Re:
To Peter 1
Re: To Peter 2
From: Patrick
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 5:05 pm
Subject: To Peter
Yes, please respond truthfully to Sune's
post.
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 9:56 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter
Hi Patrick, you wrote:
Yes, please respond truthfully to Sune's
post.
I'm not sure what there is to respond to. Anyone with a map can
determine for themselves whether Oslo is in Norway. Anyone with
a copy of The Mission of the Folk Souls can determine for themselves
whether they think Steiner's musings on racial character are
racist. They can also very easily determine for themselves whether
Steiner "mentions" root races in this book (and for
those of you who don't have a copy at hand, here's a hint: the
title of chapter 6 is "The Five Root Races of Mankind").
And so forth. What else would you like me to respond to?
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 11:00 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter
Peter:
What else would you like me to respond
to?
Peter, why don't you try responding to Sune
for starters? But then again we know you do not fair well in
conversations with him. The best you can do is make fun of how
serious he takes the manipulated disinformation you are spreading
around about Dr. Steiner and that tends to work against you for
the most part.
It's still shocking to see you really just
stay above water in these posts. You really have nothing but
a repeat over and over again of the few pages you say show him
to be racist in your opinion.
I am so glad you and Diana are in the minority
of world views. It'd be pretty sad to meet others so stuck in
their ways as you two. The idea that one can not even say a good
thing about a particular culture or a negative thing bespeaks
a lack of common sense. It'd be interesting hearing a debate
on this with educated common folk with no apparent religious
affiliations. They'd probably be surprised to see such closed
minded educated people, as I have experienced the two of you,
in this conversation. It's pretty shocking to see such backward
thinking as I have seen here in response to Tarjei and others.
Seriously you two take the cake.
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: Mike Helsher
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 7:45 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter
P:
Hi Patrick, you wrote:
Yes, please respond truthfully to Sune's
post.
P:
I'm not sure what there is to respond to.
M:
"I'm not sure," Now I have to admit
that there is some "truth" to that answer. But for
someone who makes bold claims like "Anthroposophy is Racist
to the core," I think it is quite lame. Denial is a comfortable
and convenient thing ain't it?
P:
Anyone with a map can determine for themselves
whether Oslo is in Norway. Anyone with a copy of The Mission
of the Folk Souls can determine for themselves whether they think
Steiner's musings on racial character are racist.
M:
Thank you. I have read everything that you
have posted for the last two years, and I have come to understand
for myself that "Steiner's Musings on racial character"
are just that - "musings on racial character." And
that in consideration of all that he was trying to do with his
life and learning; his investigation into the realm of his own
imagination, and the relevant relationship that it can have to
leading a meaningful and compassionate life (that has been an
inspiration for me, to see and *try* to treat all my fellow human
beings as brothers and sisters) I have come to know for myself
that "Steiner's musings on racial character" are a
very small slice of the bigger picture. And that people being
fallible, will fuck-up on occasion, and interpret his ideas to
mean what they want. But that is not necessarily what RS wanted.
Everything that I can discern thus far points to the fact that
he wanted a more compassionate world, and that he believed in
a Spiritual renewal for the whole of humanity.
And please excuse my personal bias, myself having had a personal
"spititual awakening" of sorts.
So thanks again for helping me to sort out my confusion.
P:
They can also very easily determine for
themselves whether Steiner "mentions" root races in
this book (and for those of you who don't have a copy at hand,
here's a hint: the title of chapter 6 is "The Five Root
Races of Mankind"). And so forth. What else would you like
me to respond to?
M:
Thanks for the "emotionally potent over-simplifications"
again. Notice the emphasis of the words "The Five Root Races
of mankind" in this "Hint" of yours. Words Like
"Racist" and associations like Stiener/Hitler, Steiner/
The third Reich, Steiner/the Holocaust, Steiner/Racist, really
do have a way of creating a mind set for those who might not
have all the info, or the time to research it.
But that really doesn't matter does it. Were not talking about
people, were talking about ideas. And If I understand you correctly,
Ideas, and the people that have them are two different things.
Anyway, I might have a bit of good news for you. I was in a gift
shop recently and somehow got into a conversation about Waldorf
with the cashier. A person in line behind me heard and said:
"Hey, Isn't the guy who started those schools a nazi?"
So keep up the semantically focused propaganda spin, along with
a healthy dose of non-compassionate intellectualism - you should
do fine.
Good luck
Mike
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 8:35 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter
Hi Mike, you wrote:
Thank you. I have read everything that you have posted for
the last two years, and I have come to understand for myself
that "Steiner's Musings on racial character" are just
that - "musings on racial character."
Yes, that is my conclusion as well. I think the question that
divides us is: are some of these musings racist?
I have come to know for myself that "Steiner's musings
on racial character" are a very small slice of the bigger
picture.
I disagree with the "very small" part.
Everything that I can discern thus far points to the fact
that he wanted a more compassionate world, and that he believed
in a Spiritual renewal for the whole of humanity.
Yes, of course. Lots of racists wanted a more compassionate world,
Mike, and very many of them believed in a spiritual renewal for
the whole of humanity. In a number of cases that's exactly why
they became racists.
Notice the emphasis of the words "The Five Root Races
of mankind" in this "Hint" of yours.
Maybe you didn't read Sune's post. He says that Steiner does
not mention root races in The Mission of the Folk Souls. He's
mistaken, obviously. No wonder he thinks I forged the book.
Words Like "Racist" and associations like Stiener/Hitler,
Steiner/ The third Reich, Steiner/the Holocaust, Steiner/Racist,
really do have a way of creating a mind set for those who might
not have all the info, or the time to research it.
Are you trying to say that you think it would be better not to
talk about whether particular racial theories are racist, because
somebody might get the wrong idea?
And If I understand you correctly, Ideas, and the people that
have them are two different things.
Indeed they are. I think you'll have a much easier time talking
about ideas once you recognize this.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 4:09 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter
I'm curious about the nordic-germanic sub-race.
I'm afraid I haven't been able to locate it anywhere in the book.
Can you perhaps point me to a page number (in English or German)?
Daniel Hindes
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Staudenmaier
To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 12:56 AM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter
Hi Patrick, you wrote:
Yes, please respond truthfully to Sune's
post.
I'm not sure what there is to respond to.
Anyone with a map can determine for themselves whether Oslo is
in Norway. Anyone with a copy of The Mission of the Folk Souls
can determine for themselves whether they think Steiner's musings
on racial character are racist. They can also very easily determine
for themselves whether Steiner "mentions" root races
in this book (and for those of you who don't have a copy at hand,
here's a hint: the title of chapter 6 is "The Five Root
Races of Mankind"). And so forth. What else would you like
me to respond to?
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 4:38 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter
Mike:
I have come to know for myself that "Steiner's
musings on racial character" are a very small slice of the
bigger picture.
Peter Staudenmaier:
I disagree with the "very small"
part.
Daniel:
Of course you would. But I must point out,
you haven't bothered to read the rest of Steiner, so how could
you possibly know what part it plays in the whole?
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 5:49 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter
I must say, I am curious about the whole concept
of superiority. I don't find the word used at all in the book
(GA 121). Steiner hardly used the word at all; just 30 times
in 300 volumes. Perhaps you could point me to the passages that
you feel capture the idea that the Aryans are superior to other
races.
Daniel Hindes
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Staudenmaier
To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 12:56 AM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter
Hi Patrick, you wrote:
Yes, please respond truthfully to Sune's
post.
I'm not sure what there is to respond to.
Anyone with a map can determine for themselves whether Oslo is
in Norway. Anyone with a copy of The Mission of the Folk Souls
can determine for themselves whether they think Steiner's musings
on racial character are racist. They can also very easily determine
for themselves whether Steiner "mentions" root races
in this book (and for those of you who don't have a copy at hand,
here's a hint: the title of chapter 6 is "The Five Root
Races of Mankind"). And so forth. What else would you like
me to respond to?
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:07 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter
Hi Patrick, you wrote:
Yes, please respond truthfully to Sune's
post.
Peter Staudenmaier:
I'm not sure what there is to respond to.
Anyone with a map can determine for themselves whether Oslo is
in Norway. Anyone with a copy of The Mission of the Folk Souls
can determine for themselves whether they think Steiner's musings
on racial character are racist. They can also very easily determine
for themselves whether Steiner "mentions" root races
in this book (and for those of you who don't have a copy at hand,
here's a hint: the title of chapter 6 is "The Five Root
Races of Mankind"). And so forth. What else would you like
me to respond to?
Daniel:
Actually, the title of Chapter 6 is "The
Five MAIN Races of Mankind." Root races are not mentioned
anywhere at all in the book. Nor is the word "Aryan".
The more I look into this, the more problems I am finding. You
wrote:
Peter Staudenmaier in the first paragraph of Anthroposophy and
Ecofascism:
"In June 1910 Rudolf
Steiner, the founder of anthroposophy, began a speaking tour
of Norway with a lecture to a large and attentive audience in
Oslo. The lecture was titled "The Mission of Individual
European National Souls in Relation to Nordic-Germanic Mythology."
In the Oslo lecture and throughout his Norwegian tour Steiner
presented his theory of "national souls" (Volksseelen
in German, Steiner's native tongue) and paid particular attention
to the mysterious wonders of the "Nordic spirit." The
"national souls" of Northern and Central Europe were,
Steiner explained, components of the "germanic-nordic sub-race,"
the world's most spiritually advanced ethnic group, which was
in turn the vanguard of the highest of five historical "root
races." This superior fifth root race, Steiner told his
Oslo audience, was naturally the "Aryan race."
Problems:
Despite being in quotes, the phrase "Aryan race" is
nowhere in the book.
Despite being in quotes, the pharse "root races" is
nowhere in the book.
Despite being in quotes, the pharse "germanic-nordic sub-race"
is nowhere in the book.
(Starting to see a pattern?)
Despite being in quotes, the pharse "Nordic spirit"
is nowhere in the book.
The word "Aryan" is nowhere in the book.
Peter, just what book were you reading when you wrote this, because
it is not the book you have cited. In fact, I don't think it
is even Steiner.
"In Oslo and throughout
his Norwegian tour..."
Steiner never spoke outside of Oslo on that
"tour", and gave only two lectures beyond the 11 printed
in GA 121.
Peter, is this your idea of the "historical polemic"
that a half dozen respected authors you refer me to purportedly
support?
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:17 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter
Hi Daniel, you wrote:
I'm curious about the nordic-germanic sub-race. I'm afraid
I haven't been able to locate it anywhere in the book. Can you
perhaps point me to a page number (in English or German)?
He doesn't use the sub-race terminology in the book. That's why
I took the term out of the revised version of the article. I
pointed this out to Sune last year. You can find the revised
version of the article at the openwaldorf site.
But I must point out, you haven't bothered to read the rest
of Steiner, so how could you possibly know what part it plays
in the whole?
It isn't true that I haven't bothered to read the rest of Steiner
(unless you mean the whole rest of Steiner, every last volume
in the Gesamtausgabe).
[From
"Steiner and the Jews" Mar
10:]
You know, it would be a really interesting
exercise to take each of these passages, and then go back two
pages and forward two pages, and see how they fit in the train
of thought that Steiner was pursuing. Kind of, putting them into
perspective. Would that change the meaning of any of them? If
it did, is this selective quotation?
I think you mean the bad kind of selectivity. In my view, that
very much depends on the text in question. I chose each of those
examples because I think they are representative of his train
of thought. I encourage you to offer counter-readings if you
think any of my choices are misleadingly selective.
[From above:]
I must say, I am curious about
the whole concept of superiority. I don't find the word used
at all in the book (GA 121). Steiner hardly used the word at
all; just 30 times in 300 volumes. Perhaps you could point me
to the passages that you feel capture the idea that the Aryans
are superior to other races.
Most of chapters four and six. See pp. 74-81 in the English edition,
for example, or pp. 102-110.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:46 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter
Hi again Daniel, you wrote:
Actually, the title of Chapter 6 is "The Five MAIN Races
of Mankind." Root races are not mentioned anywhere at all
in the book. Nor is the word "Aryan".
I think you need new reading glasses. The title of chapter 6
is in fact "The Five Root Races of Mankind". The book
was published in 1970 by the Rudolf Steiner Press, translated
by A.H. Parker. Would you like me to send you a photocopy?
Despite being in quotes, the phrase "Aryan race"
is nowhere in the book.
That's true. (It is not true, however, that the word "Aryan"
is not mentioned in the book, as you claim above.) Is there some
reason you're ignoring the revised version of my article?
Despite being in quotes, the pharse "root races"
is nowhere in the book.
That's not true. Could you tell us what edition of the book you're
looking at?
Despite being in quotes, the pharse "germanic-nordic
sub-race" is nowhere in the book.
That's true. Wouldn't it make sense to take a peek at the revised
version of the article?
The word "Aryan" is nowhere in the book.
That isn't true. Take a closer look at p. 106 (that's p. 114
if all you have is the German).
Peter, just what book were you reading when you wrote this,
because it is not the book you have cited. In fact, I don't think
it is even Steiner.
The title is The Mission of the Individual Folk Souls in Relation
to Teutonic Mythology. You think maybe A.H. Parker forged it?
Steiner never spoke outside of Oslo on that "tour",
and gave only two lectures beyond the 11 printed in GA 121.
Agreed.
Peter, is this your idea of the "historical polemic"
that a half dozen respected authors you refer me to purportedly
support?
No, it's my idea of simple reading. What book are you looking
at, Daniel?
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 7:18 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter
Hi again Daniel, you wrote:
Actually, the title of Chapter 6 is "The
Five MAIN Races of Mankind." Root races are not mentioned
anywhere at all in the book. Nor is the word "Aryan".
Peter Staudenmaier:
I think you need new reading glasses. The
title of chapter 6 is in fact "The Five Root Races of Mankind".
The book was published in 1970 by the Rudolf Steiner Press, translated
by A.H. Parker. Would you like me to send you a photocopy?
Daniel:
Sorry that I wasn't clear. I have the German
in front of me (primary sources). The title of Chapter 6 is "Die
fünf Hauptrassen der Menschheit" If it stands as the
"Root Races" in the English version, then it has been
mistranslated. For some reason I thought you used the original
in your essay. Sorry.
Daniel wrote:
Despite being in quotes, the phrase "Aryan
race" is nowhere in the book.
Peter Staudenmaier:
That's true. (It is not true, however,
that the word "Aryan" is not mentioned in the book,
as you claim above.) Is there some reason you're ignoring the
revised version of my article?
Daniel:
The word "Aryan" (and I looked for
Arier and arische) is nowhere in the German. I'll have to look
at this translation.
I am ignoring the revised version of your
article only by accident. I did a google search for "Anthroposophy
and Ecofascism" and took the first search result. If you
are concerned with the accuracy of your writing, you might consider
insisting that the owner of "waldorfcritics.org" update
it.
Daniel wrote:
Despite being in quotes, the pharse "root
races" is nowhere in the book.
Peter Staudenmaier:
That's not true. Could you tell us what
edition of the book you're looking at?
Daniel:
The 1962 Gesamptasugabe version.
Daniel wrote:
Despite being in quotes, the pharse "germanic-nordic
sub-race" is nowhere in the book.
Peter Staudenmaier:
That's true. Wouldn't it make sense to
take a peek at the revised version of the article?
Daniel:
If I can find it. Would it make sense to update
it on the sites that google findes among the top ten search results?
If I were concerned about my good name being damaged by inaccurate
versions of my writings, I would go at least that far.
Daniel wrote:
The word "Aryan" is nowhere in
the book.
Peter Staudenmaier:
That isn't true. Take a closer look at
p. 106 (that's p. 114 if all you have is the German).
Daniel:
I'm not finding it on page 114 (1962 edition).
Could you give me the sentence?
Daniel wrote:
Peter, just what book were you reading
when you wrote this, because it is not the book you have cited.
In fact, I don't think it is even Steiner.
Peter Staudenmaier:
The title is The Mission of the Individual
Folk Souls in Relation to Teutonic Mythology. You think maybe
A.H. Parker forged it?
Daniel:
I am starting to wonder about the translation.
Parker appears to have taken some liberty with the exact terminology.
Daniel wrote:
Steiner never spoke outside of Oslo on
that "tour", and gave only two lectures beyond the
11 printed in GA 121.
Peter Staudenmaier:
Agreed.
Daniel:
I take it that sentence has been corrected
in the revised version?
Daniel wrote:
Peter, is this your idea of the "historical
polemic" that a half dozen respected authors you refer me
to purportedly support?
Peter Staudenmaier:
No, it's my idea of simple reading. What
book are you looking at, Daniel?
Daniel:
The one that contains:
"It will be seen from
the last lecture that if we wish to make an impartial study of
the facts underlying our present investigation we must transcend
those prejudices which might easily arise on matters which I
must now describe objectively. So long as one has the slightest
tendency to take personally an objective description of a particular
race or people, it will be difficult to reach a unprejudiced
understanding of the facts presented in this lecture-course.
For this reason these matters can only be discussed in the light
of a systematic knowledge of the spirit. For however deeply one
may be involved emotionally in a particular people or race, as
Anthroposophists we have an adequate counterpoise in the teaching
of karma and reincarnation, when rightly understood. This teaching
opens a vista into the future and reveals that our integral Self
is incarnated in successive ages in different races and peoples.
When we contemplate the destiny of our integral Self we may be
sure that we shall share not only the positive or perhaps also
the negative aspects of all races and peoples; but we may be
sure that in our inmost being we shall also receive the countless
blessings of all races and all peoples since we are incarnated
in different races at different times.
Our consciousness, our horizon, is enlarged through these ideas
of karma and reincarnation. Only through these teachings therefore
do we learn to accept what is revealed to us at the present time
concerning the mysterious relations of race and nation. If we
rightly understand the theme of these lectures we shall harbor
no regrets at having incarnated in a particular people or race.
But an objective survey of national and racial characteristics
may, nonetheless, provoke dissension and disharmony unless it
is accepted in the spirit I have already suggested. The aspirant
for spiritual knowledge will learn through the teachings of karma
and reincarnation how every nation, even the smallest nation,
has to contribute its share towards the total evolution of humanity.
In the second part of this lecture-course I propose to show -
and herein lies its real importance - how the particular influences
of the missions of the several peoples are merged in the whole
of humanity and how even isolated ethic groups which are scattered
here and there amongst larger national groups have their part
to play in the great harmony of human evolution."
Rudolf Steiner, The Mission of the Individual Folk Souls in relation
to Teutonic Mythology, London 1970, pages 82-83.
I would like to emphasize in particular the
sentence:
"The aspirant for spiritual
knowledge will learn through the teachings of karma and reincarnation
how every nation, even the smallest nation, has to contribute
its share towards the total evolution of humanity."
This seems to paint a rather different picture
than the one you do.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 12:39 am
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter
----- Original Message -----
Hi Patrick, you wrote:
Yes, please respond truthfully to Sune's
post.
I'm not sure what there is to respond to.
Anyone with a map can determine for themselves whether Oslo is
in Norway. Anyone with a copy of The Mission of the Folk Souls
can determine for themselves whether they think Steiner's musings
on racial character are racist. They can also very easily determine
for themselves whether Steiner "mentions" root races
in this book (and for those of you who don't have a copy at hand,
here's a hint: the title of chapter 6 is "The Five Root
Races of Mankind"). And so forth. What else would you like
me to respond to?
.......Sure Pedro and anybody is able to see how you' re running
away, just in the way you use to do when your lies are discovered.
A.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: Mike Helsher
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 9:57 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter
Hi Peter, I wrote:
Thank you. I have read everything that
you have posted for the last two years, and I have come to understand
for myself that "Steiner's Musings on racial character"
are just that - "musings on racial character."
P:
Yes, that is my conclusion as well. I think
the question that divides us is: are some of these musings racist?
M:
The Musings themselves, separate from the
personality that spoke or wrote them, might be racist, depending
on the person that is musing over them today, and their personal
paradigm.
M:
Everything that I can discern thus far
points to the fact that he wanted a more compassionate world,
and that he believed in a Spiritual renewal for the whole of
humanity.
P:
Yes, of course. Lots of racists wanted
a more compassionate world, Mike, and very many of them believed
in a spiritual renewal for the whole of humanity. In a number
of cases that's exactly why they became racists.
M:
Don't fuckin preach at me please. Your sentence
implies that Steiner is a racist. You just don't quit do you?
I don't think that you have a clue as to what "Spiritual
renewal" is. Maybe you should try shooting some dope for
ten or so years. If you survive, you might then really know what
it means to live a life that is a living hell. The only options
that I have seen that have helped hopelessly addicted people
stay clean and live a life that is worth living, aside from jails,
institutions (heavy meds), or death, are "spiritual"
in their nature. "Spiritual" as developing a healthy
relationship with one's own thinking, feeling and willing. Can
you imagine getting fucked up the ass on a daily basis, so that
you could buy your crack? Or being a prostitute with three kids
who all got shot and killed (One with a bullet wound to the head,
that died in his mothers arms) in drive-by's? These are people
that I know, who's story makes my own look like a walk in the
park, who are now living reasonably happy and productive lives,
and are no longer a liability, or an outright danger to society.
They are giving of themselves, time and energy in order to help
those who are less fortunate. Why? because they found a spiritual
solution, like I did.
M:
Words Like "Racist" and associations
like Stiener/Hitler, Steiner/ The third Reich, Steiner/the Holocaust,
Steiner/Racist, really do have a way of creating a mind set for
those who might not have all the info, or the time to research
it.
P:
Are you trying to say that you think it
would be better not to talk about whether particular racial theories
are racist, because somebody might get the wrong idea?
M:
Wow! you are the king of the red-herring tactic.
I was talking about the mechanical associations that you constantly
make like the bunny in the ever-ready commercial. If you bothered
to show even a little respect for the fact that this guy inspired
many people, and might have even had some decent ideas, and were
forthright about this in your conversations (and I'm not talking
about paying lip-service) I might not see your writings on RS
as complete and utter smear, upon a movement that threatens you
for some yet unknown reason.
M:
And If I understand you correctly, Ideas,
and the people that have them are two different things.
P:
Indeed they are. I think you'll have a
much easier time talking about ideas once you recognize this.
M:
Would you mind coming down off the fucking
pedestal please. That's a religious notion if I ever saw one,
which is quite an irony coming form a devout non-religious guy
like yourself. Do you have proof (no theories) to back up that
statement?
Mike
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 11:00 pm
Subject: Re: To Peter
P:
Yes, of course. Lots of racists wanted
a more compassionate world, Mike, and very many of them believed
in a spiritual renewal for the whole of humanity. In a number
of cases that's exactly why they became racists.
God you are so full of shit. Do you actually
believe this junk you write? Do other people really believe what
you write? Seriously Peter, you are so admiring of your self
and your beliefs I have to say I rightly called it the Cult of
Peter on the critics a few years back. And I would bet my bottom
dollar on your cult of the critics having more in common with
the definition of a cult than that which you throw at Dr. Steiner.
Which leads me to wonder if Dugans cult busting fundie Christians
know to what extent the two of you swing beings they are supporting
PLANS with money. I never could get why they would jump in bed
with you and Dugan knowing you two are atheist and humanist respectively.
I am starting to see what Diana and Dan see
in you. It must be they see this kindred spirit, pardon the use
of that word, that mindxxxx themselves. It's just constant intellectual
bullshit with no meaning. No wonder you go after Dr. Steiner,
he makes to much sense for your mind to comprehend on anything
that has to do with self reflection. Say what? self reflection,
maybe someone could give the dictionary definition for that one
as your common sense doesn't really kick into gear when it comes
to every day usage of a word. We should have a PETER STAUDENMAIER
DICTIONARY that would clear it up don't you think Peter. That
way we could have one version that would be Peters definitions
and another dictionary that bespeaks the original versions of
a word before they meet the lefties and righties of the world.
In fact I think it would be a great idea for you to make a disclaimer
in your articles that states all words are defined by said author
and have no basis on regular every day usage. And then a disclaimer
that states all interpretations of this author are his own and
may or may not have anything to do with the said subject.
Whew,
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 11:26 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: To Peter Phase Three
in Action
P:
Yes, of course. Lots of racists wanted
a more compassionate world, Mike, and very many of them believed
in a spiritual renewal for the whole of humanity. In a number
of cases that's exactly why they became racists.
God I almost missed this: phase three of the
Staudenmaeir experience is upon us. This is where all the dogmatic
statments are coming from; all the righteous 'these are my conclusions
and my absolutes': there are no spiritual realities and cultural
significances. All most passed me by. Whew.
Phase three in action folks. See and read
all the matter of fact statments now coming into play.
Yeah Peter!, right on time ey?
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Thu Mar 11, 2004 9:31 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter
Hi Daniel, you wrote:
Sorry that I wasn't clear. I have the German in front of me
(primary sources). The title of Chapter 6 is "Die fünf
Hauptrassen der Menschheit"
I have two German editions: an original printing of the lectures,
and the current official Gesamtausgabe edition published by the
Nachlassverwaltung (the 1994 paperback edition, which says it
is identical to the 1982 hardcover edition). Neither of these
German editions gives any titles for the individual chapters.
If the 1962 edition that you have does give titles, then that's
likely where the authorized English translation came from.
If it stands as the "Root Races" in the English
version, then it has been mistranslated.
Why do you believe that "Root Races" is a mistranslation
of "Hauptrassen"???
The word "Aryan" (and I looked for Arier and arische)
is nowhere in the German.
Yes, it is. On p. 114 Steiner writes of "denjenigen Rassen,
die zur Jupiter-Menschheit gehören," and specifies
as follows: "Das ist bei den arischen, vorderasiatischen
und europäischen Völkern, bei denen, die wir zu den
Kaukasiern rechnen, mehr oder weniger der Fall." That's
in the latter third of chapter 6, in case your pagination is
different. The passage is identical in the original printing
that I have as well (though the two editions otherwise diverge
at several points).
I am ignoring the revised version of your article only by
accident. I did a google search for "Anthroposophy and Ecofascism"
and took the first search result.
But that's exactly what Sune is complaining about. He's upset
because the revised version of my article still contains what
he thinks are errors. How did you miss that?
I would like to emphasize in particular the sentence:
"The aspirant for
spiritual knowledge will learn through the teachings of karma
and reincarnation how every nation, even the smallest nation,
has to contribute its share towards the total evolution of humanity."
Why? You think racists don't believe that
all racial and ethnic groups have a part to play in the evolution
of humanity? Lots of racists believe that. In fact it's a prominent
tenet of the specific version of reformulated racism currently
popular in the circles of the European New Right.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Thu Mar 11, 2004 9:37 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter
Hi Mike,
I think you are missing the point. Steiner did inspire many people
and he did have some decent ideas. That has nothing whatsoever
to do with whether some of his beliefs were racist. Lots of good
people have held racist beliefs. That's one excellent reason
to acknowledge the difference between people and ideas.
Peter
M:
Wow! you are the king of the red-herring
tactic. I was talking about the mechanical associations that
you constantly make like the bunny in the ever-ready commercial.
If you bothered to show even a little respect for the fact that
this guy inspired many people, and might have even had some decent
ideas, and were forthright about this in your conversations (and
I'm not talking about paying lip-service) I might not see your
writings on RS as complete and utter smear, upon a movement that
threatens you for some yet unknown reason.
M:
And If I understand you correctly, Ideas,
and the people that have them are two different things.
P:
Indeed they are. I think you'll have a
much easier time talking about ideas once you recognize this.
M:
Would you mind coming down off the fucking
pedestal please. That's a religious notion if I ever saw one,
which is quite an irony coming form a devout non-religious guy
like yourself. Do you have proof (no theories) to back up that
statement?
Mike
...................................................................................................................................
From: Detlef Hardorp
Date: Thu Mar 11, 2004 7:40 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter
PS wrote:
Hi again Daniel, you wrote:
Actually, the title of Chapter 6 is "The
Five MAIN Races of Mankind." Root races are not mentioned
anywhere at all in the book. Nor is the word "Aryan".
I think you need new reading glasses. The
title of chapter 6 is in fact "The Five Root Races of Mankind".
The book was published in 1970 by the Rudolf Steiner Press, translated
by A.H. Parker. Would you like me to send you a photocopy?
Dear Mr.Staudenmaier,
hey, scholar of German, wake up! We've been through this before,
years ago. If you care to put on your reading glasses and open
the original German book, you will nowhere find the word "Wurzelrasse"
(which is the German word for "root race") in the title
of this chapter. A.H. Parker unfortunately translated this incorrectly!
I know what you will now say. To shorter the discussions back
and forth, I will now take your part. Steiner speaks of five
"Hauptrassen". Elsewhere in his work, he also spoke
of "Wurzelrassen" as "Hauptrassen". Thus
Parker has not made a mistake. Here ends the anticipated PS remark.
It is correct that Steiner also used the word "Hauptrassen"
when speaking about "Wurzelrassen" many years before
he wrote the book in question. Now words can be used with different
meanings in different contexts. Thus an understanding cannot
be gained by just staring at words. A little bit of thinking
is necessary.
This little bit of thinking even convinced Dan Dugan years ago,
at least for a day or two. Fact is, that there are unquestionably
seven root races, yet only five "Hauptrassen".
So simply counting will already give you a clue that A.H. Parker
failed to translate this correctly. Beyond that, it can be observed
that Steiner is not saying anything very original when talking
about the five "Hauptrassen" the way he describes them.
They are identical - down to the very diction - of what can be
found in a 1911 American biology textbook, as Sune discovered.
This cannot be said of the Theosophical concept of root races,
or would you care to disagree? If you show me that textbook,
I will eat sand and never write another word on this list!
So we don't even need to mention that in 1909 Steiner considered
the root race theory a "childhood disease" of Theosophy.
He wrote/edited the book in question in 1910 or 11!
And please don't argue now that I must be mistaken since A.H.
Parker was an authorized translator, as you did years ago! Even
authorized translators can make mistakes, so that proves nothing
at all.
Can you not get this into that little brain of yours? Of course
you can. In fact, that brain is quite large and quite capable
of much more complex thinking. But you play dumb, pretending
that all is missing are Daniel Hind's glasses. You play games.
You love playing games with people, and you are hellishly brilliant.
Best regards, Detlef Hardorp
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:11 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter
Our resident expert in translation writes:
If you care to put on your reading glasses and open the original
German book, you will nowhere find the word "Wurzelrasse"
(which is the German word for "root race") in the title
of this chapter. A.H. Parker unfortunately translated this incorrectly!
The theosophical term "root race" comes from Blavatsky's
book The Secret Doctrine. The German translation of that book
(the one Steiner read) renders the term "root race"
in two ways: "Hauptrasse" and "Wurzelrasse",
and sometimes "Wurzel- und Hauptrasse" as well as "(Haupt-)Wurzelrasse".
The notion that "Hauptrasse" and "root race"
are incorrect translations of one another is ridiculous.
It is correct that Steiner also used the word "Hauptrassen"
when speaking about "Wurzelrassen" many years before
he wrote the book in question.
Steiner repeatedly used the term "Hauptrassen" to mean
root races in his central work Aus der Akasha-Chronik, known
in English as Cosmic Memory, which was published in book form
in 1909, one year (not many years) before he gave the Oslo lectures
on "folk souls". (These passages from Cosmic Memory
are among Detlef's favorites, by the way.) Steiner also used
"Wurzelrassen" in the same book; the two terms were
interchangeable for him.
Fact is, that there are unquestionably seven root races,
yet only five "Hauptrassen".
That's nonsense. Detlef hasn't read Blavatsky and hence has no
idea what he's talking about. Neither Blavatsky nor Steiner was
consistent in their descriptions of the root races, much less
in their numbering. The Secret Doctrine refers to both "five
races" and "seven races" when discussing the root
races, and occasionally says there are only three main racial
groups. Steiner's version was similarly all over the map. I encourage
Detlef to explain how he came to the conclusion that "Hauptrassen"
and "Wurzelrassen" mean different things, even though
both Steiner and the German version of Blavatsky he relied on
use the two terms interchangeably.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: Detlef Hardorp
Date: Thu Mar 11, 2004 12:25 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter
PS wrote:
Hi Daniel, you wrote:
Sorry that I wasn't clear. I have the German
in front of me (primary sources). The title of Chapter 6 is "Die
fünf Hauptrassen der Menschheit"
I have two German editions: an original
printing of the lectures, and the current official Gesamtausgabe
edition published by the Nachlassverwaltung (the 1994 paperback
edition, which says it is identical to the 1982 hardcover edition).
Neither of these German editions gives any titles for the individual
chapters. If the 1962 edition that you have does give titles,
then that's likely where the authorized English translation came
from.
DH:
I have the 1974 paperback edition, which says
that it is identical with GA 121, ISBN 3-7274-1210-0. The title
of the lectures are there to be found in the index in the front
of the book.
PS:
If it stands as the "Root Races"
in the English version, then it has been mistranslated.
Why do you believe that "Root Races"
is a mistranslation of "Hauptrassen"???
DH:
Do you suffer from amnesia, PS? Did you really
forget the discussion in the WC list some years ago? I suppose
it is a question of selective amnesia. It's all in the WC archives.
You were not open to clear thinking back then and I doubt you
will be now. But you could at least vaguely remember there was
something, instead of finishing your disbelief with three question
marks.
Best regards,
Detlef Hardorp
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Thu Mar 11, 2004 1:51 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter
DH:
Do you suffer from amnesia, PS? Did you
really forget the discussion in the WC list some years ago? I
suppose it is a question of selective amnesia. It's all in the
WC archives. You were not open to clear thinking back then and
I doubt you will be now. But you could at least vaguely remember
there was something, instead of finishing your disbelief with
three question marks.
Must have been Peter Zegers right Peter?
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: Patrick
Date: Thu Mar 11, 2004 1:47 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter
Dear Dr. Staudenmaier,
Am I addressing you correctly? Do you have a Ph.D.?
Tarjei laid out what you should respond to, so I don't need to
do it. I do believe your query to me was redundant as Sune was
quite clear in what should be responded to. Allow me a few remarks
regarding the situation.
You seem surprised that these questions keep coming up. They
keep coming up because it is your veracity that is in question.
Because you're someone who plays with the meanings of words,
it is important to test your truthfulness. In a court of law
the veracity of witness depends a lot on whether or not he or
she is generally truthful. Isn't it obvious to you that because,among
other things, you are loose with the words "tour" and
"large attentive audience" -- how do know they were
attentive? Where you there? Did you read an account from an Oslo
newspaper?-- your general veracity is suspect. The other things
include the length of time it took you to make a revision and
lack of interest in seeing that the faulty document be removed.
Daniel calls your writing, polemic. I call it rhetoric. I believe
that the reason you made these mistakes is because you are a
man on a mission and will resort to overstatement "stretching"
the meanings of words in order to achieve it. What is your mission
Peter?
Your style is to hide behind questions and deflections. Here's
a question for you: do you think a person can be a racist and
not be racist or vice versa? The important question in all this
is, do you think Rudolf Steiner was prejudiced? Did he judge
people on the basis of their race?
I can only think of one reason why a person would claim that
someone else is "anti-Semitic or racist ", or makes
"anti-Semitic or racist" remarks and that is to warn
the world that he is dangerous and should be watched. Your "intent"
and "mission" is revealed by your association with
PLANS. This group is clearly using smear tactics to affect their
aims. Why would you join forces with this group except to add
to their arsenal? Please disclose your true aims for writing
about Rudolf Steiner and anthroposophy.
Patrick
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Staudenmaier
To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 9:56 PM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter
Hi Patrick, you wrote:
Yes, please respond truthfully to Sune's
post.
I'm not sure what there is to respond to.
Anyone with a map can determine for themselves whether Oslo is
in Norway. Anyone with a copy of The Mission of the Folk Souls
can determine for themselves whether they think Steiner's musings
on racial character are racist. They can also very easily determine
for themselves whether Steiner "mentions" root races
in this book (and for those of you who don't have a copy at hand,
here's a hint: the title of chapter 6 is "The Five Root
Races of Mankind"). And so forth. What else would you like
me to respond to?
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: Detlef Hardorp
Date: Thu Mar 11, 2004 2:51 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter
It happened exactly the way I predicted!
I wrote:
DH:
hey, scholar of German, wake up! We've
been through this before, years ago. If you care to put on your
reading glasses and open the original German book, you will nowhere
find the word "Wurzelrasse" (which is the German word
for "root race") in the title of this chapter. A.H.
Parker unfortunately translated this incorrectly!
I know what you will now say. To shorter the discussions back
and forth, I will now take your part. Steiner speaks of five
"Hauptrassen". Elsewhere in his work, he also spoke
of "Wurzelrassen" as "Hauptrassen". Thus
Parker has not made a mistake. Here ends the anticipated PS remark.
So what does PS write? Exactly as I said he would:
PS:
It is correct that Steiner also used the
word "Hauptrassen" when speaking about "Wurzelrassen"
many years before he wrote the book in question.
Steiner repeatedly used the term "Hauptrassen"
to mean root races in his central work Aus der Akasha-Chronik,
known in English as Cosmic Memory, which was published in book
form in 1909, one year (not many years) before he gave the Oslo
lectures on "folk souls".
DH:
"Aus der Akasha-Chronik" consists
of articles from the Magazine Luzifer-Gnosis from July 1904 until
May 1908. A special printing of the collected essays ("Sonderdruck")
appeared in in 1909. The first book form appeared in 1939. You
will find this bit of bibliographical information behind the
title page of the book in the "Gesamtausgabe".
You will find him writing about root races in the earlier essays.
In 1906, Steiner distanced himself from the theosophical root-race
concept in writing and never used it again (see Luzifer Gnosis
No. 32, Summer 1906, p. 627, printed in: "Aus der Akascha
Chronik", GA 11, Dornach 1969, p. 208).
So I repeat again: It is correct that Steiner also used the word
"Hauptrassen" when speaking about "Wurzelrassen"
many years before he wrote the book in question. Now words can
be used with different meanings in different contexts. Thus an
understanding cannot be gained by just staring at words. A little
bit of thinking is necessary.
This PS refuses to do.
Fact is, that there are unquestionably
seven root races, yet only five "Hauptrassen".
PS:
That's nonsense. Detlef hasn't read Blavatsky
and hence has no idea what he's talking about.
DH:
PS always pretends to know better. He seems
to have no knowledge of the fact that I have read quite a bit
of Blavatsky - starting, BTW, in my teens (didn't like it all
that much, though). He is now trying to fog the issue. When PS
says "that's nonsense" or "that's ridiculous",
he is usually trying to escape from an argument he is loosing.
It's like the thief that cries "thieves" at his pursuers.
PS cannot (or does not want to) keep two distinct concepts apart.
These are: "Wurzelrasse" and "Grundrasse".
Of the former, there are 7, of the latter, there are 5. Steiner
did indeed also use the word "Hauptrasse" synonymously
for both these concepts. That, however, does not create identity
between them!
In his 1910 Oslo lectures, Steiner speaks about FIVE "Haupt-
oder Grundrassen" ("Hauptrasse" and "Grundrasse"
are obviously synonymous terms in these lectures). These five
are exactly the same as the system of 5 "main races"
that can be found in an American high school text book from the
year 1914: In A Civic Biology, author George William Hunter writes
about the “Ethiopian or Negro” racial type, the “Malay
or brown race,” the “American Indian” or red race,
the “Mongolian or yellow race,” and the “Caucasian”
or white race, adding: "... at the present time there exists
upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different
from the other in instinct, social customs, and to an extent,
in structure.” As no one has yet claimed that American high
school text books were prone to mix up everyday notions of race
with theosophical concepts, it is as clear as can be that Steiner
is talking about the then prevalent concept of race when speaking
of "Grundrassen".
Anyone acquainted with the theosophical concept of "root-race"
knows there are SEVEN root-races within "earth" development,
which, in turn, are divided into 7 sub-races. The 7 root-races
are
1. Hyperborea
2. Polaris
3. Lemuria
4. Atlantis
5. our modern "root-race" (to which all of humanity
belongs!)
6. a future "round" of development
7. a further future "round" of development
Similarities? Ever met somebody of hyperboreic race (or ever
read Steiner talk about a hyperboreic race on earth today?!).
Talking about 5 geographic centers on the earth influencing the
human constitution is one thing (giving way to the five main
races that then spread - independently of these geographical
centers through heredity); talking about 7 rounds of development
in time is quite another (this is what makes up the seven root
races). Steiner distanced himself from the theosophical "root-race"
concept back in 1906 (in the essay "The Life of the Earth",
later collected in the book "Cosmic Memory"), because
it is a misnomer. He had only used the concept for about three
years before that. In 1909 he considers the usage of the terms
"root-" and "sub-race" as a "childhood
disease" of the theosophical movement (lecture held on 4.
December 1909, in: Die tieferen Geheimnisse des Menschheitswerdens
im Lichte der Evangelien, GA 117, Dornach 1966, S. 152). And
in lecture four of the Oslo 1910 series (p. 76 in my 1974 paperback
version), he actually says explicitly that the theosophical notion
of ever-repeating cycles of "race" (a reference to
"root-races", without mentioning the word) is WRONG
(he refers here to the book "Esoteric Buddhism" by
the theosophist Sinnett).
He also remarks on the same page that "race" only begins
to have a meaning in Lemuria (which is already the third of the
theosophical "root-races", see the list of 7 above!),
and begins to loose its meaning completely in our modern times
(although this will still take a while).
Those are the facts.
Thus
THE FACT IS THAT YOU WILL
FIND THE WORD "ROOT-RACE" IN THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION
- DUE TO AN ERROR IN THE TRANSLATION, AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT
MANY TIMES ON THIS LIST.
When I posted this to the WC list in October
2001, Dan Dugan commented:
I hear you, it isn't necessary
to shout. It's a pity the official Anthroposophical translator
A.H. Parker failed to make the distinction.
I responded back then:
It certainly IS a pity and
increases the confusion!
Thank you, Dan, for hearing. For the not-so-hard-of-hearing it
may not be necessary to shout. But for those as deaf as our "historian"
Staudenmaier, even shouting doesn't help. All attempts are in
vain. This is my last attempt to convince Mr. Staudenmaier that
5 does NOT equal seven - but I'm sure that I will fail.
When I was a professor of mathematics at Duke University many
years ago, I would regularly get visitors who were convinced
that they had found a mistake in Einstein's theory of relativity.
They would usually come with hundreds of pages of densely scribbled
"proofs". "Here", they would say, "you
won't be able to find an error in this! Thus Einstein's theory
is disproven." It was difficult to discuss anything with
them, because they hadn't really grasped the fundamental notions
of mathematics and physics, in spite of the fact that they would
lecture in detail about complicated equations, using the same
words that professionals use. They always had a strange fanatical
streak. I tried a few times to communicate with them, but I gave
up after a while. It is impossible to communicate with erudite
sounding fanatical quacks.
Is Staudenmaier "lying"? He may very well not be. Because
"lying" presupposes you know better. The more fanatical
you get, the murkier the relationship to truth can turn. I can
imagine that Staudenmaier actually believes his own revisionism.
This must have been the way Stalin rewrote history: everything
is bent and twisted to fit a conclusion that must come out, under
any circumstances. If needs be, 5 must equal 7.
I wrote that in 2001. Reruns. Dan was open
for a day or two. PS will never be. It's hopeless.
Detlef Hardorp
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:49 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter
Detlef writes:
In 1906, Steiner distanced himself from the theosophical root-race
concept
Gosh, what word do you suppose he used?
He seems to have no knowledge of the fact that I have read
quite a bit of Blavatsky
It's a shame you never got around to The Secret Doctrine.
PS cannot (or does not want to) keep two distinct concepts
apart.
They aren't two distinct concepts. Your arguments on this make
as little sense as your arguments on the "nichts weniger"
passage.
Steiner did indeed also use the word "Hauptrasse"
synonymously for both these concepts.
Amazing that anthroposophist translators would do the same thing,
huh?
Anyone acquainted with the theosophical concept of "root-race"
knows there are SEVEN root-races
Anyone who hasn't read The Secret Doctrine. Blavatsky referred
to five root races and to seven root races. That isn't surprising,
since two of the seven don't exist yet. Hence the five root races
that both Blavatsky and Steiner discuss. Is all this math a little
too much for you, Detlef?
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Thu Mar 11, 2004 6:33 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter
Patrick writes:
Am I addressing you correctly? Do you have a Ph.D.?
Hell no. I'm afraid that might change, however.
Isn't it obvious to you that because,among other things, you
are loose with the words "tour" and "large attentive
audience"
No, that is not obvious to me.
Daniel calls your writing, polemic. I call it rhetoric.
Heavens, not that.
What is your mission Peter?
This might come as a surprise to people who think that whole
races have missions, but I don't have a mission.
The important question in all this is, do you think Rudolf
Steiner was prejudiced?
Yes, of course. He said that black people don't belong in Europe
and that concepts hurt Asian's brains and so forth. Unprejudiced
people don't say things like that.
Please disclose your true aims for writing about Rudolf Steiner
and anthroposophy.
I'll have to check with my handlers and get back to you on that.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:07 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter
Hi Daniel, you wrote:
Sorry that I wasn't clear. I have the German
in front of me (primary sources). The title of Chapter 6 is "Die
fünf Hauptrassen der Menschheit"
Peter Staudenmaier:
I have two German editions: an original
printing of the lectures, and the current official Gesamtausgabe
edition published by the Nachlassverwaltung (the 1994 paperback
edition, which says it is identical to the 1982 hardcover edition).
Neither of these German editions gives any titles for the individual
chapters. If the 1962 edition that you have does give titles,
then that's likely where the authorized English translation came
from.
Daniel:
Thanks for the information. So regardless
of how you translate "Hauptrassen" we agree that the
word itself in that work does not originate with Steiner.
Daniel wrote:
If it stands as the "Root Races"
in the English version, then it has been mistranslated.
Peter Staudenmaier:
Why do you believe that "Root Races"
is a mistranslation of "Hauptrassen"???
Daniel:
Well aside from the fact that we have established
that the question is irrelevant, as the word does not originate
from Steiner, let us look at the word:
Hauptrassen is a compound of Haupt and Rassen.
Haupt = main, chief, central
Rassen = races
The German word for "Root" is Wurtzel. The formulation
in theosophical literature is "Wurtzelrassen."
So you tell me, Peter, why on earth would you translate Hauptrassen
as Root Races? I thought you presumed some degree of expertise
in this subject area.
Daniel wrote:
The word "Aryan" (and I looked
for Arier and arische) is nowhere in the German.
Peter Staudenmaier:
Yes, it is. On p. 114 Steiner writes of
"denjenigen Rassen, die zur Jupiter-Menschheit gehören,"
and specifies as follows: "Das ist bei den arischen, vorderasiatischen
und europäischen Völkern, bei denen, die wir zu den
Kaukasiern rechnen, mehr oder weniger der Fall." That's
in the latter third of chapter 6, in case your pagination is
different. The passage is identical in the original printing
that I have as well (though the two editions otherwise diverge
at several points).
Daniel:
Thank you. I stand corrected. There is one
instance of the word "Aryan" in the original (in the
form "arischen"). It is on page 110 of the 1962 German
edition. The sentence (in English for the sake of the rest of
our listmates) is:
"Here is the seat of
those forces which determine the particular racial character
of those races belonging to the Jupiter humanity. This applies
more or less to the Aryans, to the peoples of Asia Minor and
Europe whm we regard as members of the Caucasian race. In these
peoples the modifications of the generic character which stems
from the abnormal Spirits of Form is accounted for by the influence
of the senses of the abnormal Spirits whom we may describe as
Jupiter Spirits."
I've read around,
and I am having a hard time finding any indication that the Jupiter-forces
are somehow superior to the Mercury forces, or the Venus forces,
or the Saturn forces, or the Mars forces. As I noted, the word
"superiority" or "superior" are not present
in the text.
Daniel wrote:
I am ignoring the revised version of your
article only by accident. I did a google search for "Anthroposophy
and Ecofascism" and took the first search result.
Peter Staudenmaier:
But that's exactly what Sune is complaining
about. He's upset because the revised version of my article still
contains what he thinks are errors. How did you miss that?
Daniel:
Um, Peter, you're missing the point again.
I am stating that when I look, I find this version of your text.
I frankly don't care that Sune finds that your new version also
contains (surprise, surprise) further errors. If you took the
time to correct the mistakes that you were able to acknowledge,
perhaps you might take a few minutes to get your corrected version
in place of the even more incorrect version. Unless, of course,
you prefer that people read the wrong version.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:43 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter
Detlef writes:
In 1906, Steiner distanced himself from
the theosophical root-race concept
Peter Staudenmaier:
Gosh, what word do you suppose he used?
Daniel:
I don't know Peter. What word did he use?
Do you think he really distanced himself from the theosophical
root-race concept?
Detlef writes:
He seems to have no knowledge of the fact
that I have read quite a bit of Blavatsky
Peter Staudenmaier:
It's a shame you never got around to The
Secret Doctrine.
Daniel:
Peter, how do you know that Detlef never got
to the Secret Doctrine? Just curious?
Detlef writes:
PS cannot (or does not want to) keep two
distinct concepts apart.
Peter Staudenmaier:
They aren't two distinct concepts. Your
arguments on this make as little sense as your arguments on the
"nichts weniger" passage.
Daniel:
It seemed to make sense to me. Would it help
you if I tried to explain it to you? Or you could tell me right
now that you have already made up your mind on this and will
never change it, and save me the trouble.
Detlef writes:
Steiner did indeed also use the word "Hauptrasse"
synonymously for both these concepts.
Peter Staudenmaier:
Amazing that anthroposophist translators
would do the same thing, huh?
Daniel:
And what about he question of context? Do
you think it is possible to determine the speaker's meaning from
context?
Detlef writes:
Anyone acquainted with the theosophical
concept of "root-race" knows there are SEVEN root-races
Peter Staudenmaier:
Anyone who hasn't read The Secret Doctrine.
Blavatsky referred to five root races and to seven root races.
That isn't surprising, since two of the seven don't exist yet.
Hence the five root races that both Blavatsky and Steiner discuss.
Is all this math a little too much for you, Detlef?
Daniel:
Peter, you are not making sense. There are
seven Root Races in every Round, according to Blavatsky. With
seven Rounds in every Globe, that makes 49 Root Races in every
Globe. We are in the fourth Round of the fourth Globe, so that
makes 168 Root Races behind us, and more ahead.
The simple fact is that neither in Blavatsky nor in Steiner do
biological race and Root Race correspond. There are 5 biological
races, and 168 Root Races in the past. In the current Globe there
are 25 Root Races behind us, and we are in the middle of the
26th. In the current Round, we happen to be in the middle of
the 5th Root Race, with four behind us. Even and especially in
this Round, biological race and Root Race do not correspond.
Try reading some Blavatsky before you heap your distain upon
Detlef. I expect someone of your intellectual pretentions to
be able discern this type of thing.
Daniel Hindes
PS: You can get the whole of The Secret Doctrine online at www.blavatsky.com
But try reading it before pretending to mastry of its contents.
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:47 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter
Peter,
When the topic first came up, you said:
I'm not sure what there is to respond to. Anyone with a copy
of The Mission of the Folk Souls can ... also very easily determine
for themselves whether Steiner "mentions" root races
in this book (and for those of you who don't have a copy at hand,
here's a hint: the title of chapter 6 is "The Five Root
Races of Mankind"). And so forth. What else would you like
me to respond to?
Subsequently you noted:
I have two German editions: an original printing of the lectures,
and the current official Gesamtausgabe edition published by the
Nachlassverwaltung (the 1994 paperback edition, which says it
is identical to the 1982 hardcover edition). Neither of these
German editions gives any titles for the individual chapters.
If the 1962 edition that you have does give titles, then that's
likely where the authorized English translation came from.
Does this not establish that the ONLY instance of the (mistranslated)
term "Root Race" DOES NOT originate with Steiner at
all? Given that you know this, I find it misleading of you to
imply that STEINER mentions root races in the text. He does not,
and you yourself know this. If this is an example of the integrity
of your discourse with us, it is little wonder that you have
the reputation you do.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:10 pm
Subject: Fw: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter
In light of some new information I have recieved
from Peter Staudenmaier, it is necessary for me to revise my
original statements for accuracy. My apologies to Peter for the
initially incorrect version (reprinted at the end, for comparison).
Peter Staudenmaier in the first paragraph of Anthroposophy and
Ecofascism, wrote:
"In June 1910 Rudolf
Steiner, the founder of anthroposophy, began a speaking tour
of Norway with a lecture to a large and attentive audience in
Oslo. The lecture was titled "The Mission of Individual
European National Souls in Relation to Nordic-Germanic Mythology."
In the Oslo lecture and throughout his Norwegian tour Steiner
presented his theory of "national souls" (Volksseelen
in German, Steiner's native tongue) and paid particular attention
to the mysterious wonders of the "Nordic spirit." The
"national souls" of Northern and Central Europe were,
Steiner explained, components of the "germanic-nordic sub-race,"
the world's most spiritually advanced ethnic group, which was
in turn the vanguard of the highest of five historical "root
races." This superior fifth root race, Steiner told his
Oslo audience, was naturally the "Aryan race."
Problems:
Despite being in quotes, the phrase "Aryan race" is
nowhere in the book.
Despite being in quotes, the pharse "root races" is
nowhere in Steiner's original.
Despite being in quotes, the pharse "germanic-nordic sub-race"
is nowhere in the book (or anywhere else in Steiner).
Despite being in quotes, the pharse "Nordic spirit"
is nowhere in the book.
The word "Superior" appears nowhere in the book.
The word "Superiority" appears nowhere in the book.
The word "Aryan" appears only once in the book, in
the following context:
"Here is the seat of
those forces which determine the particular racial character
of those races belonging to the Jupiter humanity. This applies
more or less to the Aryans, to the peoples of Asia Minor and
Europe whm we regard as members of the Caucasian race. In these
peoples the modifications of the generic character which stems
from the abnormal Spirits of Form is accounted for by the influence
of the senses of the abnormal Spirits whom we may describe as
Jupiter Spirits." (page 110 in the
1962 German edition)
If the superiority of the Aryan race is the
main theme of the book, you would expect the term to be employed
more frequently than once in 11 lectures, and in a more explicit
context.
"...and throughout his Norwegian tour ..." has been
corrected in the revised edition (not yet widely available) to
reflect the fact that Steiner spoke only in Oslo.
In addition, the entire characterization of the contents of the
eleven lectures is grossly incorrect. Despite claiming that "Most
of chapters four and six. See pp. 74-81 in the English edition,
for example, or pp. 102-110." will demonstrate the superiority
of the Aryans, this thought is simply not contained there, as
any reader can determine by examining the text themselves.
Daniel Hindes
----- Original Message -----
From: at@ael...
To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 9:07 PM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter
Hi Patrick, you wrote:
Yes, please respond truthfully to Sune's
post.
Peter Staudenmaier:
I'm not sure what there is to respond to.
Anyone with a map can determine for themselves whether Oslo is
in Norway. Anyone with a copy of The Mission of the Folk Souls
can determine for themselves whether they think Steiner's musings
on racial character are racist. They can also very easily determine
for themselves whether Steiner "mentions" root races
in this book (and for those of you who don't have a copy at hand,
here's a hint: the title of chapter 6 is "The Five Root
Races of Mankind"). And so forth. What else would you like
me to respond to?
Daniel:
Actually, the title of Chapter 6 is "The
Five MAIN Races of Mankind." Root races are not mentioned
anywhere at all in the book. Nor is the word "Aryan".
The more I look into this, the more problems I am finding. You
wrote:
Peter Staudenmaier in the first paragraph of Anthroposophy and
Ecofascism:
"In June 1910 Rudolf
Steiner, the founder of anthroposophy, began a speaking tour
of Norway with a lecture to a large and attentive audience in
Oslo. The lecture was titled "The Mission of Individual
European National Souls in Relation to Nordic-Germanic Mythology."
In the Oslo lecture and throughout his Norwegian tour Steiner
presented his theory of "national souls" (Volksseelen
in German, Steiner's native tongue) and paid particular attention
to the mysterious wonders of the "Nordic spirit." The
"national souls" of Northern and Central Europe were,
Steiner explained, components of the "germanic-nordic sub-race,"
the world's most spiritually advanced ethnic group, which was
in turn the vanguard of the highest of five historical "root
races." This superior fifth root race, Steiner told his
Oslo audience, was naturally the "Aryan race."
Problems:
Despite being in quotes, the phrase "Aryan race" is
nowhere in the book.
Despite being in quotes, the pharse "root races" is
nowhere in the book.
Despite being in quotes, the pharse "germanic-nordic sub-race"
is nowhere in the book.
(Starting to see a pattern?)
Despite being in quotes, the pharse "Nordic spirit"
is nowhere in the book.
The word "Aryan" is nowhere in the book.
Peter, just what book were you reading when you wrote this, because
it is not the book you have cited. In fact, I don't think it
is even Steiner.
"In Oslo and throughout
his Norwegian tour..."
Steiner never spoke outside of Oslo on
that "tour", and gave only two lectures beyond the
11 printed in GA 121.
Peter, is this your idea of the "historical polemic"
that a half dozen respected authors you refer me to purportedly
support?
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: Detlef Hardorp
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 1:35 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter
I had written:
Steiner did indeed also use the word "Hauptrasse"
synonymously for both these concepts."
PS responded:
Amazing that anthroposophist translators
would do the same thing, huh?
I respond:
The level of this discussion has deteriorated
to way below zero. I will make only one last comment.
The mistake the translator made was not to translate "Hauptrasse"
with "main race". He (or she) translated it with "root
race", although, in the context of the "Mission ..."
book, it clearly means "Grundrasse" in the sense that
the US high school textbook uses the word race, i. e. common
day usage back then (the “Ethiopian or Negro” racial
type, the “Malay or brown race,” the “American
Indian” or red race, the “Mongolian or yellow race,”
and the “Caucasian” or white race). That cannot denied!
Steiner uses the same words when he describes what he means.
If, as PS claims, the two concepts are identical, then one of
the above mentioned races would have to correspond to the hyperboreic
root race. Unfortunately, according to Steiner, the "hyperboreic
root race" is no longer extant on earth today.
Furthermore, as I have also remarked previously, the concept
race in the sense of "Grundrasse" as described in the
"Mission..." book only begins to have a meaning in
Lemuria, which is already the third of the theosophical "root-races",
according to Steiner.
Thus I repeat: Steiner did indeed also use the word "Hauptrasse"
synonymously for both these concepts. That, however, does not
create identity between them!
The distinction between the two concepts ("Wurzelrasse"
and "Grundrasse") are as clear as daylight the moment
you look one millimeter behind the words at their actual meaning.
This, however, PS refuses to do! Note that he comments on all
sorts of details, but ignores the facts staring out at anyone
who can read.
This is understandable, however. Because the root-race accusation
have always been the core of the leftist attacks on anthroposophy.
The situation is identical with Peter Bierl, PS's pendant in
Germany. It is the fundamental lie on which the racism charge
is built upon. They are not going to give it up, because there
are lots of people out there who have never read and who never
will read Steiner. For these, PS's arguments, based solely on
words with no concepts attached, may blind clear sight. And PS
has the added delicacy that a translator managed to confuse the
issue still further in the English-speaking world.
To me, this is an interesting study in how the spirit of Stalinist
revisionism can be so alive and kicking in a different guise
today. With enough audacity, you can make the wildest claims
and still score points with people that don't know better. And
there are lots out there!
I suggest, however, that we cease to respond to posts by PS below
a certain level on this list.
Detlef Hardorp
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 9:27 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter
Daniel writes:
So regardless of how you translate "Hauptrassen"
we agree that the word itself in that work does not originate
with Steiner.
It originated with Blavatsky, who said she found it in an ancient
Indian work.
The German word for "Root" is Wurtzel. The formulation
in theosophical literature is "Wurtzelrassen."
There is no t in Wurzel. As I've explained several times now,
the German translation of "root race" is both "Hauptrasse"
and "Wurzelrasse", as well as various combinations
of the two.
So you tell me, Peter, why on earth would you translate Hauptrassen
as Root Races?
I didn't translate it, several anthroposophist translators did.
But in any case, "Hauptrasse" is already a translation
of "root races". Are you sure you're paying attention
here? Both Steiner and the German translation of Blavatsky's
Secret Doctrine use "Hauptrasse" for "root race".
I already pointed you and Detlef to the passages in Aus der Akasha-Chronik
(Cosmic Memory) where Steiner uses "Hauptrasse" for
"root race". Why are you ignoring all that?
I've read around, and I am having a hard time finding any
indication that the Jupiter-forces are somehow superior to the
Mercury forces, or the Venus forces, or the Saturn forces, or
the Mars forces.
That's
what we disagree about.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: Patrick
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 9:42 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter
Mr. Staudenmaier,
I am surprised that you did not correct my incorrect use of the
word "Doctor" when addressing you. My apologies, it
was an incorrect assumption. Though I can see that you are beleaguered
and resorting to snide responses, I will try one more time --
probably the last.
Key in my discussion with you is my point that all Rudolf Steiner's
remarks about "races" in general and particular are
consistent throughout his life. They are consistent with the
worldview brought by him and known as anthroposophy. I do not
ask you to agree with the view only to entertain the possibility
of its fundamental conceptions. Anthroposophy presents the notion
that it is the individual spirit of the human being that is of
prime importance when considering his actions. Anthroposophy
presents that it is absolutely necessary that we look beyond
the physical body, the familial traits, indeed, beyond the culture
that the individual has grown up in in order to see the true
striving of the essence of the individual. It is equally true
however that the body, family, and culture of the individual
must be understood in order to gain a true understanding of the
life and accomplishments of the individual. All of these aspects
must be considered when examining the life of J. S. Bach or Desmond
Tutu. There is also no doubt that the individual genius of each
is paramount. It is absolutely clear that our bodies are a product
largely of heredity. It is also clear that the individual spirit
of the human being can overcome the limitations and enhance the
gifts brought through heredity, accident, and epiphany. Accident
and epiphany follow the laws of karma, the plan of the Creator,
and the free creative spirit of the individual. Ancient Egyptians
and ancient Greeks are different. The differences are the result
of the alchemy of geography, people, and forces raining in from
the spiritual world. Perhaps the last phrase is the most difficult
for you to entertain, but it is key to understanding anthroposophy.
If you entertain the notion that human beings should be progressing
towards a time when they form a world community full of mutual
understanding, then it should not surprise you when Rudolf Steiner
takes any individual, group, or nation to task for furthering
the perpetuation of racist or nationalist impulses. If you entertain
these ideas then in that context, you would not call someone
prejudiced who merely points out the differences in peoples,
cultures, or nations.
Sincerely,
Patrick
P.S. I don't believe you when you say you have no mission. What
about social ecology? Or libertarian communism? Or opposing anthroposophy?
You don't guide your life by studied intentions?
From: Peter Staudenmaier
To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 6:33 PM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter
Patrick writes:
Am I addressing you correctly? Do you have
a Ph.D.?
Hell no. I'm afraid that might change,
however.
Isn't it obvious to you that because,among
other things, you are loose with the words "tour" and
"large attentive audience"
No, that is not obvious to me.
Daniel calls your writing, polemic. I call
it rhetoric.
Heavens, not that.
What is your mission Peter?
This might come as a surprise to people
who think that whole races have missions, but I don't have a
mission.
The important question in all this is,
do you think Rudolf Steiner was prejudiced?
Yes, of course. He said that black people
don't belong in Europe and that concepts hurt Asian's brains
and so forth. Unprejudiced people don't say things like that.
Please disclose your true aims for writing
about Rudolf Steiner and anthroposophy.
I'll have to check with my handlers and
get back to you on that.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 9:38 am
Subject: Fw: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter
Daniel writes:
In light of some new information I have recieved from Peter
Staudenmaier, it is necessary for me to revise my original statements
for accuracy.
Hi Daniel,
the opening paragraph of the revised version of my article reads
as follows:
"In June, 1910, Rudolf
Steiner, the founder of anthroposophy, began a speaking tour
of Norway with a lecture to a large and attentive audience in
Oslo. The lecture series was titled “The Mission of National
Souls in Relation to Nordic-Germanic Mythology.” In the
Oslo lectures Steiner presented his theory of “national
souls” (Volksseelen in German, Steiner’s native tongue)
and paid particular attention to the mysterious wonders of the
“Nordic spirit.” The “national souls” of
Northern and Central Europe belonged, Steiner explained, to the
“germanic-nordic” peoples, the world’s most spiritually
advanced ethnic group, which was in turn the vanguard of the
highest of five historical “root races.” This superior
fifth root race, Steiner told his Oslo audience, was naturally
the “Aryan” race."
You can find the entire article here:
http://www.openwaldorf.com/anthroposophyandecofascism.pdf
In addition, the entire characterization of
the contents of the eleven lectures is grossly incorrect.
That is what we should be arguing about.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 10:16 am
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Staudenmaier
To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 6:38 PM
Subject: Fw: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter
Daniel writes:
In light of some new information I have
recieved from Peter Staudenmaier, it is necessary for me to revise
my original statements for accuracy.
Hi Daniel,
the opening paragraph of the revised version of my article reads
as follows:
"In June, 1910, Rudolf
Steiner, the founder of anthroposophy, began a speaking tour
of Norway with a lecture to a large and attentive audience in
Oslo. The lecture series was titled “The Mission of National
Souls in Relation to Nordic-Germanic Mythology.” In the
Oslo lectures Steiner presented his theory of “national
souls” (Volksseelen in German, Steiner’s native tongue)
and paid particular attention to the mysterious wonders of the
“Nordic spirit.” The “national souls” of
Northern and Central Europe belonged, Steiner explained, to the
“germanic-nordic” peoples, the world’s most spiritually
advanced ethnic group, which was in turn the vanguard of the
highest of five historical “root races.” This superior
fifth root race, Steiner told his Oslo audience, was naturally
the “Aryan” race."
Hi listmates
My dime.
We all know the "Folk Soul's" lectures.
What do we see here ? We find a powerful picture about how and
when the Hierarchical Beings did cooperate to create the links
among races,peoples and earthly environment in order to make
possible the development of the I AM power of each every individual.
Think also that there is an individual who, in front of such
a complex and powerful picture, is able ONLY to look for the
words, "aryan" or " superior" in order to
gain some "evidence" that the Author was a "racist".and
a "proto-nazi"........... Think also that these words
were never told during the lectures.... Are you able to find
a better example of Ahrimanic deception ?
A.
You can find the entire article here:
http://www.openwaldorf.com/anthroposophyandecofascism.pdf
In addition, the entire characterization
of the contents of the eleven lectures is grossly incorrect.
That is what we should be arguing about.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 9:55 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter
Daniel writes:
I don't know Peter. What word did he use?
Hauptrasse. Could you maybe try a little harder to follow the
thread?
Do you think he really distanced himself from the theosophical
root-race concept?
Yes, several times, from several different aspects of it.
The simple fact is that neither in Blavatsky nor in Steiner
do biological race and Root Race correspond.
That's preposterous.
There are 5 biological races
Or three, or seven, or nine, and so forth. Neither Blavatsky
nor Steiner presented an internally consistent account of the
number or character of the racial categories they used.
In the current Round, we happen to be in the middle of the
5th Root Race, with four behind us.
Yes, that is one of several ways that both Blavatsky and Steiner
employed the term root race.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 9:55 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter
Daniel writes:
So regardless of how you translate "Hauptrassen"
we agree that the word itself in that work does not originate
with Steiner.
Peter Staudenmaier:
It originated with Blavatsky, who said
she found it in an ancient Indian work.
Daniel:
Now you're going over the top! Let me rephrase
my statement so that it cannot be misuderstood.
"So regardless of how you translate "Hauptrassen"
we agree that the word itself IN THAT WORK does not originate
with Steiner."
Or put differently, STEINER DID NOT USE THE WORD "Hauptrassen"
OR THE WORD "Wurzelrassen" AT ALL IN GA 121.
Daniel wrote:
The German word for "Root" is
Wurtzel. The formulation in theosophical literature is "Wurtzelrassen."
Peter Staudenmaier:
There is no t in Wurzel. As I've explained
several times now, the German translation of "root race"
is both "Hauptrasse" and "Wurzelrasse", as
well as various combinations of the two.
Daniel:
Peter, what has been pointed out to you repeatedly
is that it is possible to discern which of two concepts is intended
with "Hauptrasse" in any given context. If you can't
figure that out, you have no business whatsoever claiming any
understanding of Blavatsky or Steiner.
However, it does not matter in this case, as STEINER DID NOT
USE EITHER WORD IN GA 121. This means that when you quote him
as having done so in the context of the Oslo lectures, it is
a deliberate fabrication, for you have access to the original
and have told us so.
Daniel wrote:
So you tell me, Peter, why on earth would
you translate Hauptrassen as Root Races?
Peter Staudenmaier:
I didn't translate it, several anthroposophist
translators did. But in any case, "Hauptrasse" is already
a translation of "root races". Are you sure you're
paying attention here? Both Steiner and the German translation
of Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine use "Hauptrasse" for
"root race". I already pointed you and Detlef to the
passages in Aus der Akasha-Chronik (Cosmic Memory) where Steiner
uses "Hauptrasse" for "root race". Why are
you ignoring all that?
Daniel:
Peter, you seem to have forgotten what we
are talking about. We were discussing your deliberate distortions
and fabricatins in your article "Anthroposophy and Ecofascism".
YOU explained to us that the original German version of GA 121
does not have chapter titles. As the chapter titles are the only
place where "Hauptrassen" appears, and the chapter
titles were added later, Steiner did not EVER use the term in
the volume you are summarizing in the article. All this blowing
smoke about how the term is or isn't translated in other contexts
is irrelevant. You misquoted Steiner. It's that simple.
Daniel wrote:
I've read around, and I am having a hard
time finding any indication that the Jupiter-forces are somehow
superior to the Mercury forces, or the Venus forces, or the Saturn
forces, or the Mars forces.
Peter Staudenmaier:
That's what we disagree about.
Daniel:
Perhaps if you tried to understand Steiner,
it might become clearer. Please tell me how the Jupiter forces
are superior to the Mercury forces, or the Venus forces, or the
Saturn forces, or the Mars forces.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 10:17 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter
Hi Daniel,
the opening paragraph of the revised version of my article reads
as follows:
"In June, 1910, Rudolf
Steiner, the founder of anthroposophy, began a speaking tour
of Norway with a lecture to a large and attentive audience in
Oslo. The lecture series was titled “The Mission of National
Souls in Relation to Nordic-Germanic Mythology.” In the
Oslo lectures Steiner presented his theory of “national
souls” (Volksseelen in German, Steiner’s native tongue)
and paid particular attention to the mysterious wonders of the
“Nordic spirit.” The “national souls” of
Northern and Central Europe belonged, Steiner explained, to the
“germanic-nordic” peoples, the world’s most spiritually
advanced ethnic group, which was in turn the vanguard of the
highest of five historical “root races.” This superior
fifth root race, Steiner told his Oslo audience, was naturally
the “Aryan” race."
Peter,
Thanks for providing me with the revised version.
After examining it closely, I find the following problems.
The term '"Aryan" race' is nowhere in the book (I noticed
you moved the quotation marks over by one word, but it does not
change the claim much).
Despite being in quotes, the pharse "root races" is
nowhere in Steiner's original.
Despite being in quotes, the pharse "Nordic spirit"
is nowhere in the book.
The word "Superior" appears nowhere in the book.
The word "Superiority" appears nowhere in the book.
The word "Aryan" appears only once in the book, in
the following context:
"Here is the seat of
those forces which determine the particular racial character
of those races belonging to the Jupiter humanity. This applies
more or less to the Aryans, to the peoples of Asia Minor and
Europe whm we regard as members of the Caucasian race. In these
peoples the modifications of the generic character which stems
from the abnormal Spirits of Form is accounted for by the influence
of the senses of the abnormal Spirits whom we may describe as
Jupiter Spirits." (page 110 in the
1962 German edition)
If the superiority of the Aryan race is the
main theme of the book, you would expect the term to be employed
more frequently than once in