Mind Gambling for Beginners

 

From: Sune Nordwall
Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 4:56 am
Subject: Analysis of yet another 'PS mind game'

After a long discussion on this list about the demagoguery of PS on anthroposophy since long, revealed in a nut shell by his untruthful introduction to his first article as solo writer on anthroposophy, and his repeated mind games over years after its first publication, trying to cover up for its untruthfulness, Detlef (Sun, 11 Apr 2004 00:10:31 +0200) tells that the only instance in the lecture series 'Mission of Folk Souls' where RS uses the word 'Hauptrasse' (then in its plural form) is lecture seven.

From the lecture, it is clear that RS is talking of what anthropology at the time (1910) since long (1795) described as the five main races of humanity, and not about what the theosophical tradition refers to as the five (of seven) 'root races', referring to humanity during the stages of the development of our solar system. Detlef also writes that the lecture (seven) is not online in English.

He also tells that RS in the text refers back in the lecture series, and that the preceding lecture (six) also mentions the five races in question in the anthropological sense, there referring to them as 'Grundrassen'. Detlef also quotes and translates the passages from the two lectures (six and seven), where the words appear in the way he describes.

RS also in a second instance in lecture six uses the word in the singular form 'Grundrasse'. In all three instances it is clear that RS is talking about the anthropological and not - as persistently and erroneously argued for by PS - the theosophical concept. In no instance in the lecture series does RS - as untruthfully argued by PS in the introduction to his article AaE - use (or refer to) the theosophical concepts 'root race' or 'root races'.

Tue, 13 Apr 2004 20:42:58 -0000 Deborah answers Detlef, writing:

I was the one who asked for the quotes. Thank you very much for doing the tedious work of tracking them down and translating the relevant passages.

(referring to the translated passages from lecture six and seven).

I then answer Tue, 13 Apr 2004 23:37:49 +0200 in a posting 'On PS demagogical buzz', telling that lecture seven actually is published online at my site since long, and give the URL for it.

Wed, 14 Apr 2004 00:32:35 -0000 Deborah answers my posting, thanking for giving the URL to lecture seven, and writes:

Thank you for the link to the lecture. I just read it for the first time. Interesting picture of the history of humanity over about 10,000 years. And no, it doesn't support, in any way, Peter's description.

As answer to this posting by Deborah, PS returns with a new and - again - untruthful mind game in a posting Sat, 17 Apr 2004 00:15:15 +0200 (CEST), titled 'reading and falsehoods'.

He writes, diverting the discussion from the issue at hand; his in full demonstrated untruthfulness in the smashing and selling - and not to this day PS corrected - demagogical and made up untruthful story about what RS actually says in the lecture series 'Mission of Folk Souls in the introduction to PS' article:

(PS, otherwise repeatedly in discussions trying to excel in demonstrations of his capacity to read and understand texts, connects to a thread on 'reading' and writes, playing a new mind game:)

Last week I wrote the following to Deborah about Steiner's 1910 Oslo lectures on national souls...

If I understood the subsequent exchange properly, then it sounds like Deborah hadn't actually read the book. She now says, apparently referring to some part of this text, that she has "just read it for the first time", and that the published text "doesn't support, in any way, Peter's description."

It isn't entirely clear what Debroah is getting at, but if this is indeed a reference to the published version of the 1910 lectures, then Deborah's claim is what she likes to call a "falsehood".

PS, self proclaimed 'scholar' and alleged master of text comprehension, argues - as if everything on this list refers specifically and directly to postings by him to this list, referring to the lecture series in its totality:

1. Deborah says, apparently referring to some part of this text, that she has "just read it for the first time", and that the published text "doesn't support, in any way, Peter's description."

and

2. It isn't entirely clear what Debroah is getting at, but if this is indeed a reference to the published version of the 1910 lectures, then Deborah's claim is what she likes to call a "falsehood".

On 1:

As is clear from the description above - if one actually reads the few postings involved - of the issue at hand with regard to PS; his well demonstrated and documented untruthfulness as con 'historical scholar' in the introduction to his Major Opus demagoguery on anthroposophy and anthroposophical activities during and after the second WW in Germany, what Deborah refers to is not the lecture series in its totality.

As her posting Wed, 14 Apr 2004 00:32:35 -0000 clearly tells - if one cares to read it - it refers to lecture seven, not the lecture series in its totality.

On 2:

It is entirely clear from Deborah's postings on 13 and 14 April, mentioned above, what she is getting at - except to PS as con 'master of text comprehension' and word manipulator - being that lecture seven (and six) demonstrate(s) that PS' introduction to his first solo demagoguery on anthroposophy is untruthful.

It is also clear that what PS writes is just another smoke screen mind game, trying to divert the discussion from this well documented, by himself repeatedly defended and never corrected untruthfulness in his repeated demagoguery on anthroposophy by trying - with now the smooth and slick introduction of an untruthful hypothesis, implying that Deborah is stating a 'falsehood' in her posting Wed, 14 Apr 2004 00:32:35 -0000 to this list - to divert the attention and awareness in the discussion from his well documented untruthfulness to other issues, that he - again - does not penetrate more than to the surface of the text.

Correct your well and fully demonstrated untruths in the introduction to your seemingly first solo article on anthroposophy, Peter.

Write to all the places where your article has been published and tell them about what not is true in the introduction and ask them to publish corrections of it. Continue with the rest of the article and your subsequent articles and send corrections to all the places you know of where they have been published (easily found out for the English and Swedish versions) and then come back to this discussion.

I'm sure noone will hold a grudge against someone demonstrating a serious strife to correct untruths that one - for different reasons - has published, after they've been corrected.

Why not start with PLANS and Dan Dugan, who probably still lurks on this list, who put up your article in the first place and has supported your defence of your untruthfulness in it since then?

Sune

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

From: Deborah
Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 6:06 am
Subject: Analysis of yet another 'PS mind game'

Dear Sune,

Thank you for clearing that up. You are a gentleman and a scholar. It is too bad you are in Sweden and I'm in Montreal! I'd love to meet you as more than a disembodied "voice."

Deborah

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 1:14 pm
Subject: mind gambling for beginners

Sune writes:

it is clear that RS is talking of what anthropology at the time (1910) since long (1795) described as the five main races of humanity, and not about what the theosophical tradition refers to as the five (of seven) 'root races', referring to humanity during the stages of the development of our solar system.

[...]

In all three instances it is clear that RS is talking about the anthropological and not - as persistently and erroneously argued for by PS - the theosophical concept.

Stop the presses -- this may be the first time in three years that any of Sune's replies to me has made the slightest bit of sense. If I'm following him here, Sune is saying that my summary of Steiner's blather about 'folk souls' is erroneous because I relate Steiner's text to the theosophical tradition rather than to the anthropology of the time. If that is indeed Sune's point, it's an interesting one and worth exploring, in my view. Steiner's racial doctrines did draw extensively, albeit selectively, on nineteenth century anthropology, though he seems to have been largely unaware of early twentieth century anthropology. The problem with Sune's analysis is that it fails to take into account Steiner's forthright rejection of 'materialist' science, which included much of contemporary anthropology, in favor of his theosophically derived conceptual framework.

In no instance in the lecture series does RS - as untruthfully argued by PS in the introduction to his article AaE - use (or refer to) the theosophical concepts 'root race' or 'root races'.

Well, except for the inconvenient fact that lecture six is titled "The Five Root Races of Mankind".....

He writes, diverting the discussion from the issue at hand

Evidently we disagree about just what the issue at hand is. I think the issue at hand is the content of Steiner's 'folk souls' book. If you think that is not the issue, I invite you to clarify.

as if everything on this list refers specifically and directly to postings by him to this list

That's silly. Deborah's remark, which I quoted, did refer quite specifically to my posts to this list. Maybe you missed that?

It is also clear that what PS writes is just another smoke screen mind game

Yes, I do get the impression that you and other listmates consider quotations from Steiner's published texts to be some sort of game, with an obscure set of unstated rules. But that's not the game I'm playing, as I tried to explain to Dottie last week. What I'm doing is reading what Steiner wrote and trying to discuss it here. I very much encourage you to join me.

Peter

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

From: at
Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 3:14 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] mind gambling for beginners

Peter Staudenmaier:

Well, except for the inconvenient fact that lecture six is titled "The Five Root Races of Mankind".....

Daniel:

Peter, you have told us previosly that the lectures do not actually have titles in the original (and this is correct). The chapter titles were added after the fact by the editors of the 1962 German edition, and then mistranslated for the 1970 English edition. I would expect someone of your impeccable scholarship to be clear on a point like this, especially since you brought it up yourself.

Daniel Hindes

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

From: at
Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 6:57 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] mind gambling for beginners

Peter Staudenmaier wrote:

Well, except for the inconvenient fact that lecture six is titled "The Five Root Races of Mankind".....

Daniel responded:

Peter, you have told us previosly that the lectures do not actually have titles in the original (and this is correct). The chapter titles were added after the fact by the editors of the 1962 German edition, and then mistranslated for the 1970 English edition. I would expect someone of your impeccable scholarship to be clear on a point like this, especially since you brought it up yourself.

Peter Staudenmaier snipped this to: [in the thread "Reading and Running"]

Peter, you have told us previosly that the lectures do not actually have titles in the original (and this is correct). [...] I would expect someone of your impeccable scholarship to be clear on a point like this, especially since you brought it up yourself.

Peter Staudenmaier:

If I told this to you previously, why wasn't it clear to you? Did you forget your first sentence above while writing the following one?

Daniel:

Peter, you are on the run tonight - running away, dodging and avoiding - the points I am trying to raise. Just look at your cowardly tricks. Just what are you babbling about, pulling a smart-assed "If I told this to you previously, why wasn't it clear to you?" Re-read the exchange! I am accusing you of hypocrisy. You are making a big deal of something that is irrelevant - claiming that there is significance in the chapter titles of GA 121, when you previously informed us with all snottyness that they are not actually originally in the text. Try some intellectual consistency and honesty for once.

Daniel Hindes

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

From: at
Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 3:04 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] mind gambling for beginners

Peter Staudenmaier: [from the thread "questions and answers"]

I don't know what you think was inconsistent in my argument about this book. I disagree with you that the book does not preach Aryan superiority. I disagree with you that it does not discuss "root races". I disagree with you that it does not contain racist statements. I very much disagree with you that I am making a big deal of all this; it seems to me that this honor belongs to you, Detlef, and Sune, not to me. Pretty much all I keep doing is pointing out how the text actually reads in the two existing English translations, and telling you what I think of its content. What exactly is hypocritical about that?

Daniel:

Hypocritical for a self-professed historian and soon-to-be doctoral candidate is to fixate on a faulty English translation when you have the original German. If the only way you can make you point is by relying on a bad translation over and against the original, then you don't have much of a case.

You once assured me that the key to understanding Stiner's racism lay in the formative Jupiter forces. I asked for explication, but still have not gotten it. Nor have you backed away from the claim. This is what I mean about running away from the argument. You go on and on about how everyting is so simple, how it all supports your contentions, but when asked for details, then it gets all fuzzy, complicated, confusing. And then you drop the discussion. I detect in this a lack of intellectual honesty, and a failure to take responsibility for your work. Nor have you ever publicly admitted to a single error in anything you ever wrote.

Daniel Hindes

----- Original Message -----
From: at
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 9:57 PM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] mind gambling for beginners

Peter Staudenmaier wrote:

Well, except for the inconvenient fact that lecture six is titled "The Five Root Races of Mankind".....

Daniel responded:

Peter, you have told us previosly that the lectures do not actually have titles in the original (and this is correct). The chapter titles were added after the fact by the editors of the 1962 German edition, and then mistranslated for the 1970 English edition. I would expect someone of your impeccable scholarship to be clear on a point like this, especially since you brought it up yourself.

Peter Staudenmaier snipped this to: [in the thread "Reading and Running"]

Peter, you have told us previosly that the lectures do not actually have titles in the original (and this is correct). [...] I would expect someone of your impeccable scholarship to be clear on a point like this, especially since you brought it up yourself.

Peter Staudenmaier:

If I told this to you previously, why wasn't it clear to you? Did you forget your first sentence above while writing the following one?

Daniel:

Peter, you are on the run tonight - running away, dodging and avoiding - the points I am trying to raise. Just look at your cowardly tricks. Just what are you babbling about, pulling a smart-assed "If I told this to you previously, why wasn't it clear to you?" Re-read the exchange! I am accusing you of hypocrisy. You are making a big deal of something that is irrelevant - claiming that there is significance in the chapter titles of GA 121, when you previously informed us with all snottyness that they are not actually originally in the text. Try some intellectual consistency and honesty for once.

Daniel Hindes

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

From: at
Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 6:31 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] mind gambling for beginners

Daniel wrote:

If the only way you can make you point is by relying on a bad translation over and against the original, then you don't have much of a case.

Peter Staudenmaier: [from the thread "more questions, more anwers"]

It sounds like you think that the German edition you've read is "the original". It is not. I have a copy of the original German edition of the text, published during Steiner's lifetime. It is not identical to the 1962 edition you are relying on, particularly as far as Steiner's theosophical vocabulary goes. The significance of this divergence in terminology seems not to have dawned upon you.

Daniel:

Dodging the accusation again, I see. If the only way you can make you point is by relying on a bad translation over and against the original, then you don't have much of a case.

Now you are quibbling about the original. As you very well know, with this volume, the first edition published was an unrevised stenographic reconstruction. In 1918 Rudolf Steiner revised it personally, and this second edition, revised by Steiner himself, is the basis for all subsequent German editions. Further, you know that the differences are very minor - mostly relating to changing the word "theosophical" to "anthroposophical" and do not change any of the sentences we are discussing. You are throwing a red hering here, Peter, making such a big deal about these differences. Steiner was the person who clarified his own text, in his lifetime. The "divergence" of this terminology is something I am quite aware of (it comes up in numerous contexts) and is not relevant to any of the passages we have discussed.

Daniel Hindes

----- Original Message -----
From: at
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 6:04 PM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] mind gambling for beginners

Peter Staudenmaier: [from the thread "questions and answers"]

I don't know what you think was inconsistent in my argument about this book. I disagree with you that the book does not preach Aryan superiority. I disagree with you that it does not discuss "root races". I disagree with you that it does not contain racist statements. I very much disagree with you that I am making a big deal of all this; it seems to me that this honor belongs to you, Detlef, and Sune, not to me. Pretty much all I keep doing is pointing out how the text actually reads in the two existing English translations, and telling you what I think of its content. What exactly is hypocritical about that?

Daniel:

Hypocritical for a self-professed historian and soon-to-be doctoral candidate is to fixate on a faulty English translation when you have the original German. If the only way you can make you point is by relying on a bad translation over and against the original, then you don't have much of a case.

You once assured me that the key to understanding Stiner's racism lay in the formative Jupiter forces. I asked for explication, but still have not gotten it. Nor have you backed away from the claim. This is what I mean about running away from the argument. You go on and on about how everyting is so simple, how it all supports your contentions, but when asked for details, then it gets all fuzzy, complicated, confusing. And then you drop the discussion. I detect in this a lack of intellectual honesty, and a failure to take responsibility for your work. Nor have you ever publicly admitted to a single error in anything you ever wrote.

Daniel Hindes

----- Original Message -----
From: at
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 9:57 PM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] mind gambling for beginners

Peter Staudenmaier wrote:

Well, except for the inconvenient fact that lecture six is titled "The Five Root Races of Mankind".....

Daniel responded:

Peter, you have told us previosly that the lectures do not actually have titles in the original (and this is correct). The chapter titles were added after the fact by the editors of the 1962 German edition, and then mistranslated for the 1970 English edition. I would expect someone of your impeccable scholarship to be clear on a point like this, especially since you brought it up yourself.

Peter Staudenmaier snipped this to: [in the thread "Reading and Running"]

Peter, you have told us previosly that the lectures do not actually have titles in the original (and this is correct). [...] I would expect someone of your impeccable scholarship to be clear on a point like this, especially since you brought it up yourself.

Peter Staudenmaier:

If I told this to you previously, why wasn't it clear to you? Did you forget your first sentence above while writing the following one?

Daniel:

Peter, you are on the run tonight - running away, dodging and avoiding - the points I am trying to raise. Just look at your cowardly tricks. Just what are you babbling about, pulling a smart-assed "If I told this to you previously, why wasn't it clear to you?" Re-read the exchange! I am accusing you of hypocrisy. You are making a big deal of something that is irrelevant - claiming that there is significance in the chapter titles of GA 121, when you previously informed us with all snottyness that they are not actually originally in the text. Try some intellectual consistency and honesty for once.

Daniel Hindes

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

From: at
Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 6:45 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] mind gambling for beginners

Daniel wrote:

You once assured me that the key to understanding Stiner's racism lay in the formative Jupiter forces.

Peter Staudenmaier: [from the thread "more questions, more anwers"]

No, I didn't. You misunderstood that entire exchange. You could excise every reference to Jupiter forces in the Gesamtausgabe and the racist components of Steiner's teachings would be unchanged.

Daniel:

If I misunderstood the exchange, why did you only mention this now? For over a month you have been responding as if I understood you perfectly well, for example with the thing about "Jupiter consciousness" (quoted below). This is just another Staudenmaier trick for avoiding discussion. It is a sorry sight, you know. Several people have been asking you for over a month for an explication of the heiarchy of planetary forces - something you are obviously incapable of. You have ignored them all. Now here you say that the whole exchange was misunderstood. Sorry, I'm not buying it.

Daniel wrote:

but when asked for details, then it gets all fuzzy, complicated, confusing.

Peter Staudenmaier: [from the thread "more questions, more anwers"]

I can see that this gets confusing for you. I have no idea why you hold me responsible for it.

Daniel:

No, Peter. The "fuzzy" "complicated" and "confusing" are all quotes form your own description of the issue, offered by you in discussion over the past months. You seem to have a real problem with projection.

Daniel Hindes

Daniel asked: [from the thread "Re: To Peter 2"]

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, March 12th, 2004: [from the thread "Re: To Peter 2"]

That's what we disagree about.

Daniel asked: [from the thread "More Questions"]

I have become quite interested in the hierarchy of planetary forces. Could you perhaps explain how I am missing it in GA 121?

Peter Staudenmaier, March 14th, 2004:

I don't know how you are missing it. Maybe you and I disagree about what hierarchy is. I think his description of the "racial character" of black, yellow, brown, and red people in relation to Europeans is obviously hierarchical. In the same volume I recommended above, Aus den Inhalten der esoterischen Stunden, Steiner designates Jupiter as "higher" (pp. 302-307) and says that the goal of esoteric contemplation is "to develop oneself into Jupiter consciousness" ("sich in das Jupiterbewusstsein hineinzuentwickeln", p. 307).

----- Original Message -----
From: at
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 6:04 PM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] mind gambling for beginners

Peter Staudenmaier: [from the thread "questions and answers"]

I don't know what you think was inconsistent in my argument about this book. I disagree with you that the book does not preach Aryan superiority. I disagree with you that it does not discuss "root races". I disagree with you that it does not contain racist statements. I very much disagree with you that I am making a big deal of all this; it seems to me that this honor belongs to you, Detlef, and Sune, not to me. Pretty much all I keep doing is pointing out how the text actually reads in the two existing English translations, and telling you what I think of its content. What exactly is hypocritical about that?

Daniel:

Hypocritical for a self-professed historian and soon-to-be doctoral candidate is to fixate on a faulty English translation when you have the original German. If the only way you can make you point is by relying on a bad translation over and against the original, then you don't have much of a case.

You once assured me that the key to understanding Stiner's racism lay in the formative Jupiter forces. I asked for explication, but still have not gotten it. Nor have you backed away from the claim. This is what I mean about running away from the argument. You go on and on about how everyting is so simple, how it all supports your contentions, but when asked for details, then it gets all fuzzy, complicated, confusing. And then you drop the discussion. I detect in this a lack of intellectual honesty, and a failure to take responsibility for your work. Nor have you ever publicly admitted to a single error in anything you ever wrote.

Daniel Hindes

----- Original Message -----
From: at
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 9:57 PM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] mind gambling for beginners

Peter Staudenmaier wrote:

Well, except for the inconvenient fact that lecture six is titled "The Five Root Races of Mankind".....

Daniel responded:

Peter, you have told us previosly that the lectures do not actually have titles in the original (and this is correct). The chapter titles were added after the fact by the editors of the 1962 German edition, and then mistranslated for the 1970 English edition. I would expect someone of your impeccable scholarship to be clear on a point like this, especially since you brought it up yourself.

Peter Staudenmaier snipped this to: [in the thread "Reading and Running"]

Peter, you have told us previosly that the lectures do not actually have titles in the original (and this is correct). [...] I would expect someone of your impeccable scholarship to be clear on a point like this, especially since you brought it up yourself.

Peter Staudenmaier:

If I told this to you previously, why wasn't it clear to you? Did you forget your first sentence above while writing the following one?

Daniel:

Peter, you are on the run tonight - running away, dodging and avoiding - the points I am trying to raise. Just look at your cowardly tricks. Just what are you babbling about, pulling a smart-assed "If I told this to you previously, why wasn't it clear to you?" Re-read the exchange! I am accusing you of hypocrisy. You are making a big deal of something that is irrelevant - claiming that there is significance in the chapter titles of GA 121, when you previously informed us with all snottyness that they are not actually originally in the text. Try some intellectual consistency and honesty for once.

Daniel Hindes

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

From: at
Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 12:43 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] mind gambling for beginners

Daniel wrote:

If I misunderstood the exchange, why did you only mention this now?

Peter Staudenmaier: [in the thread "Races Disappearing - Steiner on Racial Evolution"]

Uh-oh. Do you mean that question seriously? A strikingly large proportion of what you post to this list consists primarily of your misunderstandings of what other people write, in my estimation. I routinely ignore these instances, for the sake of salvaging whatever little substance still might be had from these exchanges.

Daniel:

Come, now, Peter, don't hold back, tell us what you really think.

Just what is your purpose here anyway? It is apparently not to hear anything new, as by your own admission you have learned nothing from any of us. And it is apparently not to enlighten us, since you now claim that you can't be bothered to correct misunderstandings as they come up. So is it simply to enjoy the opportunity to insult a bunch of strangers? To poke a stick in an ant-hill, as it were? I for one am still amazed that for all that has been said, not a single new idea ever resonated between your eardrums (metaphorically, of course). You are amazingly facile with argumentation, but I seldom get the feeling that you have understood a thing of what you are arguing against. You literally spend all your time making arguments - and none listening. So I predict you will leave the list no wiser than you were when you arrived.

Oh, and I don't for a minute buy your revisionist statements about the Jupiter forces thing being a misunderstanding from the begenning. Read your own writing - your statements are quite clear. You are simply spinning the truth to come out looking good - and it is quite pathetic in its lack of integrity. There are still quite a few other questions you are running away from - as usual. And I note you have not asked me anything, despite claiming several times that I don't answer the questions you put to me.

Daniel Hindes

----- Original Message -----
From: at
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 9:45 PM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] mind gambling for beginners

Daniel wrote:

You once assured me that the key to understanding Stiner's racism lay in the formative Jupiter forces.

Peter Staudenmaier: [from the thread "more questions, more anwers"]

No, I didn't. You misunderstood that entire exchange. You could excise every reference to Jupiter forces in the Gesamtausgabe and the racist components of Steiner's teachings would be unchanged.

Daniel:

If I misunderstood the exchange, why did you only mention this now? For over a month you have been responding as if I understood you perfectly well, for example with the thing about "Jupiter consciousness" (quoted below). This is just another Staudenmaier trick for avoiding discussion. It is a sorry sight, you know. Several people have been asking you for over a month for an explication of the heiarchy of planetary forces - something you are obviously incapable of. You have ignored them all. Now here you say that the whole exchange was misunderstood. Sorry, I'm not buying it.

Daniel wrote:

but when asked for details, then it gets all fuzzy, complicated, confusing.

Peter Staudenmaier: [from the thread "more questions, more anwers"]

I can see that this gets confusing for you. I have no idea why you hold me responsible for it.

Daniel:

No, Peter. The "fuzzy" "complicated" and "confusing" are all quotes form your own description of the issue, offered by you in discussion over the past months. You seem to have a real problem with projection.

Daniel Hindes

Daniel asked: [from the thread "Re: To Peter 2"]

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, March 12th, 2004: [from the thread "Re: To Peter 2"]

That's what we disagree about.

Daniel asked: [from the thread "More Questions"]

I have become quite interested in the hierarchy of planetary forces. Could you perhaps explain how I am missing it in GA 121?

Peter Staudenmaier, March 14th, 2004:

I don't know how you are missing it. Maybe you and I disagree about what hierarchy is. I think his description of the "racial character" of black, yellow, brown, and red people in relation to Europeans is obviously hierarchical. In the same volume I recommended above, Aus den Inhalten der esoterischen Stunden, Steiner designates Jupiter as "higher" (pp. 302-307) and says that the goal of esoteric contemplation is "to develop oneself into Jupiter consciousness" ("sich in das Jupiterbewusstsein hineinzuentwickeln", p. 307).

----- Original Message -----
From: at
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 6:04 PM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] mind gambling for beginners

Peter Staudenmaier: [from the thread "questions and answers"]

I don't know what you think was inconsistent in my argument about this book. I disagree with you that the book does not preach Aryan superiority. I disagree with you that it does not discuss "root races". I disagree with you that it does not contain racist statements. I very much disagree with you that I am making a big deal of all this; it seems to me that this honor belongs to you, Detlef, and Sune, not to me. Pretty much all I keep doing is pointing out how the text actually reads in the two existing English translations, and telling you what I think of its content. What exactly is hypocritical about that?

Daniel:

Hypocritical for a self-professed historian and soon-to-be doctoral candidate is to fixate on a faulty English translation when you have the original German. If the only way you can make you point is by relying on a bad translation over and against the original, then you don't have much of a case.

You once assured me that the key to understanding Stiner's racism lay in the formative Jupiter forces. I asked for explication, but still have not gotten it. Nor have you backed away from the claim. This is what I mean about running away from the argument. You go on and on about how everyting is so simple, how it all supports your contentions, but when asked for details, then it gets all fuzzy, complicated, confusing. And then you drop the discussion. I detect in this a lack of intellectual honesty, and a failure to take responsibility for your work. Nor have you ever publicly admitted to a single error in anything you ever wrote.

Daniel Hindes

----- Original Message -----
From: at
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 9:57 PM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] mind gambling for beginners

Peter Staudenmaier wrote:

Well, except for the inconvenient fact that lecture six is titled "The Five Root Races of Mankind".....

Daniel responded:

Peter, you have told us previosly that the lectures do not actually have titles in the original (and this is correct). The chapter titles were added after the fact by the editors of the 1962 German edition, and then mistranslated for the 1970 English edition. I would expect someone of your impeccable scholarship to be clear on a point like this, especially since you brought it up yourself.

Peter Staudenmaier snipped this to: [in the thread "Reading and Running"]

Peter, you have told us previosly that the lectures do not actually have titles in the original (and this is correct). [...] I would expect someone of your impeccable scholarship to be clear on a point like this, especially since you brought it up yourself.

Peter Staudenmaier:

If I told this to you previously, why wasn't it clear to you? Did you forget your first sentence above while writing the following one?

Daniel:

Peter, you are on the run tonight - running away, dodging and avoiding - the points I am trying to raise. Just look at your cowardly tricks. Just what are you babbling about, pulling a smart-assed "If I told this to you previously, why wasn't it clear to you?" Re-read the exchange! I am accusing you of hypocrisy. You are making a big deal of something that is irrelevant - claiming that there is significance in the chapter titles of GA 121, when you previously informed us with all snottyness that they are not actually originally in the text. Try some intellectual consistency and honesty for once.

Daniel Hindes

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

From: winters_diana
Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 7:03 pm
Subject: Re: mind gambling for beginners

Daniel to Peter:

Come, now, Peter, don't hold back, tell us what you really think.

Just what is your purpose here anyway?

Please, have mercy, surely we are all, on all sides of this debate, bored with the "what is your purpose here" style of argumentation.

Diana

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

From: Deborah
Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 7:25 pm
Subject: Re: mind gambling for beginners

Dear, Dear Diana,

Please speak for yourself.

Deborah

Daniel to Peter:

Come, now, Peter, don't hold back, tell us what you really think.

Just what is your purpose here anyway?

Please, have mercy, surely we are all, on all sides of this debate, bored with the "what is your purpose here" style of argumentation.

Diana

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

From: winters_diana
Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 7:46 pm
Subject: Re: mind gambling for beginners

I stand corrected, we are not all bored with it, apparently.

Diana

Dear, Dear Diana,

Please speak for yourself.

Deborah

Daniel to Peter:

Come, now, Peter, don't hold back, tell us what you really think.

Just what is your purpose here anyway?

Please, have mercy, surely we are all, on all sides of this debate, bored with the "what is your purpose here" style of argumentation.

Diana

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 8:04 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: mind gambling for beginners

Diana:

Please, have mercy, surely we are all, on all sides of this debate, bored with the "what is your purpose here" style of argumentation.

Uh Diana, this is about the first question that is asked by PLANS and continues on when they realize the poster is not agreeing with their rants.

And I do not know how Daniel possibly continues to debate with you when you keep acting out in such a know it all way. You are all mouth and no ears it seems...I say that in a good way :)d

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 6:33 pm
Subject: why are we here?

Hi Daniel, you wrote:

Just what is your purpose here anyway?

To fritter away countless hours at the keyboard when I should be packing. Don't worry, I've only got a day or so left.

So is it simply to enjoy the opportunity to insult a bunch of strangers? To poke a stick in an ant-hill, as it were?

Not really. I don't think I've been all that insulting, especially by the standards of this list. But I suppose that's for the rest of you to decide.

Peter

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 8:33 pm
Subject: Re: why are we here?

Why are we here Peter? What on earth are we doing here in the first place? How did this all come about do you suppose? And for what reason? Pretty unbelievable isn't it?

All good things to you in your travels,

Dottie

p.s. I will reccommend a good book for your trip: Philosophy of Freedom. Have you ever read this one by Dr. Steiner?

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

From: at
Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 8:06 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] why are we here?

Peter,

I asked simply because it is such a puzzel to me. Taking you at your word, it is to test your theories to see how they hold up to critical scrutiny. But you subsequent behavior belies this claim, as you run away from any real criticism, and reassert you original position at every turn. And so it is not to learn. It is either to practice dodging and arguing, or it is to assert your claims as many times as possible, in as many places as possible.

I really feel that there is a lost opportunity here. When you showed up, I resolved to pre-judge nothing and simply take you at your word. I asked questions and answered the questions put to me - openly, honestly and accurately. For a few weeks this went fairly well, but then I found that my questions were not always anwered, even when they were repeated several times. Certain topics seem taboo - questions are ignored or brushed off. And now as you prepare to leave I have almost a dozen open questions, points for discussion that go straight to the heard of the issue, but you keep avoiding them.

I'd like to say that I wish you well in your studies (and you never did answer what school it is you will be going to) but instead I will express my wish that you find truth on your path. Not the absolute truth of zealots and fanatics, but the type of truth that is capable of growing.

Daniel Hindes

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 9:33 PM
Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] why are we here?

Hi Daniel, you wrote:

Just what is your purpose here anyway?

To fritter away countless hours at the keyboard when I should be packing. Don't worry, I've only got a day or so left.

So is it simply to enjoy the opportunity to insult a bunch of strangers? To poke a stick in an ant-hill, as it were?

Not really. I don't think I've been all that insulting, especially by the standards of this list. But I suppose that's for the rest of you to decide.

Peter

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

From: Mike Helsher
Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 10:42 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] why are we here?

Daniel wrote:

I'd like to say that I wish you well in your studies (and you never did answer what school it is you will be going to) but instead I will express my wish that you find truth on your path. Not the absolute truth of zealots and fanatics, but the type of truth that is capable of growing.

Daniel Hindes


mike:

Me too.

And thanks for your work with the SEI. Seems like a very Michaelic mission going on over there, for the most part.

Live long and prosper!

And my the words be with you :)

Mike

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


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