'higher' and 'lower'

 

From: raymon_ford
Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 10:57 am
Subject: 'higher' and 'lower'

Gidday Peter,

Take a passage such as

Even the savage is affected by nature, but the laws of nature reveal themselves only to the thoughts fructified by intuition of the more highly developed man

from the book `Theosophy'. This sentence sends a chill into the hearts of some. Others see it as innocuous, reflecting the true nature of things.

Your arguments point to the juxtaposed terms `savage' and `highly developed man' as lending themselves to, indeed inviting, invalid generic judgments, hence racist in character. That the laws of nature reveal themselves differently to different people, and there is no one legitimate way to rank these people based on their differing perceptions. And maybe that the terms are imposing doubtful external standards, ie the `savage' may, from another perspective, have some worthy knowledge of nature overlooked in the belief system of the `highly developed man' - though I am not sure of your view here. Have I got any of this right?

I forgot to ask earlier – what will you be teaching this summer?

See ya, Raymon

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 12:06 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] 'higher' and 'lower'

Hi again Raymon, you wrote:

Take a passage such as

Even the savage is affected by nature, but the laws of nature reveal themselves only to the thoughts fructified by intuition of the more highly developed man

from the book `Theosophy'. This sentence sends a chill into the hearts of some. Others see it as innocuous, reflecting the true nature of things.

Yes, that's well put. I think that there is something of a basic confusion embedded in the second stance: whether a particular statement reflects the true nature of things and whether it is innocuous are two very different issues, in my view. Failure to distinguish these two issues is, I think, what leads some anthroposophists to ask with incredulity whether critics of Steiner's racial doctrines believe that the gods are racist.

Your arguments point to the juxtaposed terms `savage' and `highly developed man' as lending themselves to, indeed inviting, invalid generic judgments, hence racist in character. That the laws of nature reveal themselves differently to different people, and there is no one legitimate way to rank these people based on their differing perceptions.

Yes, that's a big part of it. I also think there is little sense in attributing differing cultural perceptions to racial character in the first place, regardless of the particular ranking one assigns to a given racial or ethnic group.

And maybe that the terms are imposing doubtful external standards, ie the `savage' may, from another perspective, have some worthy knowledge of nature overlooked in the belief system of the `highly developed man' - though I am not sure of your view here. Have I got any of this right?

I haven't said much about my views on cultural differences, for the simple reason that they have nothing to do with racial character or racial evolution, but yes, I agree with much of what you say above. I think that "highly developed people" come from all cultures and all races.

I forgot to ask earlier – what will you be teaching this summer?

I teach at the Institute for Social Ecology in Vermont (a very un-academic place, for those distracted by credentials). This sumer I'm teaching an introductory course called "Understanding Capitalism" and an advanced course called "Antisemitism: Historical Roots, Contemporary Relevance".

Thanks for your perspectives on race and anthroposophy,

Peter

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

From: raymon_ford
Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 2:31 pm
Subject: Re: 'higher' and 'lower'

Gidday Peter,

OK I am with you in your argument. You say

I think that there is something of a basic confusion embedded in the second stance: whether a particular statement reflects the true nature of things and whether it is innocuous are two very different issues, in my view.

This is an important point, at the root of some of the differences expressed here. Please elaborate. You see, if a given instance of the doctrine is seen to be the truth, then statements regarding it as harmful can appear to be rather beside the point, when the larger picture is taken into account.

See ya, Raymon

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 8:41 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: 'higher' and 'lower'

Hi Raymon, you wrote:

This is an important point, at the root of some of the differences expressed here. Please elaborate. You see, if a given instance of the doctrine is seen to be the truth, then statements regarding it as harmful can appear to be rather beside the point, when the larger picture is taken into account.

That doesn't make much sense to me. Whether something is true and whether it is harmful are fundamentally different questions, in my view. I also think that the notion of taking the larger picture into account can sometimes serves as a euphemism for basic errors in reasoning. It is always important to assess the context within which specific doctrinal statements are made, but to imagine that the doctrine as a whole determines the status of its constituent elements is rather backwards. This is especially the case when the doctrine in question developed and changed over time, as an accretion of disparate statements on a wide variety of topics, rather than a fully-formed system given all at once. Thus when different analysts disagree about particular statements that Steiner made, invoking the "larger picture" will often simply shift the disagreement onto broader terrain, but in itself it won't resolve (or even necessarily clarify) the disagreement. Everybody has their own conception of just what this "larger picture" is and what its prominent contours are. As far as anthroposophical racial theories go, I think that the "larger picture" includes the work of people like Wachsmuth, Karutz, Heise, Thieben, Uehli, and so forth. It seems to me that we need to keep the work of these students of Steiner in mind if we're trying to gain a more comprehensive view of the whole.

Thanks for your thoughts,

Peter

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

From: raymon_ford
Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 12:41 am
Subject: Re: 'higher' and 'lower'

Gidday Peter,

You wrote

Whether something is true and whether it is harmful are fundamentally different questions, in my view.

etc.

Thanks for the reply. I think I'll leave it there, in view of your coming departure.

I came here in order to gain a better understanding of your (and the WC's) thinking on the `race' question. Something I started on a few years ago. I believe I have substantially `got it' now, thanks to the concentrated barrage you put forth recently, along with examples from Diana.

Thanks for helping me gain an additional perspective.

See ya, Raymon

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 6:54 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: 'higher' and 'lower'

But Raymon, aren't you going to give me this doctrine you are talking about that needs to be accepted? I am sincere in my asking as it seems you say you have been an AP for over thirty years and that you support AP groups that support your views. And this seems somehow to be connected with some doctrine.

On the WC list they as well say that students of Steiner follow a doctrine, which makes AP a religion. Something like the tenents of Anthroposophy. Do you hold that AP is a religion and that Dr. Steiner set out to create a doctrine to be followed as in a religious organization?

Thanks for your speedy reply, :)

Dottie

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

From: holderlin66
Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 8:04 am
Subject: Re: 'higher' and 'lower'

dottie zold wrote:

Do you hold that AP is a religion and that Dr. Steiner set out to create a doctrine to be followed as in a religious organization?

Thanks for your speedy reply, :)

Dottie

Good Question! Really good Question!

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 8:19 am
Subject: Re: 'higher' and 'lower'

Bradford:

Good Question! Really good Question!

Bradford, do you realize we have a fundamentalist army for over 160 years now that has been taught that all they do is for God. Do you realize this?

The case at VMI is blasting the top off of the uncercurrent that keeps our men and women beholden to the armed forces even after they have left the service. It's a God thing. They are being brainwashed in a way to believe all they do and the ultimate price they may pay is all for God.

Now, not all of them as a few cats in the school have decided to fight the 'you must stand and pray to our God before you pray to yours when you are sitting down'. They have institutionalized God in the armed service. Now, this is where it gets really really ugly and sad for the many mothers and fathers who thought their children were going off and doing what they wanted, unaware of the indoctrination of God as an armed watchamacallit fighting off all the bad mamajambas that refuse to come under our idea of 'freedom'...more like 'freedom' to believe in our God and to hell with yours. It's a cruscade we have going on. And it is the brotherhood....

Yup, you never know where that brotherhood is going to show up. One never knows sometimes they are right in our backyard and if we did not put our intuitive caps on we might never know that which is trying to hold us back.

Come on Sophia,

Dottie

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

From: holderlin66
Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 9:09 am
Subject: Re: 'higher' and 'lower'

dottie zold wrote:

fighting off all the bad mamajambas that refuse to come under our idea of 'freedom'...more like 'freedom' to believe in our God and to hell with yours. It's a cruscade we have going on. And it is the brotherhood....

Yup, you never know where that brotherhood is going to show up.

Come on Sophia,

Dottie

Village Voice:

"Who can dispute that Americans of all political and personal beliefs can now see that the nation is at a turning point in its history. It is hard to think otherwise.

The president has led us into a war of civilizations and cultures. He says he is guided in all decisions by "the Almighty." He has done nothing that would give us reason to doubt that he truly believe this in his bones. Eerie, is it not, that the Al Qaeda killers who follow Osama bin Laden and seek to destroy the United States claim they have God on their side, too.

Is this an argument for moral equivalence? Absolutely not. Moreover, moral equivalency is not the grave issue before the American citizenry today. The state of our presidency — and perhaps the future of our country — is.

The president, who was led to born-again religion by Texas evangelists some years ago, after a wayward youth, spoke again of the will of God at his recent speech-cum-press conference. Referring to the war in Iraq, he said, "[F]reedom is not this country's gift to the world. Freedom is the Almighty's gift to every man and woman in this world." Then he added: "And, as the greatest power on the face of the earth, we have an obligation" to carry out the Lord's mission.

Some of Mr. Bush's own supporters have grown increasingly anxious about Iraq and its ramifications. In part, this is because of the continuing accumulation of documentary evidence that the president and his coterie of more secular hawks took the nation into a pre-emptive war against Iraq on the basis of hyped intelligence and false claims. The claims were that Iraq (1) was linked to the September 11, 2001, suicide-plane attacks on New York and Washington, (2) possessed large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, and (3) posed a serious, urgent threat to the United States.

Many presidents have invoked God in speeches and policy decisions, especially during times of war when soldiers were dying for country. And most presidents have told lies of various kinds during their tenures. But I know of no president, certainly no modern president, who said he was acting in God's name while telling lies in order to prod the country into a war against an adversary that, though a vile dictatorship, was no real threat to our security — and had no significant link to the bin Laden forces that attacked us in 2001.

Bob Woodward, the chronicler of official Washington, whose new book, Plan of Attack, is out this week, writes that Bush told him in an interview that during the buildup to the war, "I was praying for strength to do the Lord's will. . . . I'm surely not going to justify war based on God. Understand that. Nevertheless, in my case, I pray that I be as good a messenger of His will as possible."

Our Good friend Mark Twain:

"I come from the Throne -- bearing a message from Almighty God!... He has heard the prayer of His servant, your shepherd, & will grant it if such shall be your desire after I His messenger shall have explained to you its import -- that is to say its full import. For it is like unto many of the prayers of men in that it asks for more than he who utters it is aware of -- except he pause & think.

"God's servant & yours has prayed his prayer. Has he paused & taken thought? Is it one prayer? No, it is two -- one uttered, the other not. Both have reached the ear of Him who heareth all supplications, the spoken & the unspoken....

"You have heard your servant's prayer -- the uttered part of it. I am commissioned of God to put into words the other part of it -- that part which the pastor -- and also you in your hearts -- fervently prayed, silently. And ignorantly & unthinkingly? God grant that it was so! You heard these words: 'Grant us the victory, O Lord our God!' That is sufficient. The whole of the uttered prayer is completed into those pregnant words.

"Upon the listening spirit of God the Father fell also the unspoken part of the prayer. He commandeth me to put it into words. Listen!

"O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle -- be Thou near them! With them -- in spirit -- we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe.

"O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended through wastes of their desolated land in rags & hunger & thirst, sport of the sun-flames of summer & the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave & denied it -- for our sakes, who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask of one who is the Spirit of love & who is the ever-faithful refuge & friend of all that are sore beset, & seek His aid with humble & contrite hearts. Grant our prayer, O Lord & Thine shall be the praise & honor & glory now & ever, Amen."

(After a pause.) "Ye have prayed it; if ye still desire it, speak! -- the messenger of the Most High waits.

It was believed, afterward, that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.

[Mark Twain, 1905]

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

From: raymon_ford
Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 8:42 am
Subject: Re: 'higher' and 'lower'

Gidday Dottie,

You said, of me,

you support AP groups that support your views

No Dottie, I said those involved RESPECT me and my views. One can respect someone, and their views, without agreeing with them.

See ya, Raymon

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 9:04 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: 'higher' and 'lower'

At 17:42 28.04.2004, Raymon wrote:

Gidday Dottie,

You said, of me,

you support AP groups that support your views

No Dottie, I said those involved RESPECT me and my views. One can respect someone, and their views, without agreeing with them.

Frankly, I cannot respect the view that Steiner's philosophy resembles Hitler's ideology, or that Anthroposophy and Nazism are two sides of the same coin. If you compare the attitudes towards handicapped people, for instance, where the Nazis murdered them systematically to "cleanse the fatherland" while the Anthroposophists nurtured and cared for such people with love and understanding and respect, you must realize that the propagation of such a view is obscene, immoral, dishonest, and malevolent, deserving no respect whatsoever.

Perhaps you don't hold such a view, but you keep kissing the ass of someone who does.

(Sorry about expressing myself in such an uneducated way; English is my second language, and academic turns of phrase have been giving me a bad taste lately.)

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 11:23 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: 'higher' and 'lower'

Hey Raymon,

I am hoping this is just a short sweet note before the bigger one on the questions I asked about Dr. Steiner and your views?

Thanks, Dottie

No Dottie, I said those involved RESPECT me and my views. One can respect someone, and their views, without agreeing with them.

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

From: raymon_ford
Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 4:35 pm
Subject: Re: 'higher' and 'lower'

Gidday Dottie,

We could, as you request, discuss whether and where anthroposophy is being treated as a doctrine or as a religion, what we believe Steiner's intentions were here, and further discuss why the various parties view it one way or the other, and so on. But these are sensitive questions. And from what I have seen here, discussion will likely deviate from topic - and emotional personal attacks will occur. Why would I be interested in such an exchange?

See ya, Raymon

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 5:30 pm
Subject: Re: 'higher' and 'lower'

I don't believe you Raymon. You are copping out. Why not get back to the subject as to whether you believe Dr. Steiner was a racist or if he created some doctrine that his students are supposed to follow. Do you or do you no. I have no issue if you do have this opinion I would like to see what it is back up by. I take no issue if you believe in God or don't, like Dr. Steiner or do not. What I do take issue is misinterpreting a mans words and deeming them to mean what you say they mean and calling that 'Truth'.

So, care to dip your foot in a little deeper or do you just want to pull a Staudenamier and throw the daggers and run from real debate and hide behind 'oh why would I do that. Put up Raymon.

And, I have to say your manner of operation has definitely got my heebee jeebies blinking on and off...hard to believe a man who says he has followed Steiners work for thirty years would have a hard time in discussion of his views. Unless he sits on the fringe and interprets Dr. STeiners work in a subjective versus objective manner.

Put up Raymon,

Dottie

Gidday Dottie,

We could, as you request, discuss whether and where anthroposophy is being treated as a doctrine or as a religion, what we believe Steiner's intentions were here, and further discuss why the various parties view it one way or the other, and so on. But these are sensitive questions. And from what I have seen here, discussion will likely deviate from topic - and emotional personal attacks will occur. Why would I be interested in such an exchange?

See ya, Raymon

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 8:07 pm
Subject: Re: 'higher' and 'lower'

Raymon:

We could, as you request, discuss whether and where anthroposophy is being treated as a doctrine or as a religion, what we believe Steiner's intentions were here, and further discuss why the various parties view it one way or the other, and so on.

Raymon, I am not asking us to discuss the we part of anyone else other than your self and your particular views of Dr. Steiners work.

People may or may not treat something as a doctrine and or a religion this does not mean this was Dr. Steiners intent for his work. And I am not interested in discussing 'various parties' rather your particular party and view on Dr. Steiners work.

What are your views Raymon on Dr. Steiner and race. And what of this doctrine you speak of? I mean why not just state what book or work you comment to be such a thing? The Steiner students have debated with Staudenamier for over two months now. They have not had a problem debating the ideas and the fact that others think different rather the problem has been similar to how you are handling yourself on this subject: make a comment with nothing to back it up.

Now, obviously, you have nothing to prove to anyone, we are discussing something you specifically brought up as a doctrine and principles the Doctor asks his students to follow. I would just like a straight answer if you can as to what these are. I have to admit I'd be a little incredulous and most likely would debate ideas with you on these points as I have up until now not detected any specific doctrine nor anything I sensed as being asked to adhere to.

I would at least hope you could be more sincere in your debate after studying Steiner for 30 years than Mr. Staudenmaier has been able to. We can all respect differences but not dillusions of ones ego as we have had to deal with Mr. Staudenmaier. I have differences with Diana on certain things and at least she is willing to bring it on and make her views known. She doesn't need to agree and most here understand she feels and thinks differently than we do regarding Dr. Steiner. And she debates her ideas and the Steiner students debates their ideas. There are clashes but we are all trying to find a way to have the good conversation. Sometimes we do good and sometimes we do not so very good:) But we try.

Give it a shot Raymon, it's your point that was put on the table. Does it have any deeper thinking attached to it other than 'me and my views'.

Ramon

Why would I be interested in such an exchange?

You want to throw a point out there such as you have in agreement with Staudenmaier or so it seems and you want to say there is some doctrine the students are following then it is your duty to back it up I think. That's the honest thing to do.

Dottie

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

From: raymon_ford
Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 1:01 am
Subject: Re: 'higher' and 'lower'

Gidday Dottie,

Sorry, but I am simply not interested. If my `manner of operation' gives you the heebie-jeebies, well, I get the heebie-jeebies when I see people demonizing their opponents. But since you persevere, perhaps I can settle some of this quickly:

I do not believe Steiner intended for his doctrine to become dogma. I did not say that Anthroposophy is something that Steiner `asks his students to follow' – these are your words not mine.

You say I `misinterpret a man's words and deeming them to mean what you say they mean and calling that truth'. Perhaps I do misinterpret Steiner, after all I am not clairvoyant. And I did not call anything `truth'. You can treat anything I say as hypotheses in the process of change, or perhaps as perspectives on one or another aspect of `truth'.

As for interpreting Steiner's work in a `Subjective vs Objective' manner, these are not black and white terms the way I see them. My views here are probably in accord with those of Bertoft. He is perhaps today's foremost Goetheanist, though he is not an Anthroposophist, and he specifically no longer lectures to Anthroposophists, so maybe yes my views are not in accordance with Anthroposophy here. I am not an expert, I don't know.

See ya, Raymon

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 7:44 am
Subject: Re: Doctrine ( was higher and lower)

Raymon:

I get the heebie-jeebies when I see people demonizing their opponents.

You lack utter credibility in this Raymon.

Nobody demonized Staudenamier we debated him in the beginning until it became really clear that in Andreas words he 'own goaled himself. And that he did literally.

Raymon:

I do not believe Steiner intended for his doctrine to become dogma.

WHAT IS HIS DOCTRINE Raymon? And that is not caps for excitement or screaming or what have you it is to bring attention once again to this thing I have been asking you to unmask for the list. What doctrine are you speaking of?

Raymon:

I did not say that Anthroposophy is something that Steiner `asks his students to follow' – these are your words not mine.

Raymon, what are these principles and what is this doctrine? Can you not answer these two points you brought up a while back?

And it seems to me at this point, you can not point to the idea that they might not exist but in your own interpretation.

Raymon:

You say I `misinterpret a man's words and deeming them to mean what you say they mean and calling that truth'.

You told us there was a doctrine and a set of principles. Where are they? I am not being facitious here Raymon I am being very sincere in my question. There might be a some heat underneath because you keep not answering the question. You are saying one thing but not bringing the goods. This is how Staudenmaier operates. He just brings his own made up dictionary and applies it in a very distinct manner that defies logic and discernment.

Raymon:

Perhaps I do misinterpret Steiner, after all I am not clairvoyant.

Hey Raymon, neither am I for the most part. Well sometimes. But this is besides the point. Where is this doctrine and why have you not stated it and the principles?

Noone is asking if you are clairvoyant I am asking you to put up and show your point clear. There may be others that agree with you that there is a doctrine and principles. (that's why it is so ridiculous when I hear the PLANS critics speak of a cult) I do not know. Students of the Doctor are varied in their take on things and are pretty open minded to debating ideas and their concepts of Steiners work. There are great differences in many points) I am the weak link in this from an intellectual level but not from an intuitive heart mind level. We come in all shapes and sizes. And no one dares tell another Anthroposophists what he or she must think. It gets heated but we all have our own opinions of what his work means for us.

Raymon:

And I did not call anything `truth'.

You stated earlier and again in this post there is a doctrine. Where is it? That sounded like a statement of what you believe to be true. Is it?

Raymon:

You can treat anything I say as hypotheses in the process of change, or perhaps as perspectives on one or another aspect of `truth'.

DOCTRINE? We are looking for a doctrine Raymon that you say exists and also principles set by the Doctor. So, is there a doctrine Raymon or not? And if so what book are you speaking of.

Raymon:

As for interpreting Steiner's work in a `Subjective vs Objective' manner, these are not black and white terms the way I see them. My views here are probably in accord with those of Bertoft. He is perhaps today's foremost Goetheanist, though he is not an Anthroposophist, and he specifically no longer lectures to Anthroposophists, so maybe yes my views are not in accordance with Anthroposophy here. I am not an expert, I don't know.

Okay Raymon, who is Bertoft? And it doesn't matter if your views concur with Anthroposophists here. We can debate ideas and there are so many various takes because as I see it there is no specific doctrine or set of principles or laws to follow. We all have different life experiences and they help shape who we are. I for one am respectful of this and always try to keep it at the forefront of my mind when relating with others or reading up on others.

I am wondering if you care to share in what manner the differences exist between Bertoft and that of Steiners work. And what are this man Bertofts references. What is his background? Why has he stopped speaking to Steiner students? Maybe they disagree with his take on Goethe?

I apologize if you are offended by my words and my intenseness. I have heard, when on the critics, that the Doctor formed a cult and that is what it is today. They also say there is a doctrine of sorts. And that Steiners group indoctrinates people by stealth. I ask you how can that be true when there is no specific doctrine. People are not asking others 'hey you wanna be an Anthroposophist? I fear these people are too willy nilly when it comes to helping others to see the values Anthroposophy has to offer the world. At times they remind me of the American Democrats in their approach of things: too nicey nicey and not enough back bone to carry the work through. Everyone wants to be comfortable. And yeah that is my judgement. Sorry if it offends anyone.

So, the point of a doctrine is important. And the point of the Doctor being racist is important as this is what Staudemaeir is using to say that Steiner was the forerunner to the nazi ideology. He was not. Staudenmaier mixed up, on purpose or not I have no clue although I do have a thought on it, ARIOSOPHY and Anthroposophy. Ariosophy is riddled with racist language and thoughts and is indeed the forerunner, in my opinion, to Mein Kemph:( by Hitler. One can not mistake this point when reading up on both works.

The doctors work has a few comments, that probably do not even register on the scale if one was to take his work in hand, that can be construed to be racist if one so wishes to make them so. If we look at the work of this man and contemplate it seriously I do not know how one can come to the conclusion he was a racist or even spoke on a racist ideology. And for me when looking at your thirty years of a student of the Doctor I can not understand how you come to this conclusion, not saying you have as you have not stated it, unless you are wont to be subjective in your thinking and how your world experiences have helped to shape this.

Sincerely,
Dottie

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

From: raymon_ford
Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 12:58 pm
Subject: Re: Doctrine

Gidday Dottie,

Thanks for your post. I think I understand you better now. Sorry, I did not intend to avoid the `doctrine' question; I thought your issue was with `dogma'. I use the word `doctrine' simply to mean `something that is taught' (entry 2a in Merriam-Webster Online), and I am referring to Steiner's entire body of teaching. Your concern is perhaps with method, rather than teachings per se. Though after all the method is something he taught too.

I see I misspelled `Bortoft' as `Bertoft'. A Google search will bring it up for you. For my part I cannot see any disagreement between what he says, and Steiner's take on Goethean science. Bertoft worked in quantum physics, but his field is philosophy of science.

I understand that the word `racist' can have very negative overtones, especially in the US as you told me once, and that it is unpleasant to feel that Steiner's work is consequently smeared. But look at it this way: if you shine a bright light, there will inevitably be shadows.

See ya, Raymon

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 1:08 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Doctrine

At 21:58 29.04.2004, Raymond wrote:

I understand that the word `racist' can have very negative overtones, especially in the US as you told me once, and that it is unpleasant to feel that Steiner's work is consequently smeared.

Are you saying that Steiner's work is smeared as a consequence of the word "racist" having very negaive overtones? I'm also curious about why you hold an obvious deliberate smearer of RS and his works in such a high esteem, and how you made that fortune of yours that you're sharing so generously with anthroposophical projects.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 4:32 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Doctrine

Raymon:

I use the word `doctrine' simply to mean `something that is taught' (entry 2a in Merriam-Webster Online), and I am referring to Steiner's entire body of teaching.

Well then according to your understanding of doctrine, our history books in school would be such a document as well, correct? When you say doctrine, I understand it as a religious document or a set of rules that one would have to abide by in order to be considered a true part of the group.

I do not have the dictionary on my person, can you please state it on line for me so I can have a better understanding where you are coming from?

Are you aware that PLAN critics say that Dr. Steiner has a specific doctrine in the very same manner as you do above. YET, they hold his work to be a set of religious tenents that have to be followed by his students which they call followers in the religious cult sense.

Raymon:

Your concern is perhaps with method, rather than teachings per se. Though after all the method is something he taught too.

I do not understand what you mean by this above? My concern, if you want to call it that, is that I am looking for objectivity based on a reflective contemplation of the Doctors work. I find too much subjectivity and misunderstandings do to either personal world views coloring the Doctors work or a thoughtless commenting that bears no resemblance to what the Doctor was intending.

Raymon:

Bertoft worked in quantum physics, but his field is philosophy of science.

And why would you suppose he no longer speaks to the Doctors students? What in your opinion is the splitting point? In being a student of Dr. Steiner for thirty years as you say where are their differences in understanding Goethe? Do you think, in your contemplations of Dr. Steiner, he would agree with the differences his students find or that Bertoft disagrees with the Doctors stance on Goethean science?

Raymon:

I understand that the word `racist' can have very negative overtones,

That is totally besides the point. I am not worried about the connotations/overtones rather the truth of the matter. I care not a wink if one views it negatively or positively I care about the truth as best as it can be seen.

So, this aside, again I ask do you view Dr. Steiner as a racist? This is not a fighting point Raymon, this is a fact finding question. We can not go on and have your views heard by stepping over this point. You think he is a racist or you do not. I am not going to bite your head off, rather I would like to understand if you do believe so, how you come to this conclusion.

Raymon:

especially in the US as you told me once, and that it is unpleasant to feel that Steiner's work is consequently smeared.

Excuse me? Heebie jeebies going off again here. You are way putting words in my mouth here and in a very funky manner. I so do not trust you and it feels like a Staudenmaier twist you got going on. I see where you are heading with this and again, I get the feeling you are not who you say you are. I am trying to avoid this particular point and bring it on irregardless but you have such a slippery feel that I can not help but be reminded of Staudenmaier.

Raymon:

But look at it this way: if you shine a bright light, there will inevitably be shadows.

Hey Raymon look at this: we all have shadows. Doesn't mean because we all do Dr. Steiner was a racist. And again you have not answered my question about whether you think the Doctors work add up to a racist man and a nazi forerunner in your opinion.

You are slipping and sliding all over the place. You do or you do not. Stand up and be counted with truthful works or sit down Raymon. The deeper you get in this without and thoughtful comments towards what you think the more your credibility is at stake. And less you mistake this for hurt feelings about the racist possibilty, lets be clear, you have shown absolutely no thinking power of your own apart from agreeing with Staudenmaier you have shown nothing but baloney. State the facts man.

Dottie

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 4:34 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Doctrine

Good Raymon, you got no doctrine. I didn't think so. It's your personal opinion and a narrow reading of the word. Great. I am dealing again with a Staudenmaier sound alike. Not only do we have Screwtapes uncle, we have Screwtape himself. Whew.

Dottie

Raymon:

I use the word `doctrine' simply to mean `something that is taught' (entry 2a in Merriam-Webster Online), and I am referring to Steiner's entire body of teaching.

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

From: Harvey Bornfield
Date: Tue May 4, 2004 9:55 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: 'higher' and 'lower'

Raymon,

Dialogue is higher, Exchange, Lower....

Someone whose hope was downsized, their moral corroded, anaesthetized by mechanistic, trivializing influences of arrogance, cynicism and rebellion would use the word "Exchange". A word which betrays an indifference to the possibility of engaging proactive healing as the ultimate human intent. Everywhere you look you see those who prefer Triumph to Reverence, people entrenched in slaved addiction, carving notches on their weapons and their history books, seeking like Pharoahs before them to immortalized themselves in Pyramids, a heaven with square-footage, those who by such actions continue to subscribe to the legions of the Already Dead, such as, for example the boasting, seething PS, drunk on the wine of malice, and looking for a kill.

On Tevye's other hand, consider someone who was interested in contributing solutions, sourcing optimism, kindling the lift of good will and energy, who would employ the term "Dialogue". Exchange is the husk of once vibrant dialogue, dialogue which has been robbed, de-winged of the Thriving Presence of the Christ, and degenerated into argument; and in this sorry state, infatuated with "proof", another word for conquest, goes hunting in search of the plunder of human applause and homage and material spoils, utterly unaware of its sheer worthlessness in the cosmic scheme of things. For which reason, the Jews have a saying "Man plans, and God Laughs" And explains perfectly well, if one has eyes to see, why Antisemitism exists, as if it had to be mentioned that striving is an insult to the complacent, like integrity the Achilles Heel of a braggert.

So by way of suggesting a semblance of a response to this post, consider indulging the honor of swapping ideas, of operating out of the box of foregone conclusions, and instead indulging open-ended, mysterious, elastic ideas, in order to present, rather than hide your vulnerability. To imagine yourself aloof from the human condition, is to refuse to acknowledge the necessity of a love-based, rather than a power-based response to Most Untheoretical Death. To build a psychic Great Wall of China or a Berlin Wall in order to avoid the possibility of derision and martyrdom could perhaps be construed either as a token of the achievement of wisdom, yet at the same time a glaring manifestation of cowardice.

The person who decides to refuse others the opportunity to judge this, chooses to withold their talents from the process of dialogue. Anthroposophy is not a press release or a done deal to be repeated in lip-synch of syndicated rerun, but like medicine, like art, like all work which deserves the honor of being associated with the Progressive Stream of Humanity regardless of the exterior label, it is practiced. The process of transforming the wood and brick churches of human belief systems into the living, breathing, glowing temples of human heart speech is Open-endedness, whose "enemy" is drawing conclusions. All Intents blossom or fester into Fruits, by which we come to realize their value to human growth. Tyranny loves the square table, one king and the rest subjects, but Dialogue, where all are gathered in His Name, places king and peasant alike on the rim of Arthur's Round table, and no man inhabits the center, but his offerings are spokes offered into the center, and which strengthen the wheel........

In this light your hasty dualistic analysis of Doctrine "vs." Religion as a polar scaffolding, an "either/or" constellation, a cobra/mongoose scenario, seems a bit cramped, unmajestic, uninteresting and lacking in imagination as an entrance to fruit-bearing, metabolizable thought. And so we whisper: Sparring is ok for cretins and adolescents, for the Waldorf critics carping and sniping their way to Nirvana, but leads to self-assertions, target-markets, resentments, and the infatuation with conquest, pursuits which steal time from acquiring and perfecting the capacity to indulge and mature the marvels and wonders of reflectively-powerful activity, such as that self-evidenced truth which throughout all of history has resulted in the expression of Mythology, Religion, Philosophy and the Arts. All these, including Anthroposophy, have been created through first-hand experience rather than inherited in old-wives-tales. But by the time the intuitions, imaginations and inspirations which penetrated the heart of courageous individuals who author these manifestations of connectivity between the real and the spiritual realms,'txixt rock and stars, were codified, published, as it were, in soarless dogmas and veloured professions which fractured Truth into a splinter of various archived Sunday-Service denominations, each contending for Prime Time on the stage of human allegiance, patriotism and other blindly-magnetic genres of loyalty, they were dumbed down for the sake of audiences. Therein lies the tragedy of popularization, that the responsibilities of self-transformation and the uphill climb to excellence which invites seekers to reverse priorities from the focus of ambitions, contaminated with the inventoried dust of tangible rewards to aspirations to ethereal traits and imperishable talents of angels, properties which are accessed, harbored, rather than possessed, that religion is sold on the auction block of desire, made desirable, offered sirenlike as a seduction, rather than bestowed as a noble responsibility.

Whenever two or more are gathered in His name, the universe entrusts its secrets and bestows the fixings of worthy game plans for the remediation, for the raising up of humanity. Why would you want to be cut out of this loop? Band-Aids for bruised egos are far less expensive than the price of acquiring a Cancer of Indifference to Suffering, 'yours' or 'others', it matters not to the God who is on everyones side of a well-rounded humanity............. : )

Warm Regards,
Harvey

On Wednesday, April 28, 2004, at 04:35 PM, raymon_ford wrote:

Gidday Dottie,

We could, as you request, discuss whether and where anthroposophy is being treated as a doctrine or as a religion, what we believe Steiner's intentions were here, and further discuss why the various parties view it one way or the other, and so on. But these are sensitive questions. And from what I have seen here, discussion will likely deviate from topic - and emotional personal attacks will occur. Why would I be interested in such an exchange?

See ya, Raymon


And to Solomon the power of the swiftly-blowing Wind.....
and it sped at his bidding to the lands We had blessed, for We know all things........
Quran

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

From: raymon_ford
Date: Thu May 6, 2004 12:59 am
Subject: Re: 'higher' and 'lower'

Gidday Harvey,

Thanks for your post.

You say `Someone whose hope was downsized, their moral corroded, anaesthetized by mechanistic, trivializing influences of arrogance, cynicism and rebellion would use the word "Exchange" …'.

My use of `exchange', in the context of the message you quoted, referred to a dialog in which personal attacks form part of the content. This was my main thrust, though it may not have been clear.

I was not really able to see where your post addressed this, though perhaps your references to `cowardice' and `aloof from the human condition' referred to my reluctance to participate in such `dialog'; and you seem to suggest I should front up to such attacks rather than be `left out of the loop'. Have I got you right?

There may well be an element of cowardice and aloofness in my attitude, but mostly I simply have better things to do with my time than deal with that sort of thing (I'm somewhat tired of the topics now anyway). Thanks, but no thanks.

The excellence of dialog that you advocate is not, in my view, served by belittling those with whom one is conversing. People here can post negative personal criticism if they want to, that's fine. They can see the justification. These days I prefer not to, that's all.

You said `…your hasty dualistic analysis of Doctrine "vs." Religion as a polar scaffolding…' etc, and went on to mention cretins, carping and sniping. I wasn't making an analysis; read the earlier post from Dottie – she had said to me `…Do you hold that AP is a religion and that Dr. Steiner set out to create a doctrine…' (same thread, Apr 27). I naturally used these terms in my short and declining reply, in which I tried to say that we could talk about these two things, but I was not interested in view of the personal attacks that would likely surface from wherever.

See ya, Raymon

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


Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
 

April/May 2004

The Uncle Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files

Anthroposophy & Anarchism

Anthroposophy & Scientology

Anthroposophical Morsels

Anthroposophy, Critics, and Controversy

Search this site powered by FreeFind