Racist is as Peter S Does


From: Mike Helsher
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 11:37 am
Subject: racist is as Peter S does

I couldn't help notice a couple of Peter S posts in my delete folder, as I emptied it today. I was only slightly tempted to read them, but quickly came to my senses and pushed "Delete."

I'm guessing that he is still doing his snidely-whiplash hyper-intellectual empathetically empty slice and dice cat and mouse word-smithing as usual.

I've been thinking about the character of racism in action: the arrogance that so easily turns a blind eye to invitations to talk about other topics on this list; the subtle indignations implied to any and all that are "confused" about the only topic that he cares to talk about; his seeming inability to see the people behind the words and ideas, and to meet them as fellow human beings, in an altruistic kind of way; the categorization of the people on this list as "Anthroposophists"; the separatism of claiming that "Anthroposophists" are confused and hard to talk to; the robotic use of propaganda and association smear tactics under the guise of a supposed critically focused "textural analysis" that paints a completely bias, and disgustingly ugly picture of RS, anthroposophy and "Its defenders," in order to prop himself, and his bias agenda (if he even has one).

... into the limelight of the label: "Intellectual historian."

Well, Detlef says that Dottie is a historian too. I think that Bradford is a Spiritual Scientist. Tarjei says he's a Web guru (or something like that). All these labels got me to thinking about which one I should have....and then it came to me...

If Peter S. is a Historian, then I am a Psychologist.

So screw your "Textural analysis." How about some good old fashioned psycho-analysis? Care to talk about the fact that you are still recovering from your Catholic upbringing?

I met a recovering Catholic at a primal scream therapy men's retreat once. He had a similar psychological make-up: He was 38 years old; strong intellectual bias; a naturalist; a Chompsky admirer; a libertarian communist; atheist; had no need for metaphorical understanding; always had an opposing idea to focus on and argue about....

Come to find out that he had repressed memories of being sexually abused by an uncle when he was a child. His Catholic shame and guilt had caused him to build up a strong "intellectual self defense" over many years.

Even without the sexual abuse, Catholic shame and guilt can influence a persons motives considerably, especially when considering subject matter of a spiritual nature.

So based on your writings to date, and your seeming lack of empathetic skills in comparison to your intellectual prowess, there seems to be a major imbalance. My diagnosis is that you have not yet recovered enough from your traumatic Catholic up-bringing to be truly objective in your analysis of RS and Anthroposophy in General.

My recommendations based on personal experience tell me that either hypno, or primal scream therapy (or both) might be helpful in your case. Also there are many Twelve step fellowship off-shoots these days that could be of help. Even if you think you don't have a problem, you could go to Ala-non if you know someone that has or has had a drinking problem. Or, if you ever got a little close to the edge of having a drinking habit, you especially might like a group called "Rational Recovery."

So, if you do a thorough self analysis first, and share your true motives for your "textural analysis" research and personal opinions of RS's writings, you might find a more empathetic view in general of your own writings from an even broader populace, and the need for negitive attention will fall away.

Then, a true historian, will you be.

Mike Helsher - Psychologist

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

From: winters_diana
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 2:18 pm
Subject: Re: racist is as Peter S does

Mike Helsher wrote:

So screw your "Textural analysis." How about some good old fashioned psycho-analysis? Care to talk about the fact that you are still recovering from your Catholic upbringing?

I met a recovering Catholic at a primal scream therapy men's retreat once. He had a similar psychological make-up: He was 38 years old; strong intellectual bias; a naturalist; a Chompsky admirer; a libertarian communist; atheist; had no need for metaphorical understanding; always had an opposing idea to focus on and argue about....

Come to find out that he had repressed memories of being sexually abused

This is a disgusting post. I got this far and got really angry.

I have certainly seen childishness in the responses here and elsewhere to criticism of Rudolf Steiner. I understand people feel emotional about it and lose their cool. This is the most vicious thing I have seen. Do you have any idea how vicious it is to shoot your mouth off about something like this FALSELY about a person, on a public list, Mike? Because he doesn't like Rudolf Steiner? Hello, what has Peter Staudenmiaer done to you personally?

Does it occur to you how this feels to anyone who might really be the victim of such abuse, to see such a jab used as a casual insult? "Nah, nah, you must have been sexually abused"!! Are the rest of you disgusted by this, please? I think I may have had about enough of these conversations. There are no limits at all here, no sense of a difference between a public discussion of public topics, and some kind of free-for-all personal bashing. Mike is one mean SOB. I was falsely accused of having called somebody a pedophile, and there were at least murmurs from a few people who could see that it did not happen that way, but it is ok for this jerk to make something like this up about someone, spread it around on a public list, not caring who he hurts or even what he is even saying, just `cus it makes him feel better for a few minutes?

It is a shocking thing to use as an insult.
Diana

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

From: zapdingo
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 2:23 pm
Subject: Re: racist is as Peter S does

Mike wrote:

If Peter S. is a Historian, then I am a Psychologist.

Considering his methodology of defining all the parameters that sustain his arguments and purposefully ignoring anything that contradicts them, if PS were an engineer, his bridges would collapse; if he were a doctor, his patients would die; if he were a cook, his food would stink. I guess we're lucky he is a "historian".

Good luck in your new profession, Mike. I myself decided that since I like to read poetry, I am going to be a poet. Here it goes, my first poem:

Violets are red
Roses are blue
I am a genius
And PS is a replicant
Oh replicant please enlighten us
Do androids dream of electric sheep?

Bryan

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 3:52 pm
Subject: Re: racist is as Peter S does

Hey Diana,

I didn't get that Mike was insinuating that Peter was abused. It feels a bit to me like you may be overacting a bit. I don't mean that in a condescending way rather in a way when you say to others here they are being paranoid. It seems we have a lot of baggage from many years of interacting with one another and it is hard to start aknew for people generally you and me included.

As you know I do come from rape and molestation for many years as a child and I was not offended because it did not seem he was saying this was Peters issue he was relating him to a guy who has had issues with Catholism and one of them also happened to be that he was molested.

I am going to post a great point that Mr. Prokofieff brings up about what the preachers of Catholism have to lose if the people start having their own revelations and experience Christ without their authority. There are things I love about Catholism and things I do not like. For instance I love their ongoing evolution of the Feminine Divine in relations to God. Of all the Christians, in as far as I can tell, as a group, they are the ones slowly bringing Sophia or the Feminine Divine to the forefront. They just like to do it in their own time. But one day we will all be free and there will be no price on who gets what as it will be man for mans own revelation.

So, take a breath on this, Peter has doggedly refused to be accountable for his misunderstandings and mistranslations of words. And just as you were once acused of possibly denoting a pedophile and so forth, Peter is actually acusing a great man who spoke against racial and blood ties and violence to actually be a racist nazi ideologue. So, yes, although Dr. Steiner is not physically with us his works are worthy of defending so future generations of people who so wish to check him out are not confronted first and foremost by these smearing charges that have been shown to be wrong over and over again.

It's all good,

Dottie

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

From: Mike Helsher
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 5:25 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: racist is as Peter S does

Bryan wrote:

<sadly snipping beautiful poem>

And PS is a replicant
Oh replicant please enlighten us
Do androids dream of electric sheep?


And the replicant speaks in mono tone and says:

"No they do not

We are the Borg

You will be assimilated

resistance is futile

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 6:20 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: racist is as Peter S does

Diana wrote:

I have certainly seen childishness in the responses here and elsewhere to criticism of Rudolf Steiner. I understand people feel emotional about it and lose their cool. This is the most vicious thing I have seen. Do you have any idea how vicious it is to shoot your mouth off about something like this FALSELY about a person, on a public list, Mike? Because he doesn't like Rudolf Steiner? Hello, what has Peter Staudenmiaer done to you personally?

I get the sense that Mike and others like him really do think that I've done something terrible to them personally. When you look at Steiner not as a historical figure but as your own personal route to salvation, the bearer of spiritual Truth and the harbinger of cosmic redemption, the mouthpiece of Higher Powers, then you're bound to take it personally when less credulous types point out that he was actually just a guy who taught a lot of doctrines, some of them nifty and some of them nasty.

Dottie replied to Diana:

So, take a breath on this, Peter has doggedly refused to be accountable for his misunderstandings and mistranslations of words.

That's true. Since I didn't translate the words in question, it would be rather beside the point for me to take responsibility for their supposed mistranslation, and since I don't agree with your understanding of those words, it would be rather beside the point for me to pretend otherwise. What most folks do in situations like that is discuss their respective understandings to see which ones are compatible with the actual texts and which ones are simply "misunderstandings". I invite you and all other listmates to give this a try some time.

Peter is actually acusing a great man who spoke against racial and blood ties and violence to actually be a racist nazi ideologue.

That's not true. I don't accuse Steiner of being a Nazi ideologue. I do say that many of his racial doctrines are racist. Lots of "great men" held racist views.

So, yes, although Dr. Steiner is not physically with us his works are worthy of defending so future generations of people who so wish to check him out are not confronted first and foremost by these smearing charges that have been shown to be wrong over and over again.

Now there's an interesting line of argument. Why would it bother you, Dottie, that people learning about Steiner for the first time might encounter interpretations of his work that you consider to be wrong? Are you trying to say that his works are simultaneously worthy of defending, but also defenseless against critique? That it would be better if people only saw one perspective on his work, rather than several, because they might get too confused or something? It seems to me that if you really want to defend Steiner's work, and if you really are as confident as you claim to be that this work is obviously and unmistakably anti-racist, then you ought to welcome critiques like mine, since they will simply make your point for you. Perhaps you could explain why you feel differently. Thanks,

Peter

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 7:26 pm
Subject: Re: racist is as Peter S does

Peter Staudenmaier:

I get the sense that Mike and others like him really do think that I've done something terrible to them personally.

Give us a break will you Peter. Your silly words with 'oh they take it personally is full of peanut butter. Truly. You are smearing the name of a good man who helps enlighten us to a better way of being versus the way society has raised us to be so teritorial about things: family, country, race. Dr. Steiner has demystified the lock stock and barrel mentallity we, including you and Diana were raised with.

You want a free reign to malign a teachers work who has helped make this world a better place you get no free ride. No your what the hell you are talking about or sit down. It is not only on this group nor on this subject you have shown your self to utterly inept. There are others as we have seen from earlier posts here at AT. Your method of operation has been stopped in its tracks by Mr. Detlef Hardorp and his ability to share with us your tragic error of mistranslating a word that shows up once in the format you are hailing as an 'eye opener'. You are too obtuse to actually realize you have been shown to be wrong. Nothign we can do about that. But we will not allow you to have free reign with your stupidity that can actually affect possibly future generations with your ignorance regarding Dr. Steiner.

Peter:

When you look at Steiner not as a historical figure but as your own personal route to salvation,

Oh shut up Staudenmaier. You are so full of shit. Seriously. Christ is our salvation not Dr. Steiner. Dr. Steiner is one of the many teachers, albeit one of the greatest, that have led us to a better understanding of how to obtain freedom from that which is all around us and stands as maya in reality.

Peter:

I invite you and all other listmates to give this a try some time.

And I invite you to get a life Peter. Man ol man ol man.

Peter:

That's not true. I don't accuse Steiner of being a Nazi ideologue. I do say that many of his racial doctrines are racist. Lots of "great men" held racist views.

Oh Peter, we are talking about a great man who spoke against blood and country ties. So, I don't know if he was a 'a great man' in the way you speak. I do know he was a great man of spirit who worked real hard to share with people that we must move past blood and national ties in our world. And I am not going to play games with you again. You do propose him to be a nazi ideologue and we ain't having none of it. And, now it is 'many of his racial doctrines are racist, you must be kidding me. You obviously forget that the list you are speaking with actually have thinking powers of their own versus following you down the rabbit hole with out a wonder in their brains if you know what the hell you are saying or even doing. We are not on the PLANS site where everything you say is met with 'yes Peter, yes Peter, yes Peter...we've done our homework Peter. Time for you to catch up.

Wake up Peter,
Dottie

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

From: Mike Helsher
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 8:07 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: racist is as Peter S does

Mike Helsher wrote:

So screw your "Textural analysis." How about some good old fashioned psycho-analysis? Care to talk about the fact that you are still recovering from your Catholic upbringing?

I met a recovering Catholic at a primal scream therapy men's retreat once. He had a similar psychological make-up: He was 38 years old; strong intellectual bias; a naturalist; a Chompsky admirer; a libertarian communist; atheist; had no need for metaphorical understanding; always had an opposing idea to focus on and argue about....

Come to find out that he had repressed memories of being sexually abused

This is a disgusting post. I got this far and got really angry.

I have certainly seen childishness in the responses here and elsewhere to criticism of Rudolf Steiner. I understand people feel emotional about it and lose their cool. This is the most vicious thing I have seen. Do you have any idea how vicious it is to shoot your mouth off about something like this FALSELY about a person, on a public list, Mike? Because he doesn't like Rudolf Steiner? Hello, what has Peter Staudenmiaer done to you personally?

Does it occur to you how this feels to anyone who might really be the victim of such abuse, to see such a jab used as a casual insult? "Nah, nah, you must have been sexually abused"!! Are the rest of you disgusted by this, please? I think I may have had about enough of these conversations. There are no limits at all here, no sense of a difference between a public discussion of public topics, and some kind of free-for-all personal bashing. Mike is one mean SOB. I was falsely accused of having called somebody a pedophile, and there were at least murmurs from a few people who could see that it did not happen that way, but it is ok for this jerk to make something like this up about someone, spread it around on a public list, not caring who he hurts or even what he is even saying, just `cus it makes him feel better for a few minutes?

It is a shocking thing to use as an insult.
Diana

Dear Diana,

I am sincerely sorry that you felt insulted by my post. It was meant as absurd satirical rhetoric, with an ironic twist. And yes, I can be a mean SOB; primarily because I've been there, done that, bought the t-shirt. I have paid dearly for my ignorance and arrogance over the years. I've been to the institutions, the jails, and came close to death many times. Many of my friends are dead, but they didn't put "death by addiction" on their death certificates. And the only thing that has really made a difference for me, and the few people that I know now that are living a life that is worth living, is a spiritual solution found in an open-minded approach to what started as the Twelve Steps of AA. RS Prophesied the coming of "a raise against alcohol" in his Gospel of Saint John Lectures, along with an end to racial separation, as exemplified in "The marriage of Cana."

I have found in my reading of RS a further extension on what It could mean to seek through "prayer and meditation to improve" my "conscious contact" with a power greater than my intellect, and possess "knowledge of [Loves] will, and the power to carry it out", as it is written in the eleventh step of a twelve step program. And I have also found some understanding as to the bizarre synchronistic events, as well as lucid dream experiences that have cursed/blessed me from childhood to the present day. Many of which my wife can attest to. And she is probably one of the most non dogmatically religious people I have ever met - luckily for me.

So I'm hoping that you can understand why I feel so insulted by his irreverence toward RS. I'm guessing that it is similar to the feelings that you had toward my post. He posts on an Anthroposophy list in an occasionally surfacey polite style, but his arrogance is quite obvious to me, as I'm sure that mine is to you, and him. But at least I'm honest about my own arrogance. If someone fucks with something that I have reverence for, to much, I'm eventually going to tell them to fuck-off; that's who I am, that's the way I am right now; maybe that will change; maybe not. He says that I should separate ideas from my feelings about them, yet he hasn't shown me that he has been able to do that himself; it's hypocrisy 101. The idea of putting "Principles before personalities" is something that I have heard dogmatically over and over again, and I have seen great things come out of groups that worked hard to adopt this ideal. One of the principles that I think is helpful is a genuine respect for someone else's ideas, even if I find them to be dumb. Another principle that I found helpful is a genuine concern for the person you are conversing with - something like altruism, or what I like to call true empathy (something I find RS to have talked allot about, which PS refers to as "Steiner's platitudes on love"). I think these and other principles to be prerequisites to healthy productive conversation. And I will be the first one to say that I do not have a handle on them all the time, but I do give it my best on occasion, and sometimes I say fuck-it, the truth be known.

Although I do not agree with your opinion about everything you share on this list, I must say that I do appreciate your participation and I hope that you don't leave on my account. I appreciated your recent post about what you liked about WE and I have noticed that you slip out a sloppy compliment on occasion. I like that. For what it's worth, I don't have allot of reverence for what I see as a waldorfian orthodoxy that I have experienced since my involvement with WE. And I can understand how someone who came in without allot of knowledge, could start to feel it to be sectarian and other worldly. I don't think that RS ever intended it to be that way. But such is the nature of idealistic groups in general, I think.

But beyond the shortcomings of the individuals that are trying to do what they think is right, I see an impulse that is as pure as the light that streams from the Sun. For me it is the same impulse that started AA. RS called it the Christ impulse. Jung called it the "Archetypes of the unconscious." I don't think it matters what we call it: weather the impulse of "Elliot the purple dragon"; the Dylan impulse; the U2 impulse; the MLK impulse; the Gandhi impulse; the mother Teresa impulse; the Ben Franklin impulse; the Abraham Lincoln impulse; the Uncle Taz impulse; the Frank Zappa Impulse; and maybe even the original impulse that started the Waldorf Critics.

With as much respect as I can muster in the moment.

Mike

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 10:40 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: racist is as Peter S does

Hi Dottie, you wrote:

Give us a break will you Peter. Your silly words with 'oh they take it personally is full of peanut butter. Truly.

I wish I could agree with you, but I'm afraid you're simply wrong about that. Tarjei, for example, says quite explicitly that he takes discussions of anthroposophy's history personally. And Mike just told all of us that he is personally insulted by what I write about Steiner's doctrines. Unless Mike thinks he is a reincarnation of Steiner, how could he possibly feel that way? There are a couple of listmates here who avoid foolish behavior of this sort, but a large number of you fall into it again and again. I think that is a big part of why critical discussion of anthroposophical race theory so often meets with intense and irrational aversion on this list.

You are smearing the name of a good man who helps enlighten us to a better way of being versus the way society has raised us to be so teritorial about things: family, country, race.

I don't see how it counts as smearing to point out that a lot of what Steiner said and wrote about race is racist. Merely recognizing this will hardly prevent you from relying on Steiner to find a better way of being. It's not an all-or-nothing proposition; you don't need to chuck all of Steiner out the window because some of what he taught was racist claptrap.

Dr. Steiner has demystified the lock stock and barrel mentallity we, including you and Diana were raised with.

That's great. What does it have to do with whether some of his doctrines are racist?

You want a free reign to malign a teachers work who has helped make this world a better place you get no free ride.

Lots of people who helped make this world a better place held racist views, Dottie. Why is this still news to you? This evening I happened to read some of Alexis de Tocqueville's racist passages from his famous book Democracy in America. The fact that the book contains racist passages does not mean that people should stop reading it, nor does it mean that everything else Tocqueville did and said should be disregarded. In the case of someone like Steiner, the task at hand is to determine what role the racial doctrines play within anthroposophy as a whole and how these elements could be re-worked to remove the racist assumptions.

There are others as we have seen from earlier posts here at AT.

It is certainly true that anthroposophists are not alone in disliking critical scrutiny of their belief system.

Your method of operation has been stopped in its tracks by Mr. Detlef Hardorp and his ability to share with us your tragic error of mistranslating a word that shows up once in the format you are hailing as an 'eye opener'.

Yes, Detlef's arguments work wonders with people like you. You evidently now believe that I translated Steiner's book on 'folk souls' ! I don't know how to say this without pissing you off even more, but I'm afraid you're just not the kind of person that I write for. The kind of people I write for see right through arguments like Detlef's and Daniel's, and they laugh at stuff like Sune's posts. I think this has a lot to do with why you and other listmates so often see me as condescending; I do expect certain standards from my readers, and a number of you apparently believe that these standards were invented in order to hoodwink unsuspecting anthropsophists.

But we will not allow you to have free reign with your stupidity that can actually affect possibly future generations with your ignorance regarding Dr. Steiner.

That still doesn't make sense. If you think that my claims about Steiner's work are obviously false, then how could they negatively affect future generations of Steiner readers?

Dr. Steiner is one of the many teachers, albeit one of the greatest, that have led us to a better understanding of how to obtain freedom from that which is all around us and stands as maya in reality.

That's great. What does it have to do with whether some of his doctrines are racist?

Oh Peter, we are talking about a great man who spoke against blood
and country ties.

Yep. In your mind, this apparently means that he could not possibly have held any racist views. All that tells us is that you haven't thought very much about it. It is scarcely impossible for people who speak against blood and country ties to hold racist views. It isn't even particularly uncommon. Lots and lots of racist thinkers mixed their racist views with non-racist views. Lots of them preached love and redemption and spiritual renewal. This does not mean that their racist beliefs magically stopped being racist.

I do know he was a great man of spirit who worked real hard to share with people that we must move past blood and national ties in our world.

Yes, that he did. And he also worked real hard to share with people that black people are substantially determined by childhood characteristics, that white people are the spiritually creative race and the race of the future, that some racial groups are higher than others, that people can be spiritually understood through the color of their skin, that non-white skin is due to atavistic powers, and so forth.

You do propose him to be a nazi ideologue

No, I don't. Steiner was not a Nazi ideologue. I've said this over and over again. If you think that I said he was a Nazi ideologue, perhaps you can point out where? Thanks,


Peter

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

From: Patrick
Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 4:07 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: racist is as Peter S does

Dear Mr. Staudenmaier,

Since you didn't respond to a direct post I made to you, I assumed that you did not want to continue discussing your matters at hand with me. Therefore, I would like to make a final statement to you. I reject your notion of racism. To my understanding calling someone racist must include the following: that the named party judges another individual on the basis of race and thereby looks down on the person, places limits on them, refuses to see any possibility that they might change themselves or improve their lot, that there are boundaries to their abilities due to their race. To date, the logical consequence of such an attitude is best expressed in the phenomenon known as national socialism. The genocide perpetrated on the Jews is an ultimate expression of this view. There may of course be lesser consequences such as a laughing at another human being because of his race, not giving him a job which he is qualified for, making demeaning statements about him because of perceived racial traits, and so on. A path of development that offers exercises to train each human spirit in the art of seeing the potential of the human being, realizing with reverence his or her "I", thereby fostering the free expression of the other is not racist, but the opposite. Statements about the evolution of cultures in the spirit of understanding of the development of humanity do not qualify as racist. A racist notion about another human being must also be, at basis, physically biological to qualify as truly racist as I define it. You are adopting a posture that there can be a person who has racist ideas yet not act on them. You are wielding the sword "racism" and saying that it need not have a sting. You say, "many great benefactors of humanity have had racist ideas!" And don't try to pull the wool over my eyes, when you use words like "claptrap" and "nasty" to describe Steiner's ideas with regard to cultures, you clearly wish to impugn him. Racism is a nasty thing, I agree, and so do most legislatures throughout the world. That is why there are laws against hate crimes and racist remarks. That is why public figures are fired when they make such remarks. Racism, as I define it, must be wiped out if humanity is to develop beyond its present stage. We can trace virtually every problem facing us today to some sort of prejudice. Rudolf Steiner and anthroposophy work diligently to bring an end to racism in all its forms by showing the danger of nationalistic impulses, of basing our thinking, feeling, and willing on blood ties, and fostering a spiritual attitude that encourages not passing judgment on the other for any reason. You are on the attack, and I believe that you know it. You are participating in a smear campaign against Rudolf Steiner and anthroposophy. This is not the first time this charge has been leveled against you. I quote now from http://www.anarchist-studies.org/article/articleview/45/1/1 , a reply by Jason McQuinn to your article in response to his article.

"Unfortunately, the response that has appeared may be "against post-left anarchism," but careful evaluation and rational criticism play little part. Instead, readers of Staudenmaier's essay, "Anarchists in Wonderland," *are presented with a strange combination of evasion, mystification, insinuation and petty complaints or smears.* (astrisks mine--Patrick) The straightforward engagement with my own and others' post-left arguments — the clear statement and explanation of differences I had hoped to read — is absent. Instead, the title of my editorial in the new Fall/Winter issue (#56) of Anarchy magazine, "The Evasion of Discussion in the Radical Milieu," now seems prescient, as if I knew beforehand the lack of response I would actually get in this particular debate.

One might expect that Staudenmaier would critically evaluate the most important aspects of the post-left anarchist critique in his essay, citing quotations from the most important essays on the subject, questioning their arguments and counterpoising his own. Instead he ignores most of what has been said and fails to address the most prominent post-left anarchist writers. Instead, he makes insinuations that are never backed up with evidence. *He snipes at non-essential points as though they had some important meaning. He deliberately mystifies what has been clearly stated, whether through lack of ability to counter the arguments, or through an understanding that there are no convincing ways to counter them.* And nowhere is he able to define what is positive about leftism and therefore worth preserving."

Although you note surprise that members on this list level similar charges at you, I find your responses disingenuous at best. You also show your true colors when you claim that you can't be lying if you believe it. Personally, I think that if someone speaks an untruth, he has lied and needs to take responsibility for it. For the sake of rhetoric did you open your often quoted article, Anthroposophy and Ecofascism, with hyperbole. Its too bad that you didn't take to heart Rudolf Steiner's advice in the Spiritual Foundations of Morality. You have quoted from it often enough to add fuel to your racist theories with regard to anthroposophy. He said:

for instance, take a man whom you know to have written or said to something false, and place the facts before him. As a rule, you'll find he does not feel such a thing to be wrong. He will immediately make good excuse: but I said it in good faith. Anthroposophists must not consider it moral when a person says it is merely incorrect what he said in good faith. People will learn to understand more and more, that they must first ascertain that what they assert really happened. No man should make a statement, or impart anything to another until he has exhausted every means to ascertain the truth of his assertions; and it is only when he recognizes this obligation that he can perceive veracity as moral impulse. And then when someone has either written or said something that is incorrect, he'll no longer say: I thought it was so, I said in good faith, for he will learn that it is his duty to express not merely what he thinks his right but it is also his duty to say only what is true, and correct. To this end a radical change must gradually come about in our cultural life.

I would continue to discuss these matters with you but I do not sense any humility or a willingness to learn from others. I have heard others on this list admit mistakes or at least soften their stance toward you. You have done neither. Others on the list have been obnoxious and abusive, I readily admit. If it were my place to apologize for them I would. For now, I earnestly ask you to reconsider your untruthful campaign.

Sincerely,

Patrick

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

From: winters_diana
Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 6:40 pm
Subject: Re: racist is as Peter S does

I'm sure Peter will have a go at this, but I just cannot resist.

Patrick wrote:

I reject your notion of racism.

And if we were to take Patrick's definition of racism, then obviously, nothing Rudolf Steiner ever said or wrote could be considered racist. Anthroposophists might stop to consider that no matter how sincerely such a position is held, to the outside world, it is clear evidence of bias and denial regarding one's own guru, to simply posit upfront a limited definition of racism according to which the beloved leader cannot be racist.

All of these things you said must be included before someone can be called racist are sometimes ways that a racist might behave but they certainly do not cover the territory, in fact they are very, very naïve:

To my understanding calling someone racist must include the following: that the named party judges another individual on the basis of race and thereby looks down on the person, places limits on them, refuses to see any possibility that they might change themselves or improve their lot, that there are boundaries to their abilities due to their race.

Obviously, then, Steiner was not racist. No one who believes in reincarnation can be racist, according to this definition. Is there any anthroposophist here willing to admit that this cannot be a good definition, if simply believing in reincarnation means a person can't be racist? Anthroposophists do judge the person's race, to the extent that they subscribe to Rudolf Steiner's descriptions of racial characteristics and missions. They don't judge the individual because they believe the individual will reincarnate in other races in other lifetimes. (I wrote an earlier post on this point which I recall got no response: Racism is not about saying bad things about individuals - it is saying bad things about races.)

So, they say they say they won't "place limits" on a person owing to their race. Not in this lifetime. They believe there are no boundaries to a person's abilities due to their race only because they believe the person is not limited to that race forever. It is thus possible to ascribe various unflattering characteristics to particular races, and hold truly dangerous ideas about the "advancement" and "decline" of various races peopling the planet today, and yet believe oneself not to be a racist. It is insidious and very, very twisted.

To date, the logical consequence of such an attitude is best expressed in the phenomenon known as national socialism. The genocide perpetrated on the Jews is an ultimate expression of this view. There may of course be lesser consequences such as a laughing at another human being because of his race,

You mention the most extreme example to juxtapose it in a trivializing way with the least extreme example. Ok – one consequence could be laughing at another human being because of his race. This doesn't sound too terrible, and it has the advantage of making charges of racism against Steiner seem silly. Steiner probably didn't laugh at people of different races. Another consequence of racism might be believing you should not laugh at another person because of their race because the person will some day be another race, and you yourself might someday be the laughed-at race. A sort of "There but for the grace of God go I" attitude toward people who have the misfortune or bad karma to incarnate in the not-so-evolved races.

not giving him a job which he is qualified for, making demeaning statements about him because of perceived racial traits, and so on. A path of development that offers exercises to train each human spirit in the art of seeing the potential of the human being, realizing with reverence his or her "I", thereby fostering the free expression of the other is not racist, but the opposite.

That is one criterion for a "path of development" not to be racist, but there are more criteria. That's not good enough. For it to not be racist it has to also explicitly reject descriptions of the races of humanity that value or judge them as being different spiritually. Sorry – your criteria are carefully selected to flatter yourself and don't address the issues. It is not good enough to consider yourself very tolerant because you "see someone's potential." Oppressors always see themselves as helping the lower races or lower classes "reach their potential," "foster their expression," etc. In fact racists almost always express their lofty visions in such terms.

Not good enough! Not by a long shot!

Consider setting a higher standard for anthroposophy today! Why wait for anthroposophy tomorrow? Consider advancing anthroposophy by having the courage to make it better!

Statements about the evolution of cultures in the spirit of understanding of the development of humanity do not qualify as racist.

Is it possible educated people today believe this? It can't be racist if it is all about "understanding the development of humanity"? You're really scaring me. Many racists have believed they do what they do out of a "spirit of understanding of the development of humanity." If that is all it takes to be doin' good works, God help us.

You are adopting a posture that there can be a person who has racist ideas yet not act on them.

Uh - yes. This never occurred to you? I'm sure most racists never act on their ideas.

You are wielding the sword "racism" and saying that it need not have a sting. You say, "many great benefactors of humanity have had racist ideas!" And don't try to pull the wool over my eyes, when you use words like "claptrap" and "nasty" to describe Steiner's ideas with regard to cultures, you clearly wish to impugn him.

Well obviously. Why do you guys play so dumb? Why, oh why, can't you deal with this, instead of getting hung up on the supposed insult and hurt feelings of Rudolf Steiner, who is dead, note to anthroposophists, he's dead, he's not upset about being "impugned."

Discuss the issues!

Diana

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 7:36 pm
Subject: Re: racist is as Peter S does

Diana:

Well obviously. Why do you guys play so dumb? Why, oh why, can't you deal with this, instead of getting hung up on the supposed insult and hurt feelings of Rudolf Steiner, who is dead, note to anthroposophists, he's dead, he's not upset about being "impugned."

Discuss the issues!

Diana, we have discussed the issues. You just do not like the answers we agree on mostly here. Nothing we can do about this. You have a rigid view of what is racist and I do not believe it is the norm. It is a politically correct view that has no life in it. To discuss it is to be a racist almost in the way I have understood you. People can not say this culture does this better and this one is dying out and so forth without you being up in shackles.

Nobody is playing dumb. The same thing could be said back to you as to why are you playing dumb when issues of relevance come up that disputes your understanding of Dr. Steiner. It looks like you are holding onto some views for dear life. Nothing anyone can do about that either.

And it is not about hurt feelings for Dr. Steiner. It is about right and wrong. Your perception is skewed by your experience of one Waldorf school. PLANS goes on and on as if, as if, their experiences are the norm, apart from spiritual things, and all else should be thrown out with the bath water. Again I have to say PLANS is a small group of people with a gripe about seperation of church and state. These other things that are wanting to be said are differences in what one believes is best for children in school as far as reading and so forth. Patrick has put up some really good responses to your points and I have to say it looks like you negate them immediately. Nothing we can do about that. You either are willing to see that your experience is not the 'norm', apart from spirituality, or you think it is. It is apparant to me over the years PLANS experiences stand in the minute minority of things. Not to say again that these are not valid. They are. However to act as if this is the real Waldorf I do believe you are mistaken from what I have been able to listen in on a few years back and here on this list.

If anything I think the whole 'cult' thing has been demystified as well. It seems to me it really is just a difference in opinions regarding school practices or curriculum. There is no Anthroposophy agenda to bring in others. Hell I have gone to the bookstore at least five times now and I have never been approached to become an Anthroposophists nor even asked if I was one or any of that. The hysteria built around PLANS is just ridiculous.

So, point being :) just as you are taken up for Peter at times so do the Steiner students. Time to get over that point.

Dottie

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

From: holderlin66
Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 11:07 pm
Subject: Re: racist is as Peter S does/Patrick

What Patrick wrote was so balanced, fair and well thought out that I was stunned. Warmly shocked! Not that I underestimated Patrick, but rather that it was very hard to assemble the truths against the misconceptions with such clarity and patience as Patrick assembled them and organized them.

Just straight out - How lucky I am to have been able to share some of Patricks comments on his years of warmed Waldorf Intelligence. All the contributors have been fairly interesting. Having been a Waldorf Teacher, having met and loved Frances Edmunds, there was a kind of rich thinking, warmed, wholesome, in depth, solid, and noble moral substance that wove in Edmunds thinking. Not phony noble, but as with so much of schooled thinking, it becomes first stunned by Steiner and gradually builds up a research eye for organized thoughts, linked to healthy thoughts that not only rebuild nature, but defend the child. All of this and more was certainly evident in Patricks well wrought wholesomeness.

Deconstruction-

Yes, if you want to play as if you need to sound intelligent, you can deconstruct goodness. You can pick it all apart but the problem with those who do that, they can't put Humpty back together again. It is easy to shatter and deconstruct, it is richer and clearer to see how it works constructively. You can deconstruct wholesomeness and you can deconstruct common sense and no where is this more evident than in our current President. Everything, for the sake of egotistical cunning can be deconstructed and hung out, like some rag in the winds. But a shattered world is only reassuring to shattered souls and we should understand the miracle of being able to put the world together and offer it whole to a child or to a striving adult.

Recognition is good. We feel the heart, mind and warmth in the tone and if you cannot fathom this warmed insight as it flows into hundreds of tiny hearts and watching the ripening of rich thought and skill into well grounded, Waldorf Graduate Hearts and Minds, well you have been utterly deprived. Many are deprived. They can't imagine that rich warmth, objective insight and wholesome detail arrive smoothly and richly in the schooled eye and build a child up not tear it down. And frankly whining about your shattered dysfunctional reasons for deconstucting healthy thinking becomes merely an excuse.

It takes an effort to sort out the jagged edges and look at the issues, stand and face the questions by stinging intellects, and warmly testify to the reality of the mineral, plant, animal, I AM and the vast generous outline of races.

Tarjei considered that since we had nothing to do with how the Divine Beings arranged the different Racial groups, that God certainly could not be considered a Racist. If we research the whole body of humanity, and that includes the capacities of etheric bodies, we come to such doorway that Bradford indicated as well. Christ is a Fact. But how so does this fact become the whole body of humanity and include Reincarnation"

St. Paul:

1st Corinthians

"14Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. 15If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. 16And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. 17If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20As it is, there are many parts, but one body.

21The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!" 22On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it. 27Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. "

Racism, even if Paul was not Poltically correct with the Women of his day, The whole Body of humanity is intricately important. By examining the gifts of each part, and including the 12 fold sense system and the distribution of Etheric Racial characteristics according to the accurate Bradfordian logic of the Newtonian Rainbow of Noah, the unfolding from Atlantis to Civil Rights and Ethnic cleansing, still reveals a fundamental fact. That the world and answers can make whole what has been shattered and deconstructed.

Since we live in an I AM and Consciousness Soul culture under the mandate of Reincarnation, anyone who holds Racist views doesn't get it. They are frauds. Have dysfunctional and retarded thinking which they don't own up to but seek to put the blame on others seeking the reasons behind this worlds mysteries. And by example our beloved deconstructionist rush to mis-represent and retard humanity to keep the ever present reminder of shattered thinking as somehow the norm.

So Turning Racism on its head was only a secondary off shoot of an entire foundational grounding for I AM ethics and insights authored by Spiritual Science. Anyone who cannot approach the warmth that Patrick unfolded has some issues and those issues twisting and writhing in a strange dance below the consciousness of the person who takes issue with Patricks explanations are decidedly subjective and dysfunctional.

This naturally applies to any Waldorf Teacher who also doesn't get it. We have all encountered very bad examples of dysfunctional Waldorf Teachers and my read is that Patrick is not one of them, at least in the response he struggled nobly to present. I think he did a fine job. Did I say I thought Patrick did an elevating fine job? Hmm thought I did.. Anyway, I thought Patrick did an elevated and fine job at presenting a balanced and sane response.

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 11:24 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: racist is as Peter S does

Hi Patrick, thanks for your post. You wrote:

I reject your notion of racism.

No problem. I don't demand that everybody else share my take on the matter. But I do think it's more than a little odd that some of you consider this understanding of racism eccentric and politically correct; to me, this indicates a lack of experience discussing racism in a historically informed way.

To my understanding calling someone racist must include the following: that the named party judges another individual on the basis of race and thereby looks down on the person, places limits on them, refuses to see any possibility that they might change themselves or improve their lot, that there are boundaries to their abilities due to their race.

That's a fine summary. But it is obviously inadequate, in my view. According to this definition, a whole lot of people, including historical figures, who are widely recognized as racists would no longer count as such.

To date, the logical consequence of such an attitude is best expressed in the phenomenon known as national socialism. The genocide perpetrated on the Jews is an ultimate expression of this view.

I very much disagree. Nazi racism was a conspicuously peculiar variant of racism. The holocaust is not the ultimate expression of racism as such, it is the ultimate expression of Nazism. Most varieties of racism, historically as well as today, are significantly unlike Nazism in several crucial respects.

There may of course be lesser consequences such as a laughing at another human being because of his race, not giving him a job which he is qualified for, making demeaning statements about him because of perceived racial traits, and so on.

Yes, those are other instances of racism.

A path of development that offers exercises to train each human spirit in the art of seeing the potential of the human being, realizing with reverence his or her "I", thereby fostering the free expression of the other is not racist, but the opposite.

Why? Nothing in your sentence says anything at all about race. But racism as an ideology is a set of beliefs about race. It is not a set of beliefs about human potential or about the "I". These latter sorts of beliefs are quite compatible with racist beliefs.

Statements about the evolution of cultures in the spirit of understanding of the development of humanity do not qualify as racist.

Not if they're merely statements about cultures. But when they're also statements about races, then yes, they do indeed qualify as racist. Racists believe that some racial groups are higher than others and more advanced than others. Non-racists do not believe this.

A racist notion about another human being must also be , at basis, physically biological to qualify as truly racist as I define it.

That's another good reason to change your definition. By your definition, Julius Evola was not a racist, and Alfred Rosenberg was a borderline case. That's a very good indication that your definition won't cut it, historically speaking.

You are adopting a posture that there can be a person who has racist ideas yet not act on them.

Yes, of course I am adopting such a position. My grandmother has lots of racist ideas. As far as I know, she has never acted on them. Do you find that somehow difficult to grasp?

You are wielding the sword "racism" and saying that it need not have a sting.

But that is obvious. Some people have proudly claimed the appellation "racist" for themselves. It plainly carried no sting for them. I have to ask again: Do you find that somehow difficult to grasp? Why?

You say, "many great benefactors of humanity have had racist ideas!"

Yes indeed. Are you trying to say that you deny this??

And don't try to pull the wool over my eyes, when you use words like "claptrap" and "nasty" to describe Steiner's ideas with regard to cultures, you clearly wish to impugn him.

To impugn the ideas that he taught which I consider racist, yes. I'm not sure why that seemed like an attempt to pull wool over your eyes.

You are participating in a smear campaign against Rudolf Steiner and anthroposophy.

I still don't see why it is smearing to say that some of Steiner's doctrines were racist. It would be a sad day for productive discourse to proclaim that publicly aired criticism counts as a "smear campaign".

This is not the first time this charge has been leveled against you.

Quite so. I take it you don't know who Jason McQuinn is?

Although you note surprise that members on this list level similar charges at you

No, I've said several times that this is the sort of thing I expect from True Believers. It is not a surprising phenomenon.

I find your responses disingenuous at best.

Simply because you disagree with them?

You also show your true colors when you claim that you can't be lying if you believe it.

Yes, that is what lying means. People who believe what they are saying are not lying, plain and simple.

Personally, I think that if someone speaks an untruth, he has lied

That is preposterous. If this were the case, then every scientist who ever put forward a hypothesis that was subsequently disproved would be "lying", for example. There are countless such instances in everyday life. Even children can tell the difference between lies and inaccurate claims.

I would continue to discuss these matters with you but I do not sense any humility or a willingness to learn from others.

Virtually everything I know I learned from others. But it is true that I suspect there is relatively little I could learn from you on the topics you've broached here. I'm afraid I think you don't really know what you're talking about much of the time.

I have heard others on this list admit mistakes or at least soften their stance toward you. You have done neither.

That isn't true. I make all sorts of mistakes. And I'm not sure what you mean about softening my stance; my stance isn't particularly hard to begin with. I do not think that you are guilty of lies, forgery, misuse of sources, and so forth. I simply think you have a naive conception of a number of the ideas that you and I have discussed, racism and lying being two recent examples. That doesn't mean you're a terrible person.

For now, I earnestly ask you to reconsider your untruthful campaign.

Okay, I just reconsidered it. Since I don't think that my arguments about Steiner's racial and ethnic doctrines are untruthful, I plan to continue publicizing them. I urge you to do the same.

Sincerely,

Peter

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

From: winters_diana
Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 4:38 am
Subject: Re: racist is as Peter S does

Patrick wrote:

Personally, I think that if someone speaks an untruth, he has lied

This must have something to do with Steiner's view that "thoughts are deeds," but it seems a little mixed up. Thoughts are real actors in the world, almost little Beings, in anthroposophy, they don't just stay inside our heads but go out in the world making trouble whether we intend them to or not. In a sense this can make an "untruth" an extremely damaging thing.

And yet, wouldn't the person's intent be just as important, if not more so? I would think, spiritually, an untruth told unwittingly ought to be less potent than a deliberate lie.

Take Dottie's and my little conversation last night about a long-ago exchange on the critics list. We both remembered it differently, and also experienced it differently at the time. Was one of us "lying"? Patrick, both versions can't be true, so who is lying?

The world is full of lies, in this script, it's a nightmare world. Bradford, I think, paints a true picture of the way an individual comes to view the world when all these interior corners of the mind come to life.

Diana

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 2:14 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: racist is as Peter S does

At 03:40 21.04.2004, Diana wrote:

And if we were to take Patrick's definition of racism, then obviously, nothing Rudolf Steiner ever said or wrote could be considered racist.

What seems to get you WC people up in flames all the time is that some of us have repeated time and time again that although Steiner made statements that could be considered racist, he was not a racist, and Anthroposophy is not racist. You may rage and rave against this all you want, but you cannot expect the consensus on Anthroposophy Tomorrow to be influenced by it.

Anthroposophists might stop to consider that no matter how sincerely such a position is held, to the outside world, it is clear evidence of bias and denial regarding one's own guru, to simply posit upfront a limited definition of racism according to which the beloved leader cannot be racist.

Comparing your own viewpoints with those of "the outside world" reminds me of Adolf Hitler's identification of himself with the German people. If he went down, the people would perish.

Well obviously. Why do you guys play so dumb? Why, oh why, can't you deal with this, instead of getting hung up on the supposed insult and hurt feelings of Rudolf Steiner, who is dead, note to anthroposophists, he's dead, he's not upset about being "impugned."

Anthroposophia is not dead. Christ-Michael is not dead. Neither is the spirit who lived in the personality of Rudolf Steiner. Henrik Ibsen is also "dead" - he died 19 years before RS. He studied Blavatsky's Theosophy. Perhaps that makes him a racist and even a sex magician, I don't know. But trying to argue that will probably be met with resistance from certain quarters, although he's dead. There are all kinds of societies connected to "dead" people. Giordano Bruno is dead. "The Founding Fathers" are dead. John Lennon is dead. James Dean is dead. Does the "dead" status of a person somehow make it more acceptable to defame, falsify and smear? And what about smearing Anthroposophia, who is alive?

Discuss the issues!

The clear anti-racist central element in anthroposophy has been described, documented, and explained so many times that there is nothing more to discuss about it. Raging and raving ranting and repeating your old mantras won't change that. Take your qualude or something.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 8:00 am
Subject: Re: racist is as Peter S does

Not having time to read the mails on this list, I've been configured to web-reading for some time now. Recently I got a bounce message for Miryam15, re-sent, then went to the web-site to see if it had got through. (I still don't know, maybe someone could advise me.) I then looked at some of the recent mails and saw that nothing has changed, the following being fairly typical:

You are wielding the sword "racism" and saying that it need not have a sting. You say, "many great benefactors of humanity have had racist ideas!" And don't try to pull the wool over my eyes, when you use words like "claptrap" and "nasty" to describe Steiner's ideas with regard to cultures, you clearly wish to impugn him.

Well obviously. Why do you guys play so dumb? Why, oh why, can't you deal with this, instead of getting hung up on the supposed insult and hurt feelings of Rudolf Steiner, who is dead, note to anthroposophists, he's dead, he's not upset about being "impugned."

Discuss the issues!

Diana

The way I see it, this argument will never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction, and the list is still disputing the racial accusations of Peter Staudenmaier. He (and his girl Friday, Diana) will never be convinced that he is wrong, and the rest will never be convinced that that he is right. All this is not like a physical science where you can say 1+1=2. It's a matter of preceptions and opinions. So what's the use of continuing? Peter apparently enjoys it; do the rest of you? Imo it's a gigantic waste of time, and the only reason I'm still subscribed is that I promised to continue with the Miryam translation.

Best,

Frank

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 9:59 am
Subject: Re: racist is as Peter S does

Imo it's a gigantic waste of time, and the only reason I'm still subscribed is that I promised to continue with the Miryam translation.

Hey Frank, thank you for staying. I sometimes think that if I continue posting to Peter that somehow the Miryam translation won't show up for the day. Kind of like my old time bargains with the sun when I was a child:) And I agree with you about continuing on this discussion with Peter is a waste of time.

Thanks again,
d

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 1:18 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: racist is as Peter S does

At 17:00 22.04.2004, Frank wrote:

The way I see it, this argument will never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction, and the list is still disputing the racial accusations of Peter Staudenmaier. He (and his girl Friday, Diana) will never be convinced that he is wrong, and the rest will never be convinced that that he is right.

PS has said something to the effect that the reason why he continues to play his old tune incessantly is that his arguments are repeatedly misunderstood due to our confusion, and his endless repetitions are only intended to clarify things so that we may finally see the light at the end of our tunnel of darkness. He is like a missionary who doesn't give up on his pagan flock.

it's a gigantic waste of time,

Absolutely. The positions have been described and explained several times over. The rest is only senseless repetitions, which is terribly boring. It would have been a lot more interesting if PS would play a different tune by elaborating on his own view of biological, geological, astro-physical, cultural, and psychological evolution. Evolution is an aspect of history, a subject that PS claims a great deal of interest in.

Cheers,

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

Stuff

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

From: Jo Ann Schwartz
Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 7:47 am
Subject: To Frank [was: Re: racist is as Peter S does]

--- Frank Thomas Smith wrote:

Recently I got a bounce message for Miryam15, re-sent, then went to the web-site to see if it had got through. (I still don't know, maybe someone could advise me.)

Oh yes, it did arrive, as you must know by now.

[snip]

the only reason I'm still subscribed is that I promised to continue with the Miryam translation.

And we are ever so grateful that you are! If you need more motivation, consider how often you are accused of raising the tone of the joint! <WG>

Musing Love's labors are not lost...

JoAnn

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


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