Peter's
Definitions
Steiner's definitions
From: Detlef Hardorp
Date: Sat Apr 3, 2004 2:00 pm
Subject: Steiner's definitions [was: Peter's definitions]
In
message 4018 PS finally answers my
questions about the "coloured" races. He posted on
Sat Apr 3, 2004 7:31 pm:
DH:
Would it be correct to conclude that any
one of the "coloured races" (i.e. yellow or red or
brown or black) correspond to any one of the five historical
Root-Races themselves?
PS:
No, of course not. According to the first
theosophical usage of "Root-Race", the first two root
races did not have physical bodies.
I add:
We are in complete agreement here, Mr. Staudenmaier!
DH:
Or are the root races Blavatsky speaks
of not in 1-1 correspondence with the "coloured races"?
PS:
No, of course not.
(...) Why are you having trouble grasping that simple fact?
I add:
Again: we are in complete agreement here,
Mr. Staudenmaier! I am not having trouble grasping this simple
fact. I just wanted to make sure that you weren't having
trouble grasping this simple fact. Why might I get the impression
that you might be having trouble grasping this simple fact? That,
my dear Watson, is elementary.
You see, Mr. Staudenmaier has been vehemently
claiming that when Steiner uses the term "Hauptrasse"
in the "Mission..." book, he of course meant "root
races" in the tradition of Blavatsky. It is "ludicrous"
to claim that translators who have translated "Hauptrasse"
as "root race" have made a mistake.
Now look at the facts, dear Watson.
1. In the "Mission .." book, Steiner
is talking about the five "main races" of humanity.
He names and describes them there as the yellow , red, brown,
black and white race.
2. We have just ascertained that of course
there is no 1-1 correspondence between the "coloured"
races and the "root races" of the Theosophical tradition.
For one, the first two "root races" didn't even have
physical bodies. Furthermore, Blavatsky describes the "coloured"
races either as "remnants" of the fourth of the five
historical Root-Races or as "descendants" of both Atlanteans
(the fourth root race) and Lemurians (the third root race).
3. It thus follows clearly to anyone with
a basic understanding of the Theosophical concept of root races
that when Steiner is talking about the five "coloured"
races as "main races", he cannot mean the five historical
"root races" that Blavatsky spoke of.
4. The fact that Steiner uses the term "root
races" and "main races" synonymously in a collection
of essays published under the title "Cosmic Memory"
goes to show that the word "main race" can mean different
things in different contexts.
5. Those who pathologically cannot grasp that
identical words can mean quite different things in different
contexts are of course unable to understand this. It is futile
to argue with them. Steiner's "terminology was highly inconsistent"
is all they will respond. Quite. For a good reason: he meant
two different things.
It is as simple as that, my dear Watson.
Detlef Hardorp
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Sun Apr 4, 2004 10:59 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Steiner's definitions [was:
Peter's definitions]
Detlef writes:
You see, Mr. Staudenmaier has been vehemently claiming that
when Steiner uses the term "Hauptrasse" in the "Mission..."
book, he of course meant "root races" in the tradition
of Blavatsky. It is "ludicrous" to claim that translators
who have translated "Hauptrasse" as "root race"
have made a mistake.
Those are two different claims. I still have no idea why you
keep confusing them. In theosophical literature around the turn
of the century, the German word "Hauptrasse" was itself
a translation of the English term "root-race". Your
assertion that the reverse translation is a "mistake"
is therefore preposterous. Is there anything unclear about that?
In the "Mission .." book, Steiner is talking about
the five "main races" of humanity.
Indeed. You could also call them "primary races". Or,
of course, "root races", which is exactly what several
generations of anthroposophist translators have done. Steiner
himself used the word "Hauptrassen" to refer to both
'main races' and 'root races', sometimes in the very same text.
This is unsurprising, since theosophical writings did not systematically
distinguish between these two related categories.
We have just ascertained that of course there is no 1-1 correspondence
between the "coloured" races and the "root races"
of the Theosophical tradition.
You just ascertained that now?
For one, the first two "root races" didn't even
have physical bodies. Furthermore, Blavatsky describes the "coloured"
races either as "remnants" of the fourth of the five
historical Root-Races or as "descendants" of both Atlanteans
(the fourth root race) and Lemurians (the third root race).
Yep. What does that have to do with your nonsense about "mistakes
in translation"?
It thus follows clearly to anyone with a basic understanding
of the Theosophical concept of root races that when Steiner is
talking about the five "coloured" races as "main
races", he cannot mean the five historical "root races"
that Blavatsky spoke of.
But he meant both, obviously. That's precisely why the terminology
is ambiguous.
The fact that Steiner uses the term "root races"
and "main races" synonymously in a collection of essays
published under the title "Cosmic Memory" goes to show
that the word "main race" can mean different things
in different contexts.
Yes indeed. It also shows that the term "root race"
can mean different things in different contexts. Get it?
Those who pathologically cannot grasp that identical words
can mean quite different things in different contexts are of
course unable to understand this. It is futile to argue with
them. Steiner's "terminology was highly inconsistent"
is all they will respond. Quite. For a good reason: he meant
two different things.
Then why on earth do you keep prattling about "mistakes
in translation"? If you do, in fact, recognize that "root
races" can mean the same thing as "main races",
what have you been complaining about all this time?
Very much looking forward to an answer,
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Sun Apr 4, 2004 11:33 am
Subject: Re: Steiner's definitions [was: Peter's definitions]
Peter:
Very much looking forward to an answer,
Peter, I really wish you would debate in good
faith. Truly. It's not about one upmanship and so forth. Lets
get to this thing if it is wanting to be gotten. We are mostly
sincere in our debate with you. If you are looking for truth
as best it can be had please consider not belittling this process.
Sincerely,
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: holderlin66
Date: Sun Apr 4, 2004 1:10 pm
Subject: Re: Steiner's definitions [was: Peter's definitions]
"dottie zold" wrote:
If you are looking for truth as best it
can be had please consider not belittling this process."
Sincerely,
Dottie
No, I don't think that Peter has been exactly
belittling. I give him credit. He has been fishin for things
in a different pond, he has tried to behave himself as a guest.
I on the other hand have been not so kind. I have not been so
kind towards Peter's methods of thinking. Not so polite. You
know I just wondered who would beat up my friend Rudy in the
alley and call him a Nazi?
But all that is behind me. Peter has digested
the I AM construct of Steiner's ideology and he is on the road
to brotherhood with all his heartfelt humanism. It's a step.
I don't think anyone expects a habitual user to turn over night
to a cognition imbued radical. But, as far as his martyrdom on
this list, he doesn't quite rate honors mention. I just know
that my needling and belittling has been more severe towards
him but I was not the fish he was after, he was after Rudy.
So Peter, I think you got it a little worse
than you gave, but you also have been trying to re-crucify...sorry,
establish a dialogue about; Was Steiner a Racist and by contracted
definition can we dismiss all his deeply researched claims as
flawed. Well I'd sooner admit my belittling than dismiss the
greatness of Steiner's contribution to human dignity.
So if there is termites in the wood of the
cross, they still look a lot like Peter and if it is hypocrisy
that is eating away at the wood, I say, Peter, we all agree that
hypocrisy is everywhere, just don't go huntin for hypocrisy on
the road to Emmaus.
http://www.stmarystlouis.bizland.com/new_page_94.htm
13 And, behold, two of them
went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from
Jerusalem about threescore furlongs. 14 And they talked together
of all these things which had happened. 15 And it came to pass,
that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself
drew near, and went with them. 16 But their eyes were holden
that they should not know him. 17 And he said unto them, What
manner of communications are these that ye have one to another,
as ye walk, and are sad? 18 And the one of them, whose name was
Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in
Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass
there in these days? 19 And he said unto them, What things? And
they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a
prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people:
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Sun Apr 4, 2004 2:09 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner's definitions
[was: Peter's definitions]
Bradford, know ye who these two were:)
Dottie
http://www.stmarystlouis.bizland.com/new_page_94.htm
13 And, behold, two of them
went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from
Jerusalem about threescore furlongs. 14 And they talked together
of all these things which had happened. 15 And it came to pass,
that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself
drew near, and went with them. 16 But their eyes were holden
that they should not know him. 17 And he said unto them, What
manner of communications are these that ye have one to another,
as ye walk, and are sad? 18 And the one of them, whose name was
Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in
Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass
there in these days? 19 And he said unto them, What things? And
they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a
prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people:
...................................................................................................................................
From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Mon Apr 5, 2004 1:19 am
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner's definitions
[was: Peter's definitions]
----- Original Message -----
[Bradford:]
kind. I have not been so kind towards Peter's
methods of thinking. Not so polite. You know I just wondered
who would beat up my friend Rudy in the alley and call him a
Nazi?
But all that is behind me. Peter has digested
the I AM construct of Steiner's ideology
Hi Bradford
I have to disagee here. For PS " I AM"
is a "sum of letters" like any else. since "Words"
for him are only "signs on the paper". In other words
he is unable to grasp the "concepts" lying under the
letters. (There are lots of such individuals walking like zombies
on the Earth,now). I say so since if he had really grasped and
experienced something of the I AM concept he should have had
to begin turning upside down his ill insights about RS's "racism"
, doesn't it ?
Andres
...................................................................................................................................
From: Detlef
Hardorp
Date: Mon Apr 5, 2004 6:52 am
Subject: Steiner's definitions [was: Peter's definitions]
PS asked:
If you do, in fact, recognize that "root
races" can mean the same thing as "main races",
what have you been complaining about all this time?
DH answers: "can" is different form "must",
my dear boy!
If "main races" can mean the same thing as "root
races", this does not imply that they must mean the
same thing as "root races".
1. In the context of the Theosophical concept of the seven "root
races", the latter are clearly "main races": the
Polarian, the Hyperborean, the Lemuric, the Atlantean, and the
5th, 6th and 7th "root races" succeed each other in
turn and make up the "earth round".
2. In the context of the "Mission ..." book, Steiner
speaks about the five "Grundrassen" ("principal
races"): he names and describes them there as the yellow,
red, brown, black and white race. In this context, these five
"principal races" are the main races he is talking
about.
3. As we fully agree that there is no 1-1 correspondence between
the "coloured and white" races and the "root races"
of the Theosophical tradition, there is consequently no 1-1 correspondence
between the "main races" in the "Mission ..."
book and the "main races" in some of the early essays
published in the collection "Cosmic Memory", where
Steiner is explaining the Theosophical concepts of the seven
"root races".
Get it? I still have no idea why you keep confusing them even
after you have explicitly agreed that there is no 1-1 correspondence.
You posted
this on Sat Apr 3, 2004 at 7:31 pm:
DH:
Would it be correct to conclude that any
one of the "coloured races" (i.e. yellow or red or
brown or black) correspond to any one of the five historical
Root-Races themselves?
PS:
No, of course not. According to the first
theosophical usage of "Root-Race", the first two root
races did not have physical bodies.
DH:
Or are the root races Blavatsky speaks
of not in 1-1 correspondence with the "coloured races"?
PS:
No, of course not.
Thus "root races" and "principal
races" (in the sense of "coloured races") are
two quite different concepts. We have agreed. We have also agreed
that they can both be referred to as "main races":
the former are "main races" in the Theosophical tradition,
the latter are "main races" in the sense that races
were written about in high school textbooks around 1910.
You are trapped, my dear fox, by broad daylight. And no amount
of howling in the dark will get you out of this one. You are
likely to continue to howl voluminously, no doubt. But there
is not much of substance that can be added to this elementary
discussion. I don't know whether you are really as daft as you
pretend to be. Frankly: I don't care. Here endeth the discussion.
Detlef Hardorp
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Mon Apr 5, 2004 10:53 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner's definitions
[was: Peter's definitions]
Hi Bradford, you wrote:
So Peter, I think you got it a little worse
than you gave, but you also have been trying to re-crucify...sorry,
establish a dialogue about; Was Steiner a Racist and by contracted
definition can we dismiss all his deeply researched claims as
flawed. Well I'd sooner admit my belittling than dismiss the
greatness of Steiner's contribution to human dignity.
That's another non sequitur. If I may say so, you seem to have
a fondness for those. Whether Steiner was a racist has nothing
to do with whether all his deeply researched claims are flawed.
If you want to know whether specific claims are flawed, you need
to examine each claim itself. Other unrelated claims that happen
to be put forward by the same person are irrelevant. Thus even
if you acknowledged that some of Steiner's racial doctrines are
racist, this by itself would tell you nothing about Steiner's
doctrines on architecture, eurythmy, and so forth. It is entirely
possible to recognize that some of what Steiner said and wrote
about race was racist without in any way dismissing the greatness
of his other contributions to human dignity.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter
Staudenmaier
Date: Mon Apr 5, 2004 11:10 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Steiner's definitions [was:
Peter's definitions]
Our resident detective writes:
"can" is different form "must"
Indeed it is. Since you admit that Hauptrasse can mean
root race, and since you admit that it is not true that Hauptrasse
must mean main race, everything you have said so far on
the topic is nonsense. Anthroposophist translators who render
Hauptrasse as root race have not made a "mistake in translation".
Are you sure you're paying attention here?
If "main races" can mean the same thing as
"root races", this does not imply that they must
mean the same thing as "root races".
No shit, Sherlock. May I ask why this has only occurred to you
now?
As we fully agree that there is no 1-1 correspondence between
the "coloured and white" races and the "root races"
of the Theosophical tradition, there is consequently no 1-1 correspondence
between the "main races" in the "Mission ..."
book and the "main races" in some of the early essays
published in the collection "Cosmic Memory", where
Steiner is explaining the Theosophical concepts of the seven
"root races".
Gosh, you don't say.
Thus "root races" and "principal races"
(in the sense of "coloured races") are two quite different
concepts.
Yep. They're just not two quite different terms. I explained
all of this to you, in considerable detail, three weeks ago.
We have also agreed that they can both be referred to as "main
races": the former are "main races" in the Theosophical
tradition, the latter are "main races" in the sense
that races were written about in high school textbooks around
1910.
Sure. And they're also both 'root races'. Is that a little too
complex for you?
You are trapped, my dear fox, by broad daylight. And no amount
of howling in the dark will get you out of this one.
What is it that you think I need to get out of? Everything that
I have said about the terminology is amply confirmed by both
Blavatsky's and Steiner's texts. Everything you have said about
the terminology is obviously disproven by both Blavatsky's and
Steiner's texts. You just admitted this yourself yesterday, and
confirmed it again today. "Hauptrassen" can mean "root
races" just as well as it can mean "main races",
hence your claim that only one of the two translations is acceptable
is plainly false. Could you perhaps explain why you are having
difficulty processing that fairly small bit of information?
Yours for reading comprehension,
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: holderlin66
Date: Mon Apr 5, 2004 5:17 pm
Subject: Steiner's definitions [was: Peter's definitions]
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
It is entirely possible to recognize that
some of what Steiner said and wrote about race was racist without
in any way dismissing the greatness of his other contributions
to human dignity.
Bradford;
Fly Paper. Where? "...entirely possible
to recognize that some of what Steiner said and wrote about race
was racist..." Or you could say that it is entirely possible
to see how Steiner made every effort to outline every configuration,
ancient Newtonian and Noahtic contract, with the Seven Colored
Bow, going all the way to ancient Saturn and out into the future
of the 7th Post Atlantean culture, and detailing intimate history
of single I AM's in his Karma lectures, to reveal the greatest
history of the core of I AM reseach ever developed.
Now Peter, your I AM is an immortal, unexplored
core that carries YOU through time. Would you rather have the
temporary satisfaction that you pin the greatest I AM researcher
of your Immortal core I AM with the tag, Racist to the Core,
or Immortal defender of your I AM to the core?
Now I cannot defend, explore and prop up your
I AM, you must have dignity to do that. Dignity is not dogma
nor hypocrisy. Dignity is having experienced the Wonder of your
Immortal I AM and recognizing it not as a mere racial foundation
but as the thing in us, in YOU, that is the every reshaping,
re-gifted and timeless recreator of You. It is not Nietzsche
"Return of the Same" in an endless loop.
Aphorism 341
How, if some day or night
a demon were to sneak after you into your loneliest loneliness
and say to you, "This life as you now live it and have lived
it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more;
and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every
joy and every thought and sigh and everything immeasurably small
or great in your life must return to you--all in the same succession
and sequence--even this spider and this moonlight between the
trees, and even this moment and I myself. The eternal hourglass
of existence is turned over and over, and you with it, a dust
grain of dust." Would you not throw yourself down and gnash
your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or did you once
experience a tremendous moment when you would have answered him,
"You are a god, and never have I heard anything more godly."
If this thought were to gain possession of you, it would change
you, as you are, or perhaps crush you. The question in each and
every thing, "Do you want this once more and innumerable
times more?" would weigh upon your actions as the greatest
stress. Or how well disposed would you have to become to yourself
and to life to crave nothing more fervently than this ultimate
eternal confirmation and seal?
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Peter, this is not the I AM, but at least
you are stiffly attempting to think in wider paradigms. Clint
Eastwood would say, you have to ask yourself Mr. Staudenmaier,
did Nietzsche meet such a demon who knew of his (Ahriman's) vision
of eternity? Because for you, this is the problem.
...................................................................................................................................
From: "dottie
zold"
Date: Mon Apr 5, 2004 5:25 pm
Subject: Re: Steiner's definitions [was: Peter's definitions]
Peter:
"Hauptrassen" can mean "root
races" just as well as it can mean "main races",
hence your claim that only one of the two translations is acceptable
is plainly false.
Peter Peter Peter, it is more than just reading
words man. It is discerning what the word means in the context
of the teachings. You read what you want to read and declare
it the truth. We read all of this mans works and recognize its
spiritual intent which you are incapable of only by choice. I
have no idea how your reasoning works on this particular subject
as you are like a fish out of water. You are making things to
match your personal take on things versus what Dr. Steiner was
speaking on. It is really clear with this little passage of yours
how you have absolutely no insight and should definitely not
be writing on a thing you can not discern. And it is the same
point for Diana and others who follow you down the rabbit hole.
You are intent on seeing what you want irregardless
of the intent. Your back up is how can we know what his intent
was? Well if you read his books with a clear mind without any
pre concieved notion of what he is referring to you will come
clearly to the same understanding hundreds of thousands students
of Steiner have come to: Steiner spoke on seeing past the physical
body of this lifetime. Plain and simple.
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 6:07 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Steiner's definitions [was:
Peter's definitions]
Detlef writes:
You see, Mr. Staudenmaier has been vehemently
claiming that when Steiner uses the term "Hauptrasse"
in the "Mission..." book, he of course meant "root
races" in the tradition of Blavatsky. It is "ludicrous"
to claim that translators who have translated "Hauptrasse"
as "root race" have made a mistake.
Peter Staudenmaier:
Those are two different claims. I still
have no idea why you keep confusing them. In theosophical literature
around the turn of the century, the German word "Hauptrasse"
was itself a translation of the English term "root-race".
Your assertion that the reverse translation is a "mistake"
is therefore preposterous. Is there anything unclear about that?
Daniel:
Peter, I can't believe you are this thick.
Yes, it is true that Hauptrasse and Wurzelrasse are both translations
of "Root Race". That says nothing about what Steiner
MEANT when he used the terms. Peter, try to look for the meaning
behind words. If you don't, you will continue to look like a
fool on issues like this.
Detlef:
In the "Mission .." book, Steiner
is talking about the five "main races" of humanity.
Peter Staudenmaier:
Indeed. You could also call them "primary
races". Or, of course, "root races", which is
exactly what several generations of anthroposophist translators
have done. Steiner himself used the word "Hauptrassen"
to refer to both 'main races' and 'root races', sometimes in
the very same text. This is unsurprising, since theosophical
writings did not systematically distinguish between these two
related categories.
Daniel:
Several generations of translators? Peter,
please, we are talking about one translator here - A.H. Parker.
Your rhetorical excesses vainly strive to mask a weak argument.
And a weak argument is precicely what you advance here. Basically
you claim that Steiner was so confused he did not know himself
what he meant when he lobbed words around. That is silly. Steiner
intended specific meanings with specific phrases in specific
contexts, and if you are unable to distinguish what is meant
in a given context - or are too lazy to do so - it is only your
own credibility that suffers.
Detlef:
We have just ascertained that of course
there is no 1-1 correspondence between the "coloured"
races and the "root races" of the Theosophical tradition.
Peter Staudenmaier:
You just ascertained that now?
Daniel:
No, we have known this for some time. It has
been like pulling teeth to get you to state your position on
the matter. It significanly weakens your argument for the purported
racism in Steiner's work, and you know it.
Detlef (quoting Peter Staudenmaier:)
For one, the first two "root races"
didn't even have physical bodies. Furthermore, Blavatsky describes
the "coloured" races either as "remnants"
of the fourth of the five historical Root-Races or as "descendants"
of both Atlanteans (the fourth root race) and Lemurians (the
third root race).
Peter Staudenmaier:
Yep. What does that have to do with your
nonsense about "mistakes in translation"?
Daniel:
Peter, you can't even follow an argument one
half a page? That is a weak mind indeed. You are hardly in a
position to be so snide if you can't even get your brain around
this.
Detlef:
It thus follows clearly to anyone with
a basic understanding of the Theosophical concept of root races
that when Steiner is talking about the five "coloured"
races as "main races", he cannot mean the five historical
"root races" that Blavatsky spoke of.
Peter Staudenmaier:
But he meant both, obviously. That's precisely why the terminology
is ambiguous.
Daniel:
Always trying to have it both ways. Always.
Peter, Peter. Really. The terminology might be ambiguous when
divorced of any context, but in context it is not at all difficult
to determine what is meant. A little more effort would do you
good here. You keep trying to confuse the issue to hide the fact
that you are wrong. It looks pathetic.
Detlef:
The fact that Steiner uses the term "root
races" and "main races" synonymously in a collection
of essays published under the title "Cosmic Memory"
goes to show that the word "main race" can mean different
things in different contexts.
Peter Staudenmaier:
Yes indeed. It also shows that the term
"root race" can mean different things in different
contexts. Get it?
Daniel:
Peter, when you go on like this, I think you
are still in high school. Only a 10th grader would be both this
dumb and this arrogant at the same time. In the last sentence
you divorced the terms from context to show that they can be
confusing (to which I pointed out that in context they are not
confusing). Now you are posturing about how context will clarify
everything. Context does clarify everything, which is why you
are so afraid of it in this example. Context will show that one
of your main claims for the racism supposedly present in GA 121
is not actually there. This shows that Sune's accusation of forgery
(which does not mean going back in time - the stupidest red herring
I have seen in a while) is actually correct. You created content
for Steiner that does not exist; perhaps that is not strictly
forgery, but that is what Sune is getting at.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 8:23 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Steiner's definitions [was:
Peter's definitions]
Hi again Daniel, you wrote:
Yes, it is true that Hauptrasse and Wurzelrasse are both translations
of "Root Race".
Indeed it is. Hence your earlier argument is false. Get it?
That says nothing about what Steiner MEANT when he used the
terms.
We were discussing translating, not mind reading. The anthroposophists
you think did such a shoddy job were translating what Steiner
actually wrote. They were not, presumably, trying to read into
the text meanings that they hoped and wished to find there.
Several generations of translators? Peter,
please, we are talking about one translator here - A.H. Parker.
No, we're not. We are talking about two different English translations
of the book. A.H. Parker translated the 1970 Rudolf Steiner Press
edition of the folk souls book. The 1929 Anthroposophic Press
edition of the folk souls book was an "authorised translation
edited by H. Collison" according to the copyright page.
I explained all of this to you nearly a month ago.
Basically you claim that Steiner was so confused he did not
know himself what he meant when he lobbed words around.
No, that is not my argument. I don't think Steiner was confused
in this case. I do think you and Detlef are confused in this
case.
It significanly weakens your argument for the purported racism
in Steiner's work, and you know it.
That's ridiculous. The racist character of this book would not
change one bit if you replaced the instances of "root races"
with "main races". The translation question has nothing
to do with whether the content of the book is racist.
You created content for Steiner that does not exist; perhaps
that is not strictly forgery, but that is what Sune is getting
at.
Of course that isn't forgery. Forgery means publishing faked
documents. It does not mean interpreting real documents in ways
that Daniel Hindes believes to be mistaken. You and I disagree
about whether the content of the folk souls book is racist. Moaning
about forgeries and mistakes in translation does nothing to clarify
this disagreement.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter
Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 9:32 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Steiner's definitions [was:
Peter's definitions]
Hi Bradford, you wrote:
Where? "...entirely possible to recognize
that some of what Steiner said and wrote about race was racist..."
Or you could say that it is entirely possible to see how Steiner
made every effort to outline every configuration, ancient Newtonian
and Noahtic contract, with the Seven Colored Bow, going all the
way to ancient Saturn and out into the future of the 7th Post
Atlantean culture, and detailing intimate history of single I
AM's in his Karma lectures, to reveal the greatest history of
the core of I AM reseach ever developed.
Sure, you could say that. I wouldn't even necessarily quibble
with much of it. The question is quite simply, why can't you
say both of these things? Why can't you say that Steiner
revealed the greatest history of the core of I AM research of
all time, and that some of what he said on the topic was racist?
Peter
Peter
on Race/Bradford on I AM
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 1:35 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Steiner's definitions [was:
Peter's definitions]
At 18:32 06.04.2004, Peter S asked Bradford:
Why can't you say that Steiner revealed
the greatest history of the core of I AM research of all time,
and that some of what he said on the topic was racist?
Elementary, my dear Watson: The core of the
I AM is totally inimical to, and incompatible with, racism.
Tarjei
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 9:50 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Steiner's definitions [was:
Peter's definitions]
Hi Tarjei, you wrote:
The core of the I AM is totally inimical to, and incompatible
with, racism.
So you think that the term "racism" refers to beliefs
about the core of the I AM, not to beliefs about race?
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 3:13 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Steiner's definitions [was:
Peter's definitions]
At 18:50 07.04.2004, PS wrote:
So you think that the term "racism"
refers to beliefs about the core of the I AM, not to beliefs
about race?
Discussing the definition of "racism"
with you is pointless.
Tarjei
...................................................................................................................................
From: holderlin66
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 1:11 pm
Subject: Re: Steiner's definitions [was: Peter's definitions]
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
Hi Tarjei, you wrote:
The core of the I AM is totally inimical
to, and incompatible with, racism.
So you think that the term "racism"
refers to beliefs about the core of the I AM, not to beliefs
about race?
Peter
Bradford comments;
"So you think that the term "-----"
refers..." More fly paper Peter. You can do better, how
does incompatible equate with beliefs? It is silly to use such
entrapment techniques on mature human beings. The I AM is not
a belief. Try to grasp it Peter. The I AM is a Fact. The Bearer
of the I AM, the Christ Being is not a belief but a Fact. Facts
are not religion.. Dare I even quibble to mention something as
mundane as "Christianity as Mystical Fact?"
Ideologies and beliefs measured against the
intrinsic core of I AM's are not religious or political codes
but Facts of Nature and Facts of Spirit Reality. In the education
of "little soul", Spirit Reality as Fact and I AM as
fact is not a belief. Steiner was the first and greatest to date,
public scientist of the I AM.
But we all can see how you have problems navigating
these beliefs and the concrete perception of your own I AM as
a fact. Because a Fact that shapes both Nature and Spirit is
not a racial belief. It must be unnerving to know that Steiner
could Trace the I AM as a fact not a belief and bring Spirit
Reality right to the WalMart in your neighborhood. Everyone can
believe something, but the fact of the I Am as a reincarnating
being with an etheric-physical and language as well as racial
identity, along with astral body and Ego.. not merely Freudian
id, is simply unnerving to you. Don't worry Peter - (aside) Is
that Pod ready yet?
As I said, Steiner turned Racism on it's head
and you are looking at the world in an upside down position.
Hello Peter, stop staring at the ground besides we're tired of
looking at your butt.
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 7:28 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner's definitions
[was: Peter's definitions]
Hi Bradford, you wrote:
The I AM is not a belief.
But racism is, in part, a set of beliefs. A set of beliefs about
race, not a set of beliefs about the I AM.
Ideologies and beliefs measured against the intrinsic core
of I AM's are not religious or political codes but Facts of Nature
and Facts of Spirit Reality.
That's cool with me. I don't see what any of that has to do with
whether some of the beliefs about race that we've been discussing
are racist. Are you saying that you don't think of racism as
an ideology?
Steiner was the first and greatest to date, public scientist
of the I AM.
That's great. What does it have to do with whether some of his
doctrines were racist?
Because a Fact that shapes both Nature
and Spirit is not a racial belief.
The claim that some races are higher than others is a racial
belief. The claim that black people don't belong in Europe is
a racial belief. The claim that the white race is the race of
the future is a racial belief. And so on.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 8:52 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Steiner's definitions [was:
Peter's definitions]
Detlef:
"can" is different form "must"
Peter Staudenmaier:
Indeed it is. Since you admit that Hauptrasse can mean
root race, and since you admit that it is not true that Hauptrasse
must mean main race, everything you have said so far on
the topic is nonsense. Anthroposophist translators who render
Hauptrasse as root race have not made a "mistake in translation".
Are you sure you're paying attention here?
Daniel:
Wow! The above is about the most illogical
thing I have read all year. What is the logic behind the statement:
If it CAN mean more than two things, but MUST not mean either
one, the three weeks of a dozen posts are entirely nonsense.
Peter, if this is you at your best in logic, then you confusion
on just about everything is quite understandable. I think you
are scared. Yes, frightened. Detlef had been making too much
sense! You might even have to concede a point (horrors, not that).
So instead you start twisting like a contortionist with cramps
trying to avoid thinking clearly on the issue. Face up to the
facts like a man, and stop this puerile tap-dancing.
Detlef:
If "main races" can mean
the same thing as "root races", this does not imply
that they must mean the same thing as "root races".
Peter Staudenmaier:
No shit, Sherlock. May I ask why this has
only occurred to you now?
Daniel:
Yup. Peter's scared. Bad language. Dripping
condesension. Illogical snide remarks about only now getting
the whole point that three weeks of posts have been trying to
make.
Detlef:
As we fully agree that there is no 1-1
correspondence between the "coloured and white" races
and the "root races" of the Theosophical tradition,
there is consequently no 1-1 correspondence between the "main
races" in the "Mission ..." book and the "main
races" in some of the early essays published in the collection
"Cosmic Memory", where Steiner is explaining the Theosophical
concepts of the seven "root races".
Peter Staudenmaier:
Gosh, you don't say.
Daniel:
Actually, Peter, you didn't say. You danced
away from this definition for weeks, and now you put on a little
hissy fit like nobody understands you. Grow up.
Detlef:
Thus "root races" and "principal
races" (in the sense of "coloured races") are
two quite different concepts.
Peter Staudenmaier:
Yep. They're just not two quite different terms. I explained
all of this to you, in considerable detail, three weeks ago.
Daniel:
Of course, defining which term applies to
which concept is impossible, right Peter? Now one will ever know
what means what on this issue, isn't that right? Context is no
help. We are all doomed to confusion on this. If Peter can't
figure it out, not one can.
Detlef:
We have also agreed that they can both
be referred to as "main races": the former are "main
races" in the Theosophical tradition, the latter are "main
races" in the sense that races were written about in high
school textbooks around 1910.
Peter Staudenmaier:
Sure. And they're also both 'root races'. Is that a little
too complex for you?
Daniel:
Wow. Logic skipped a track again. I guess
this whole thing is too hard for you, Peter. It's all words,
empty words to you.
Detlef:
You are trapped, my dear fox, by broad
daylight. And no amount of howling in the dark will get you out
of this one.
Peter Staudenmaier:
What is it that you think I need to get out of? Everything
that I have said about the terminology is amply confirmed by
both Blavatsky's and Steiner's texts. Everything you have said
about the terminology is obviously disproven by both Blavatsky's
and Steiner's texts. You just admitted this yourself yesterday,
and confirmed it again today. "Hauptrassen" can mean
"root races" just as well as it can mean "main
races", hence your claim that only one of the two translations
is acceptable is plainly false. Could you perhaps explain why
you are having difficulty processing that fairly small bit of
information?
Daniel:
Peter, if this is the best you can do, then
you truly are dumb. Plain stupid. Flat out illogical. Hopeless.
Sorry, but I've got to call it like I see it.
Concept one, concept two. Word one. Word two. What is the relationship?
Try a little clarity. Your argument boils down to: because both
words one and two can apply to concept one (depending on context),
everyone is confused: Blavatsky is confused, Steiner is confused,
and Detlef is confused. Sorry, Peter, it is you who are confused.
We are trying to match word to concept based on context. You
are stuck like a mule in mud and chant a mantra about how confusing
the whole thing is, and you refuse to move your mind on this
one. It looks plain foolish.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 10:33 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Steiner's definitions [was:
Peter's definitions]
Hi once more Daniel, you wrote:
What is the logic behind the statement: If it CAN mean more
than two things, but MUST not mean either one, the three weeks
of a dozen posts are entirely nonsense.
Detlef's argument is indeed entirely nonsensical. He says that
term X can mean two things, and he says that it does not have
to mean just one of those two things, and then he goes on to
say that translators who choose one of those two things have
made a mistake. That makes no sense.
Of course, defining which term applies to which concept is
impossible, right Peter?
It's certainly possible, but neither Blavatsky nor Steiner did
so, hence it is quite wrong to impute your own preferred definition
to them. Why not simply state your own interpretation of the
text instead of babbling about mistakes in translation?
We are trying to match word to concept based on context.
Yes, that's a big part of the trouble here. You think that your
preferred version of the context -- what you have decided these
words ought to mean in this particular instance -- should somehow
govern how translators render the passage in question. That is
silly, in my view.
Peter
Staudenmaier's
reading comprehension
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
