, um so mehr vermag er diese Liebe auch in seine Umgebung auszustrahlen und ihr eine menschliche, solidarische, freiheitliche Form zu geben. Vervollkommnung besteht letztlich darin, dass sich der Mensch immer mehr seinem Erdenvorbild angleicht (theosis) und zum Heiler all dessen wird, was als Folge der paulinischen „katabole" den Status der Schöpfung geprägt hat."

Bradford concludes;

Matter, race, heredity are woven with enchanted elemental beings who serve humanity and represent the Maya of our little weighty selves. However Buddha freed up all that was attached to the karma of his bones, all that was attached to the karma of his fluids; all that was attached to the karma of his lungs; all that was attached to the karma of his warm blood. A whole host of humanized and freed up enchanted elemental forces exist as servants of heredity, race and matter. It is only the Sun Like condition of the growing I AM that frees them up and releases, EMANCIPATES the slavery of matter and karma.

This freeing up of one aspect of the Air and Sylph nature enchanted in matter, was depicted by Shakespeare in his final Play THE TEMPEST, when the inspired Air-Sylph, Ariel, the I AM of Shakespeare had so fully humanized it through his poetry, that the Immortality of Shakespeare's plays would now be overshadowed, as a complete world, by the great healing, Stormless Sylph, full humanized Ariel. This Ariel, along with Buddha are some of the first fruits of Earth's Mercurial stage of development.

This Emancipation is part of what the I AM achieves, even though Shakespeare did not achieve it at the level of Buddha. Buddha gave back to the Earth the whole constellation of Beings that had helped him to arrive at the plateau of human development where Angelic Beings already exist. Through Buddha's efforts the Earth was magnificently changed, TWICE.

Bradford

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

From: raymon_ford
Date: Fri Mar 26, 2004 2:43 am
Subject: Re: Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver

Gidday again Bradford,

As always a fine reply of yours to Peter's posts evidencing racism in his `Steiner on racial evolution' post.

But have you considered how, for example, a Chinese must feel when reading that his race is decadent?

See ya, Raymon

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

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Fri Mar 26, 2004 4:40 am
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver

----- Original Message ----- [Raymon:]
: Friday, March 26, 2004 11:43 AM
Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver

Gidday again Bradford,

As always a fine reply of yours to Peter's posts evidencing racism in his `Steiner on racial evolution' post.

But have you considered how, for example, a Chinese must feel when reading that his race is decadent?

Excuse me , if I jump in Raymond, but the Chinese must feel that if "his race" ( an outer "envelopment") is on the way of decadence, he Himself, the "I AM" kernel, is ever and ever of the way of become free from "nama kè rupa". In other words: no racial or national feature can overwhelm the Spiritual core of aech human being. The actual difficulty is to see in clarity how are able to mix and mould in a single personality those diffrent features.

About China: think also on the occult fact that many today's chinese personalities are babies killed before their births (abortion) in different "advanced" cultures looking for a "road for the Earth". excuse me again, buddy.

Andrea

See ya, Raymon

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Fri Mar 26, 2004 7:41 am
Subject: Re: Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver

Raymond:

But have you considered how, for example, a Chinese must feel when reading that his race is decadent?

Just as I thought. Nice try Raymond?

Dottie

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Fri Mar 26, 2004 8:40 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver

I am most intrigued by Raymon's reply to Bradford (not to mention Andrea's and Dottie's replies to Raymon). Raymon seems to agree with Bradford et al. that Steiner's teachings on racial evolution are not racist. But then he asks the obvious question about what these teachings look like from the point of view of the ostensibly 'decadent'. If they don't look racist from that point of view, then what do they look like? I would be very interested to hear other anthroposophist responses to Raymon's question.

I'll be out of town once more for the next four days and will do more catching up when I return.

Peter

Gidday again Bradford,

As always a fine reply of yours to Peter's posts evidencing racism in his `Steiner on racial evolution' post.

But have you considered how, for example, a Chinese must feel when reading that his race is decadent?

See ya, Raymon

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sat Mar 27, 2004 6:20 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver

At 11:43 26.03.2004, Raymond wrote:

But have you considered how, for example, a Chinese must feel when reading that his race is decadent?

I suggest that you ask a Chinese anthroposophists. There are some in Hong Kong, including AS members, I believe. But just in case there aren't any Chinese anthro's on this list, why not ask American anthroposophists on this list how they feel when reading that the American race is decadent, and will l degenerate completely in the Seventh Sub-Race (i.e. in the 7th Cultural Epoch) ?

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: raymon_ford
Date: Sat Mar 27, 2004 1:47 pm
Subject: Re: Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver

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

Just as I thought. Nice try Raymond?

Gidday Dottie.

And what was I trying? Clairvoyant now, are we, haha.

I am on solid ground here. Most of my friends, including my closest, are Chinese, for whom English is a second language. I am guessing you have none – or if you do, and are not afraid to lose a friendship, have him or her read these passages of Peter's and perhaps you can report back to us.

There is a consolation – haha - by and large they think the same thing about us (and perhaps they are right haha); fortunately for us they did not, historically, have the power to exercise this opinion. As we did towards them. Meanwhile, we have forgotten – but they have not, and this is something we will have to deal with later in the century I am sure.

No one on this list save Peter – and I am confident from long reading of Diana's posts over the years that she would too - has evinced any compassion for the feelings of these ostensibly decadent fellow human beings when confronted with such teachings of Steiner's. This would cause outsiders to wonder whether the high minded ideals being promoted here are any more than self-gratifying theory.

See ya, Raymon

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

From: raymon_ford
Date: Sat Mar 27, 2004 2:51 pm
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, VALENTINA BRUNETTI wrote:

Excuse me , if I jump in Raymond, but the Chinese must feel that if "his race" ( an outer "envelopment") is on the way of decadence, he Himself, the "I AM" kernel, is ever and ever of the way of become free from "nama kè rupa"...

Gidday Andrea,

Jump in by all means. You raised an interesting point at the end of your post.

Your first point may well be so. It seems fine to pronounce such truths. But these people are but human, and distressing them by announcing that they are decadent, and that we are not, is hardly a practical means of convincing them of the truth of this philosophy. They will simply see it as a confirmation of the attitudes that led to the West's abuses against them when they were weak. Having suffered these abuses, you see, makes it difficult for them to accept the proposition that the perpetrators are in any way `advanced' examples of humanity.

About China: think also on the occult fact that many today's chinese personalities are babies killed before their births (abortion) in different "advanced" cultures looking for a "road for the Earth".

Excellent point. I had not thought of this.

You are suggesting that some who properly should have incarnated in the `advanced' cultures (full marks for your putting `advanced' in quotations) finish up instead in China. This reminds me of one of Steiner's statements, that many in the 18th century who were destined to incarnate in China actually finished up in Europe due to Europe's opium-related ravaging of so many Chinese physical bodies. (A grudge is still held against the West for this, by the way.) Perhaps, ironically, some of these decadent souls were anthroposophists in Steiner's audience as he held forth with the lecture Peter quoted.

If what you say is true, it is not consistent with Steiner's statement, jumbled as the latter is. Though – haha – I am depending on what I assume is Peter's accurate translation here. Steiner made a sweeping statement concerning the Chinese – which is largely why it is so damaging; he could easily have qualified it – whereas your point allows that for all we know humans everywhere constitute a mixture of whatever proportion.

You might consider that the reverse of what you say may also be so – ie the population policy carried out in China means that many who were destined to incarnate there, finish up instead in Europe. And that perhaps you are one such, haha. Or me for that matter I suppose. My posts surely appear decadent to some…

See ya, Raymon

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

From: elfuncle
Date: Sat Mar 27, 2004 3:02 pm
Subject: haha, heehee (was: Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver)

raymon_ford wrote:

And what was I trying? Clairvoyant now, are we, haha.

I guess so, heehee.

I am on solid ground here.

My ground consisting of Norwegian mountains is more solid than yours, especially if you're anywhere near Malibu, heehee, where the ground is so porous and crumbly heehee that nobody is safe when it rains too much heehee.

Most of my friends, including my closest, are Chinese, for whom English is a second language.

My own family is half Tibetan heehee and we just can't wait to see the Chinese kicked out of Tibet heehee, where there are solid mountains too heehee. And for us, English is indeed a second language heehee.

I am guessing you have none – or if you do, and are not afraid to lose a friendship, have him or her read these passages of Peter's and perhaps you can report back to us.

Reporting back to you? That'll be the day heehee. And nobody who knows a little about Peter S can take him seriously heehee.

There is a consolation – haha - by and large they think the same thing about us (and perhaps they are right haha); fortunately for us they did not, historically, have the power to exercise this opinion. As we did towards them. Meanwhile, we have forgotten – but they have not, and this is something we will have to deal with later in the century I am sure.

Yes, about getting their asses heehee out of Tibet for instance. And heehee perhaps many Tibetans think the same of the Chinese that Palestinians think of Israelis or Norwegians thought of the German Nazis when they were occupied heehee

No one on this list save Peter – and I am confident from long reading of Diana's posts over the years that she would too - has evinced any compassion for the feelings of these ostensibly decadent fellow human beings when confronted with such teachings of Steiner's.

And no one on this list save Yours Truly heehee has evinced any compassion for the feelings of the Tibetans heehee.

This would cause outsiders to wonder whether the high minded ideals being promoted here are any more than self-gratifying theory.

heehee

See ya, Raymon

I doubt it heehee, because I'm not headed for porous ground.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: raymon_ford
Date: Sat Mar 27, 2004 3:35 pm
Subject: Re: Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Tarjei Straume wrote:

I suggest that you ask a Chinese anthroposophists. There are some in Hong Kong, including AS members, I believe.

Gidday Tarjei,

How ya doin'. Remember I work for a Norwegian company, you know, and so one day may come knocking on ya door, so be careful what you say haha. I do look forward to meeting you one day; we can exchange notes on the European police – I had a bad run in with Budapest's finest once upon a time…

I don't have to ask one of these people – see my post to Dottie. How a Chinese feels when reading these sorts of statements has nothing to do with what some Chinese anthroposophist may have to say about the matter. For those who don't know, they would feel humiliated, much more strongly and painfully so than does one brought up in the Western culture. And we should (oops the `S' word again) be aware of this.

Anyway the cultural divide here is too large for you to predict with any accuracy how they will think on the matter. (Incidentally I have always admired your ability to span the European/US cultural divide, smaller though it is.) There may well be these cosmic truths – I am not clairvoyant and so cannot say with certainty haha – but Steiner's version of them is Eurocentric and century-old. They tend not to see anthroposophy as the be-all and end-all of world-outlooks, in the way that Westerners from cultures allied with what was formerly Steiner's can. My experience with the few Chinese anthroposophists I have met, and with some Chinese sympathetic to Steiner's approach, bear this out.

. ..why not ask American anthroposophists on this list how they feel when reading that the American race is decadent, and will l degenerate completely in the Seventh Sub-Race (i.e. in the 7th Cultural Epoch) ?

The Chinese are not as inured to criticism as are the Americans. But think what the Aussies must feel. We're not even mentioned! Bloody hell! To be excluded from these hierarchies! Fair dinkum – it all sounds a bit bodgy to me…

See ya, Raymon

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

From: raymon_ford
Date: Sat Mar 27, 2004 4:23 pm
Subject: Re: haha, heehee (was: Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver)

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

I guess so, heehee.

heehee

Aw c'mon Tarjei, just for that I'll make you pay for all the beers. I'll expect nothing less than Foster's, of course. None of your European mongrel beer. A few liquid laughs and we'll be right.

Steiner's wonderful wood carving, which I have been to see, has a figure representing cosmic humor over and above these great world-dramas of ours. Perhaps he is saying that this is the ultimate `truth', the really big picture, even above that which you defend so well. So can't we laugh about it all sometimes? I have to, else I couldn't cope…

See ya, Raymon

PS Of course, when the anti-West rhetoric gets too strong, and I feel the need to make my friends squirm, I happily bring up the Tibetan question haha. (oops)

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Sat Mar 27, 2004 8:05 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver

Raymond:

I am on solid ground here.

Your'e on a mound of shit Raymond. Been there done that. Why don't you go crawl back under the rock you been hiding unless you want to get some truth flowing in your veins a bit and come out of the closet? Try it you might like it.

We are way used to the smoke and mirror games you and the critics play. Try a little honesty pal and maybe someone might take your posts to actually mean something other than too much hokey in the pokey.

Dottie

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

From: Mike Helsher
Date: Sat Mar 27, 2004 10:22 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver

P:

I am most intrigued by Raymon's reply to Bradford (not to mention Andrea's and Dottie's replies to Raymon). Raymon seems to agree with Bradford et al. that Steiner's teachings on racial evolution are not racist. But then he asks the obvious question about what these teachings look like from the point of view of the ostensibly 'decadent'. If they don't look racist from that point of view, then what do they look like? I would be very interested to hear other anthroposophist responses to Raymon's question.

R:

But have you considered how, for example, a Chinese must feel when reading that his race is decadent?

Mike:

He didn't ask "what they look like" he asked about how the "Chinese must feel." An important distinction that you love to subtly twist into your non companisionate Steiner/racist drum beat from hell.

I'm sure a Chinese person would "feel" disgusted when presented with the very select quotes that you selectively present in your very select method that discards any attempt at metaphorical understanding and implies it to be irrational. And conveniently discards almost all inspirational material.

I'm also sure that a Chinese person would "feel" quite gratified by much of other RS writings presented by someone who might be inspired by some of RS's work.

IMO the Chinese as a people and culture have suffered much decadence through the Maoist regime, and the drilling and drumming of the worker-bee propaganda into their heads.

You know, the irony of you commenting on this question is what prompted my response. For a minute there I thought you might actually care about how other people might feel. But then I noticed that you did your little word magic and the feeling part conveniently disappeared.

Still grinding the same old polemic axe ay?

I think is quite bizarre that this is the only thing that interests you about RS. There are a wide variety of topics on this list, including some political, that might be right up your ally. But you just keep on ranting...keep on ranting...keep on ranting... like Dori the absent minded fish.

After a while it all starts to sound like Charlie Brown's class teacher to me.

Mike

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sat Mar 27, 2004 10:19 pm
Subject: Group soul conformity (was: Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver)

At 00:35 28.03.2004, Raymond wrote:

Remember I work for a Norwegian company, you know, and so one day may come knocking on ya door, so be careful what you say haha.

I've never been careful with what I say about corporations heehee, and they don't knock on my door either heehee.

I do look forward to meeting you one day; we can exchange notes on the European police - I had a bad run in with Budapest's finest once upon a time…

Is that where you picked up your giggle heehee I got mine reading your "haha" heehee.

I don't have to ask one of these people - see my post to Dottie. How a Chinese feels when reading these sorts of statements has nothing to do with what some Chinese anthroposophist may have to say about the matter.

Really? Becoming an anthroposophist, or reading RS with depth of understanding, makes you non-Chinese, non-American, non-French and so forth? Interesting observation. That's what becoming a "homeless soul" is all about, when you no longer identify with your nationality or race or ethnicity, but with your inner Being. And what you're saying is that all non-anthroposophical Chinese feel precisely the same way, like in a group-soul fashion.

For those who don't know, they would feel humiliated, much more strongly and painfully so than does one brought up in the Western culture. And we should (oops the `S' word again) be aware of this.

Do you expect anthroposophists to humiliate Chinese people by calling them decadent and so on? Or they would insult them if they weren't aware that they might be sensitive? Or do you feel that they OUGHT to be insulted by CRITICS who pick out their own favorite RS quotes and tell the unsuspecting: "Read this, because this is how anthroposophists think of you all"?

Anyway the cultural divide here is too large for you to predict with any accuracy how they will think on the matter.

I understand that you're heavily into cultural. and perhaps also racial, DIVISIONS. You like to elaborate and exploit divisions, don't you? You prefer to fish for whatever divides people, not what might unite them, right?

Are you suggesting that a billion Chinese think and feel alike? They don't have individual identities and idiocyncracies? What you're implying is that a billion Chinese will react in a certain way if they hear or read a given statement, but you can't predict exactly how. Why shouldn't there be one billion different and unique reactions?

(Incidentally I have always admired your ability to span the European/US cultural divide, smaller though it is.)

Again, you're talking about divisions between groups. Why are they so important to you?

There may well be these cosmic truths - I am not clairvoyant and so cannot say with certainty haha - but Steiner's version of them is Eurocentric and century-old.

Cosmic truths are not confined to a few decades in history heehee. Are the cosmic truths in the Bible obsolete because they were recorded millennia ago?

They tend not to see anthroposophy as the be-all and end-all of world-outlooks, in the way that Westerners from cultures allied with what was formerly Steiner's can. My experience with the few Chinese anthroposophists I have met, and with some Chinese sympathetic to Steiner's approach, bear this out.

In other words, anthroposophists of the West see anthroposophy as "the be-all and end-all of world-outlooks"? All of them? What is an anthroposophist, how many are there in the West, and do they think and feel alike, in a uniform way, just the way you claim that all Chinese (non-anthroposophical) people think and feel alike?

The Chinese are not as inured to criticism as are the Americans.

Are you suggesting that Americans are superior to Chinese because the latter can't handle criticism? Does this mean that 250 million Americans react in the same way, and that one billion Chinese react in another way, programmed by their ethnicities or cultures? No individual reactions varying from person to person on either continent?

If what Peter S says is true, namely that all racial groups are equal, then American and Chinese reactions to insults should be identical as well as uniform. You seem to have a significant disagreement with Peter S about this. Or perhaps you don't. Populations are grey masses where individuals feel and think alike, but the masses are not equal after all; their thoughts and feelings are dictated by their respective national and racial makeup. Sounds like racism to me.

But think what the Aussies must feel.

Perhaps you should ask those who knew Burnam Burnam, the First Aborigine member of the Anthroposophical Society. Find out what other members of his tribe have to say:

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

But I guess these people don't count if they are anthroposophists. That would mean that they don't conform to how all other Australians think and feel.

We're not even mentioned!

Where? In the Bible heehee?

Bloody hell! To be excluded from these hierarchies!

The hierarchies don't talk about you heehee?

Fair dinkum - it all sounds a bit bodgy to me…

Heehee

See ya, Raymon

Doubt it heehee

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

Continued in the thread "What is equality?"

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sat Mar 27, 2004 10:44 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: haha, heehee (was: Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver)

At 03:23 28.03.2004, Raymond wrote:

Of course, when the anti-West rhetoric gets too strong, and I feel the need to make my friends squirm, I happily bring up the Tibetan question haha. (oops)

The Tibetan question is a family thing in my case heehee and my old lady had an audience with the Dalai Llama in India once heehee, so it has nothing to do with pro-West or anti-West rhetoric heehee.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Sat Mar 27, 2004 10:54 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver

Peter:

I am most intrigued by Raymon's reply to Bradford (not to mention Andrea's and Dottie's replies to Raymon). Raymon seems to agree with Bradford et al. that Steiner's teachings on racial evolution are not racist. But then he asks the obvious question about what these teachings look like from the point of view of the ostensibly 'decadent'. If they don't look racist from that point of view, then what do they look like? I would be very interested to hear other anthroposophist responses to Raymon's question.

Peter, just who do you and your friend Raymond think you are fooling? Seriously.

Dottie

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

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Sun Mar 28, 2004 12:31 am
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver

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

[A]

( an outer "envelopment") is on the way of decadence, he Himself, the "I AM" kernel, is ever and ever of the way of become free from "nama kè rupa"...

[R]

Gidday Andrea,

Jump in by all means. You raised an interesting point at the end of your post.

Your first point may well be so. It seems fine to pronounce such truths. But these people are but human, and distressing them by announcing that they are decadent, and that we are not, is hardly a practical means

Andrea adds

To be "practical" : if those people are "anthroguys" they have the means to come to terms with the matter. If they are not (as the 99,99% of them) they have got their another "sum of beliefs" to experience and to live with. Taoism, Confucianism, Communism, "Struggle for Money", "Sex Drugs & RR and so on), Doesn't it ? (Cynical but....)

[R]

the West's abuses against them when they were weak. Having

[A]

About China: think also on the occult fact that many today's chinese personalities are babies killed before their births (abortion) in different "advanced" cultures looking for a "road for the Earth".

[R]

Excellent point. I had not thought of this.

You are suggesting that some who properly should have incarnated in the `advanced' cultures (full marks for your putting `advanced' in quotations) finish up instead in China. This reminds me of one of Steiner's statements, that many in the 18th century who were destined to incarnate in China actually finished up in Europe due to Europe's opium-related ravaging of so many Chinese physical bodies. (A grudge is still held against the West for this, by the way.) Perhaps, ironically, some of these decadent souls were anthroposophists in Steiner's audience as he held forth with the lecture Peter quoted.

If what you say is true, it is not consistent with Steiner's statement, jumbled as the latter is. Though – haha – I am depending on what I assume is Peter's accurate translation here. Steiner made a sweeping statement concerning the Chinese – which is largely why it is so damaging; he could easily have qualified it – whereas your point allows that for all we know humans everywhere constitute a mixture of whatever proportion.

You might consider that the reverse of what you say may also be so – ie the population policy carried out in China means that many who were destined to incarnate there, finish up instead in Europe. And that perhaps you are one such, haha. Or me for that matter I suppose. My posts surely appear decadent to some.

Andrea adds:

Well I see it in the following way. We've got from RS and others general point of views but we have also to look. if we are able, at the fast, fast Mankind's Evolution and most of all inside its changes. (For instance: asked about the possibillity that the Russian folk Soul could have no more able to have the chance of fulfill his task towards the Sixth Epoch Age RS answered " well, in this case, the task will be on the shoulders of Brasilian people(!!).....") Moreover: we have also to look at the single issues , I mean facts about the spiritual events concerning single personalities that we know, in order to gain a standpoint able to actually understand "what is actually happening here ?".

A.

See ya, Raymon

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Mar 31, 2004 10:22 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Group soul conformity (was: Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver)

Hi again Tarjei, you wrote:

If what Peter S says is true, namely that all racial groups are equal, then American and Chinese reactions to insults should be identical as well as uniform.

That makes no sense. To say that all racial groups are equal simply means that all racial groups are equal. It does not mean that all individuals are equal. It does not mean that all racial groups are identical. It does not mean that all members of a given racial group are uniform. It has nothing whatsoever to do with gray masses and so forth. It is entirely possible for distinct categories to be equal without being either identical or uniform.

Peter

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Mar 31, 2004 10:25 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver

Hi Dottie, you wrote:

Peter, just who do you and your friend Raymond think you are fooling? Seriously.

Apparently we've fooled you. I don't have the faintest idea who Raymon is.

Peter

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Mar 31, 2004 10:24 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver

Hi Mike, you wrote:

I'm sure a Chinese person would "feel" disgusted when presented with the very select quotes that you selectively present in your very select method that discards any attempt at metaphorical understanding and implies it to be irrational. And conveniently discards almost all inspirational material.

I'm also sure that a Chinese person would "feel" quite gratified by much of other RS writings presented by someone who might be inspired by some of RS's work.


Great. So we agree that Steiner's work contains both racist and non-racist strands?

You know, the irony of you commenting on this question is what prompted my response. For a minute there I thought you might actually care about how other people might feel.

You mean how you personally feel? No, I confess that I don't care much about that. I don't have a particularly high opinion of you as a person, to the extent that such assessments are even possible from email discussion. But this has nothing to do with the ideas you put forward. Those can be assessed regardless of personal feelings.

I think is quite bizarre that this is the only thing that interests you about RS.

It's not the only thing that interests me about Steiner, it's just one of the two things I came here to talk about. Maybe this strikes you as bizarre because you're not used to sustained focus on specific subjects, or maybe it strikes you as bizarre because you don't have much use for intellectuals. Or maybe there's some other reason. In any case, I think there is nothing unusual about concentrating our attention on particular aspects of anthroposophy, especially those that are notably controversial.

Peter

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Wed Mar 31, 2004 10:36 pm
Subject: Re: Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver

Peter, I do not think we can go any further without you answering the questions that I have asked you about Mr. Farells 3 points of intellectual honesty.

Thanks if you choose to answer,
Dottie

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

From: raymon_ford
Date: Thu Apr 1, 2004 1:11 am
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, VALENTINA BRUNETTI wrote:

... Well I see it in the following way. We've got from RS and others general point of views but we have also to look....

Gidday Andrea,

Thanks for your helpful post.

On another subject perhaps you can be of help too. In 1997 in Italy there was an attempted start of a periodical to do with Goethean Science: 'IL DIVANO MORFOLOGICO'; some of those involved were Sandro Curti, Emilio Ferrario, Daniele Nani, Silvia Nicolato. It seemed that it was to be conducted as a debate within the academic mainstream. Can you tell me anything about what happened here? Are you familiar with any of these people?

See ya, Raymon

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

From: Mike Helsher
Date: Thu Apr 1, 2004 7:19 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver

Hello Peter, I wrote:

I'm sure a Chinese person would "feel" disgusted when presented with the very select quotes that you selectively present in your very select method that discards any attempt at metaphorical understanding and implies it to be irrational. And conveniently discards almost all inspirational material.

I'm also sure that a Chinese person would "feel" quite gratified by much of other RS writings presented by someone who might be inspired by some of RS's work.

P:

Great. So we agree that Steiner's work contains both racist and non-racist strands?

M:

Please don't draw me into your twisted way of thinking. I don't agree with that.

I think that you see it that way because you like to deconstruct ideas that seem foolish to you because you really don't understand their metaphorical significance. I'm sure that the deconstruction of ideas has it's place. But the kind of deconstructionism that you do with RS and anthroposophy is like me coming over to your house and taking your bike apart to find a mechanical flaw, and telling you that the chain is rusted to the core and then leaving it there in your driveway in pieces for you.

M:

You know, the irony of you commenting on this question is what prompted my response. For a minute there I thought you might actually care about how other people might feel.

P:

You mean how you personally feel? No, I confess that I don't care much about that. I don't have a particularly high opinion of you as a person, to the extent that such assessments are even possible from email discussion. But this has nothing to do with the ideas you put forward. Those can be assessed regardless of personal feelings.

M:

No, I was talking about how the Chinese must feel, in the context of Raymond's question that you put forth as an example. Raymond asked about how the Chinese must feel, because he cared about that. I thought that to be a noble question, coming from someone that seems to like some of RS's writings.

For what it's worth, I have a high regard for you as a person, as I try to have with every person that I meet. And I get to meet allot of people that suffer the societal stigma of compartmentalized thinking that leaves them in the category of disrespect as a "Person," because they were raised by people that don't understand the idea of compassion, and where it truly comes from. I don't particularly care for the compassionless behavior that allot of recovering dope-fiends exhibit; but on the occasion when I have had the chance to offer them up some kind of compassionate gesture, in spite of some seemingly dumb ideas or behavior, I have seen big burley scary looking biker dudes break down in tears. That's the "Person" that I'm talking about.

M:

I think is quite bizarre that this is the only thing that interests you about RS.

P:

It's not the only thing that interests me about Steiner, it's just one of the two things I came here to talk about.

M:

And you wonder why you seem to have so much difficulty "Talking to Anthroposophists."

I am not an Anthroposophist by the way. Unless of course you want to label me as such. I consider myself more of a Human Being.

P:

Maybe this strikes you as bizarre because you're not used to sustained focus on specific subjects, or maybe it strikes you as bizarre because you don't have much use for intellectuals. Or maybe there's some other reason. In any case, I think there is nothing unusual about concentrating our attention on particular aspects of anthroposophy, especially those that are notably controversial.

M:

Alright, I'll give you the "nothing unusual" thing. I just don't understand why you won't talk about other subjects, of which there are a wide variety here; It paints a bias sectarian picture. When Tarjei Dottie myself and others were on the Critics list, we frequently engaged in different topics. Tarjei has posted a great thread on morality on his web site for instance.

And I wouldn't say that I "don't have much use for intellectuals." It's the nihilistic potential of "intellectualism" that bothers me.

Truth and Love

Mike

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Thu Apr 1, 2004 11:07 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver

Hi Mike, you wrote:

Please don't draw me into your twisted way of thinking. I don't agree with that.

Okay, so you don't agree that Steiner's work contains both racist and non-racist strands. I take it that this means you deny that there are any racist elements whatsoever in Steiner's work?

I think that you see it that way because you like to deconstruct ideas that seem foolish to you because you really don't understand their metaphorical significance.

It sounds to me like you have confused several distinct issues. First, I believe in analyzing important ideas regardless of whether they seem foolish to me. Second, the metaphorical significance of these ideas is precisely what is under dispute; it's silly to pretend that I don't understand this siginificance. It would make a lot more sense for you to simply outline your own understanding of this significance, preferably with reference to Steiner's published works on the matter. What do you say?

I'm sure that the deconstruction of ideas has it's place. But the kind of deconstructionism that you do with RS and anthroposophy is like me coming over to your house and taking your bike apart to find a mechanical flaw, and telling you that the chain is rusted to the core and then leaving it there in your driveway in pieces for you.

Why would that be a problem? Unless I'm incapable of putting the bike back together, I don't see what would be so unhelpful about this. If you are trying to say that you don't know how to put Steiner's doctrines back together after someone else has criticized them and found a flaw within them, then I suppose your analogy makes sense, but I don't know what relevance it might have for me. Surely this is not a good reason to refrain from critique.

[From another thread - "Steiner on racial evolution":]

I am a bit irritated but I don't think I am "mixed up." I think that I (and many others) have already explained "why"above. But in brief I'll say it again: Because it has metaphorical significance to those of us who aren't just looking for examples of racist thought to explain in words.

Why would that make any difference? It is obvious that Steiner's racial doctrines have lots of metaphorical significance for any number of anthroposophists. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of whether some of these doctrines are racist.

RS also frequently mentions the inadequacy of language in trying to describe the world of spirit.

Indeed. But language isn't the problem here. Steiner taught that the world of spirit is reflected in the physical world, and he specifically included race. That's where it gets interesting, from the point of view of determining whether some of his doctrines are racist. Why don't we focus on those doctrines directly?

Peter

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

From: Mike Helsher
Date: Fri Apr 2, 2004 4:33 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver

Mike wrote:

Please don't draw me into your twisted way of thinking. I don't agree with that.

P:

Okay, so you don't agree that Steiner's work contains both racist and non-racist strands. I take it that this means you deny that there are any racist elements whatsoever in Steiner's work?

M:

Well, lets see if I can play this twisted intellectual masturbation/gymnastics game with you. I wonder if all those chemically secreted thoughts create some kind addictive chemical reaction in our brain. You know, like the carb junkie thing. I bet it helps to get a little more brain orgasims to ask a baited twisted question, in answer to someone else's questions or statements; so here goes:

If I tell you what I think I mean when I say that I do not think that there any "racist elements whatsoever in Steiner's work," will you tell me what you think, that I think instead, as you usually do? (oohhh, good brain orgasm)

M:

I think that you see it that way because you like to deconstruct ideas that seem foolish to you because you really don't understand their metaphorical significance.

It sounds to me like you have confused several distinct issues. First, I believe in analyzing important ideas regardless of whether they seem foolish to me. Second, the metaphorical significance of these ideas is precisely what is under dispute; it's silly to pretend that I don't understand this siginificance. It would make a lot more sense for you to simply outline your own understanding of this significance, preferably with reference to Steiner's published works on the matter. What do you say?

M:

What do I say? well, since you asked, I say - Fuck You!

Why should I waste my time with some snide ass condescending pencil-neck intellectual-geek that gets off on playing intellectual mind-games, and frequently implies that I and others on this list are "confused," "foolish," "silly," or should be made fun of; that "anthroposophy is racist to the core"; and that RS is connected to, and partly responsible for the holocaust...

And I'm not pretending that you don't understand metaphorical significance. You don't, as far as I can see. If you did, you might quote a poem on occasion, or even post a few that you have written. What do you say?

M:

I'm sure that the deconstruction of ideas has it's place. But the kind of deconstructionism that you do with RS and anthroposophy is like me coming over to your house and taking your bike apart to find a mechanical flaw, and telling you that the chain is rusted to the core and then leaving it there in your driveway in pieces for you.

P:

M:

Well, I guess if you don't have a clue as to what empathy is, then it wouldn't be a problem.

P:

Unless I'm incapable of putting the bike back together, I don't see what would be so unhelpful about this. If you are trying to say that you don't know how to put Steiner's doctrines back together after someone else has criticized them and found a flaw within them, then I suppose your analogy makes sense, but I don't know what relevance it might have for me. Surely this is not a good reason to refrain from critique

M:

If I liked another companies bikes, and was bias about the way they were made, and found your chain to be rusted to the core, because I could not recognize the new material that was used to make your chain, and told you that your bike was shit and worthless and dangerous because it has a rusty chain, even though it was not rusty, but actually helpful.....

Why do I get the feeling that I am talking to a wall...

M:

I am a bit irritated but I don't think I am "mixed up." I think that I (and many others) have already explained "why"above. But in brief I'll say it again: Because it has metaphorical significance to those of us who aren't just looking for examples of racist thought to explain in words.

P:

Why would that make any difference? It is obvious that Steiner's racial doctrines have lots of metaphorical significance for any number of anthroposophists. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of whether some of these doctrines are racist.

M:

To you maybe, to many others, that's just crap

M:

RS also frequently mentions the inadequacy of language in trying to describe the world of spirit.

P:

Indeed. But language isn't the problem here. Steiner taught that the world of spirit is reflected in the physical world, and he specifically included race. That's where it gets interesting, from the point of view of determining whether some of his doctrines are racist. Why don't we focus on those doctrines directly?

M:

And what language should we use - sigh language maybe? eurhythmy?

It all boils back to the words for you peter. You don't have any experience with what they can mean when you put them into practice for yourself, as in having a spiritual awakening.

Mike

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Sat Apr 3, 2004 8:36 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver

Hi Mike, you wrote:

Why should I waste my time with some snide ass condescending pencil-neck intellectual-geek that gets off on playing intellectual mind-games, and frequently implies that I and others on this list are "confused," "foolish," "silly," or should be made fun of

I don't imply these things, I say them outright. You and some other listmates are indeed confused about several important issues, in my view. For example, several of you seem to think that the term "evolution" means the same thing in biological and in cultural contexts, in natural and in historical contexts. That is a genuinely foolish belief, and when you make it public, other people are going to make fun of it. If you don't like having your beliefs subjected to scrutiny, you just need to keep them to yourself. That's how critical public discussion works.

And I'm not pretending that you don't understand metaphorical significance. You don't, as far as I can see.

But we've been discussing the metaphorical significance of Steiner's racial and ethnic doctrines for some time now. Did that go right over your head? People who use "the Negro race" as a metaphor for primitiveness and immaturity are racists. People who use "the Jews" as a metaphor for materialism and closedness are antisemites. If you disagree, I encourage you to explain why.

Peter

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

From: at
Date: Mon Apr 5, 2004 8:16 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver

There are quite a few Japanese Anthroposophists, as well as a Waldorf initiative in Taiwan, and quite a bit of anthroposophical work in Africa. I suppose those who are sure that Anthroposophy is fundamentally racist must also maintian that all of these people are also ignorant of this aspect. It does pose a bit of a problem - how racist is an ideology that is inspiring people of all races on five continents?

Daniel

----- Original Message -----
From: Tarjei Straume
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 9:20 AM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver

At 11:43 26.03.2004, Raymond wrote:

But have you considered how, for example, a Chinese must feel when reading that his race is decadent?

I suggest that you ask a Chinese anthroposophists. There are some in Hong Kong, including AS members, I believe. But just in case there aren't any Chinese anthro's on this list, why not ask American anthroposophists on this list how they feel when reading that the American race is decadent, and will l degenerate completely in the Seventh Sub-Race (i.e. in the 7th Cultural Epoch) ?

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


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