Steiner on racial
evolution/Ahasver
What is equality?
From: at
Date: Mon Apr 5, 2004 8:21 pm
Subject: What is equality?
Tarjei:
If what Peter S says is true, namely that
all racial groups are equal, then American and Chinese reactions
to insults should be identical as well as uniform.
Peter Staudenmaier:
That makes no sense. To say that all racial
groups are equal simply means that all racial groups are equal.
It does not mean that all individuals are equal. It does not
mean that all racial groups are identical. It does not mean that
all members of a given racial group are uniform. It has nothing
whatsoever to do with gray masses and so forth. It is entirely
possible for distinct categories to be equal without being either
identical or uniform.
Daniel:
Peter, what do you mean by "equal"?
It may be a silly questions, but I'd like to know what you are
arguing. What is "equal" that is neither identical
nor uniform? Is it some intrinsic quality, like "All men
are created equal" as a self-evident axiom, or is there
some particular quality that you consider to be equal between
all racial groups?
Daniel
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 3:26 am
Subject: Re: What is equality?
Peter Staudenmaier:
That makes no sense. To say that all racial
groups are equal simply means that all racial groups are equal.
It does not mean that all individuals are equal. It does not
mean that all racial groups are identical. It does not mean that
all members of a given racial group are uniform. It has nothing
whatsoever to do with gray masses and so forth. It is entirely
possible for distinct categories to be equal without being either
identical or uniform.
Got that PLANS critics? Watching Mr. Staudenamier
twist in the wind. He's reminding me of Rummsy now. Funny how
the right and the left are actually so much a like in their discerning
of a thing.
Dottie, wondering how I missed all these great
Peter quotes,
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 9:51 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] What is equality?
Daniel asks:
Peter, what do you mean by "equal"?
I mean that spiritual qualities have nothing whatsoever to do
with racial identity, that all spiritual qualities are represented
equally across all racial groups. There is no correlation of
any kind between how "advanced" an individual is and
what race that individual belongs to. All racial groups as such
are equally advanced. What do you mean by "equal"?
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 9:59 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] What is equality?
At 18:51 06.04.2004, Peter S wrote:
Daniel asks:
Peter, what do you mean by "equal"?
I mean that spiritual qualities have nothing
whatsoever to do with racial identity, that all spiritual qualities
are represented equally across all racial groups.
How can you offer an opinion about spiritual
qualities when you have said repeatedly that spirituality is
occultic nonsense that you do not believe in?
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 7:02 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] What is equality?
Hi Tarjei, you wrote:
How can you offer an opinion about spiritual qualities when
you have said repeatedly that spirituality is occultic nonsense
that you do not believe in?
I've never said that once, much less repeatedly (though Dottie
has tried to say this several times on my behalf). I do not think
that spirituality is occult nonsense. As I've explained innumerable
times, I am a spiritual person myself. I believe in spirituality.
I do think that a lot of occultist spirituality is nonsense.
Not spirituality itself.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei
Straume
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 12:54 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] What is equality?
At 04:02 07.04.2004, Peter wrote:
Hi Tarjei, you wrote:
How can you offer an opinion about spiritual
qualities when you have said repeatedly that spirituality is
occultic nonsense that you do not believe in?
I've never said that once, much less repeatedly
The last time you said it was on April 2,
less than a week ago:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/3962
Tarjei:
The relationship between Nazism and Anthroposophy
as diametrical opposites, as Light and Darkness, is crystal clear
from posts and articles by myself and others about this subject.
Peter
S:
Those posts and articles are mostly occultist
nonsense, in my view.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 9:45 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] What is equality?
Hi Tarjei,
as you can easily see from the excerpt you posted below, I did
not say that spirituality is occult nonsense. I said that the
interpretations of Nazism that you favor are occult nonsense.
Peter
At 04:02 07.04.2004, Peter wrote:
Hi Tarjei, you wrote:
How can you offer an opinion about spiritual
qualities when you have said repeatedly that spirituality is
occultic nonsense that you do not believe in?
I've never said that once, much less repeatedly
The last time you said it was on April
2, less than a week ago:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/3962
Tarjei:
The relationship between Nazism and Anthroposophy
as diametrical opposites, as Light and Darkness, is crystal clear
from posts and articles by myself and others about this subject.
Peter S:
Those posts and articles are mostly occultist
nonsense, in my view.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 3:54 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] What is equality?
Peter, you haven't answered the question.
You said: "To say that all racial groups are equal simply
means that all racial groups are equal." I asked what equal
means to you in this context. You have rambled on about individuals
and spiritual qualities. Answer the question. What do you mean
by "equal" in the statement: "To say that all
racial groups are equal simply means that all racial groups are
equal."
Daniel Hindes.
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 12:51 PM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] What is equality?
Daniel asks:
Peter, what do you mean by "equal"?
I mean that spiritual qualities have nothing
whatsoever to do with racial identity, that all spiritual qualities
are represented equally across all racial groups. There is no
correlation of any kind between how "advanced" an individual
is and what race that individual belongs to. All racial groups
as such are equally advanced. What do you mean by "equal"?
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 10:44 pm
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] What is equality?
----- Original Message -----
From
Hi Tarjei,
as you can easily see from the excerpt you posted below, I did
not say that spirituality is occult nonsense. I said that the
interpretations of Nazism that you favor are occult nonsense.
GREAT1
When you say "occult nonsense" the meaning may be:
1) It's AN "occult nonsense". It implies that you have
a different "occult standpoints". So since Tarjej got
an occult "anthro standpoint" we should like to know
what is your "different" occult standpoint here. (Are
you an Hermeticist, a Gurdjeef-follower, a Sai Baba-follower
or anything else among other tens of different "schools"
?)
2) It's a nonsense " typical of occultism",
since occultism is a sum of nonsenses and falsehoods in itself.
(There is no invisible reality beyond the physical world). In
this case, since occultism is the foundation of Anthroposophy
you have decided, now and for ever, that all that Steiner did,
wrote and said is a castle made of sand. So everything we can
say to you about it is just like a talk to a deaf ear.
A.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 4:57 am
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] What is equality?
This one's been a brilliant example of poor
reading comprehension. Maybe Detlef could provide more white
rabbit examples to help clarify. Peter is accused of having called
all occultism nonsense, or maybe it was just calling all spirituality
nonsense, I forget which now, but readers seemed unable to understand
that a person could call examples of occultist thinking,
or examples of spiritual claims, nonsense without thereby
implying that all of spirituality or all of occultism
is therefore nonsense.
Andrea muddies things further:
2) It's a nonsense " typical of occultism",
since occultism is a sum of nonsenses and falsehoods in itself.
(There is no invisible reality beyond the physical world).
ok Andrea.
1) No one said "occultism is a sum of
nonsense and falsehoods in itself." (A case could be made,
but it's almost certainly too sweeping a claim, and I don't think
anyone here ever made this claim; I could have missed something,
but I've tried to catch up on 100 posts in 3 days).
2) Even if occultism were totally, 100% nonsense
in itself, it does not follow that a person making this claim
believes "there is no invisible reality beyond the physical
world."
I really do think increasingly that people
outside your movement have often studied it more closely
that anthroposophists themselves. I for instance would never
reduce a complex doctrine like anthroposophy to a statement such
as "There is no invisible reality beyond the physical world."
Of course anthroposophy posits an invisible
reality beyond the physical world and holds this in common with
many, perhaps all, other occult doctrines. Yet there are many
other doctrines and religions that also posit this that are not
generally classified as "occult" (in fact many more
that aren't occult than are), and many, many people worldwide
believe in spiritual realities yet have no connection to occultism
(putting it politely). And obviously all occult doctrines go
considerably beyond positing this "invisible reality"
to make many claims about that reality, often contradicting each
other dramatically on many points, and a person could easily
reject certain of them and not others; in fact we see this all
the time just on this list. (In fact you folks routinely reply
to each others' occult claims nearly as rudely as you reply to
critics.)
Following the logic, Andrea, or is it "empty
words" or one of the many other insults with which you supposedly
spiritual people dismiss coherent discussion of your own worldview?
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 9:30 am
Subject: Fraud exposed (was: What is equality?)
At 18:45 07.04.2004, PS wrote:
Hi Tarjei,
as you can easily see from the excerpt you posted below, I did
not say that spirituality is occult nonsense. I said that the
interpretations of Nazism that you favor are occult nonsense.
Ping-ponging with definitions of words is
awfully childish and very tiresome. According to you, it is nonsense
to speak about darkness and evil in connection with extreme terror,
unthinkable atrocities, death and destruction resulting from
mass-hypnotism. Ethical judgements and the life of feeling should
be left out and cold intellectual analysis and abstract discussions
about the difference between terms and concepts should prevail.
So whether it's racism, mass murder, war, torture, destruction
- it has nothing to do with how anyone may feel about it, but
how we can discuss the definitions of racism, mass murder, war,
torture, destruction and so on. I know you're only interested
in racism, but your definition of the term or the concept or
the word or whatever you're calling it today is so bizarre and
extended and twisted and ping-ponged that it renders what you
call "discussions" an absurd farce. In other words,
I'm through with you.
You've been exposed for the word-manipulating
ping-pong fraud you are, claiming to be a professor and a historian
and all that. A scholar would spend his time on research, not
on e-group game playing (24 hours per day?) and a fanatical onesided
vendetta against Anthroposophy. You keep talking about "what
historians do" and then you say "we do" as if
you're a historian, but if anyone challenges your bluff, you
think you can safely say that you never said you were a historian.
The same bullshit goes for your being a professor and a scholar
and what-have-you. It's all a big bluff. You're a fraud, Peter.
You try to cover this up by bombarding everyone with a barrage
of ignorant questions - ignorant because what Yours Truly is
concerned, for instance, the answers have already been written
in detail in e-group messages and in web articles. You're revolving
around and around in unending cicrles and needless repetitions,
and I'm confident that the lurkers and the surfers who stumble
onto our archives can see that.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 10:15 am
Subject: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] What is equality?
----- Original Message -----
From: winters_
: Thursday, April 08, 2004 1:57 PM
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] What is equality?
This one's been a brilliant example of
poor reading comprehension. Maybe Detlef could provide more white
rabbit examples to help clarify. Peter is accused of having called
all occultism nonsense, or maybe it was just calling all spirituality
nonsense, I forget which now, but readers seemed unable to understand
that a person could call examples of occultist thinking,
or examples of spiritual claims, nonsense without thereby
implying that all of spirituality or all of occultism
is therefore nonsense.
Andrea muddies things further:
<snip>
1) No one said "occultism is a sum
of nonsense and falsehoods in itself."
Sure ?
ok Andrea.
(A case could be made, but it's almost
certainly too sweeping a claim, and I don't think anyone here
ever made this claim; I could have missed something, but I've
tried to catch up on 100 posts in 3 days).
2) Even if occultism were totally, 100%
nonsense in itself, it does not follow that a person making this
claim believes "there is no invisible reality beyond the
physical world."
I really do think increasingly that people
outside your movement have often studied it more closely
that anthroposophists themselves. I for instance would never
reduce a complex doctrine
Oh My God You are not able to read! Where
I wrote the words THE WHOLE COMPLEX of A. oin my statement ?
Did you make daydreams?
(. have you ever heard about the world "example"
?)
any other insults with which you supposedly
spiritual people
Insults ?
Welll ,Ok. Let's tell it like this.
You and the Liar jumped in this list trying
to demonstrate thet Steiner was a racist and Anthroposophy is
a kind of "sectarian cult" acting like tools of a campaign
of defamation that started in France about ten years ago.
(The fact that you would be not aware of this
is of no importance here)..
Doing so did you expect a "white gloves"
treatment ?
A
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 7:29 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Fraud exposed (was: What
is equality?)
Hi Tarjei, you wrote:
You've been exposed for the word-manipulating ping-pong fraud
you are, claiming to be a professor and a historian and all that.
I'm not a professor. I am a historian. I think this is confusing
to you because you think all historians are professional historians
with academic appointments.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: Myaso
Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 5:30 am
Subject: Re[2]: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Fraud exposed (was:
What is equality?)
Hello Peter,
Friday, April 9, 2004, 5:29:20 AM, you wrote:
You've been exposed for the word-manipulating
ping-pong fraud you are, claiming to be a professor and a historian
and all that.
I'm not a professor. I am a historian.
I think this is confusing to you because you think all historians
are professional historians with academic appointments.
Ah, so you are NOT professional historian?
Best regards,
Myaso
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 8:06 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Fraud exposed
At 04:29 09.04.2004, PS wrote:
I'm not a professor. I am a historian.
I think this is confusing to you because you think all historians
are professional historians with academic appointments.
An amateur historian masquerading as a professor
in other words:
http://members.optushome.com.au/vergil/blog/2003_11_01_vergilreality_archive.html
..."Ecofacism: Lessons
from the German Experience" by Professor Peter Staudenmaier.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/13/1068674308841.html
...Professor Peter Staudenmaier,
who wrote a book four years ago called 'Ecofascism: Lessons from
the German Experience'.
etc. etc. etc.
No wonder it's confusing people :)
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 9:12 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Fraud exposed
Hi Tarjei, you wrote:
No wonder it's confusing people
I can see that it's confusing to people like you and Myaso, but
it isn't confusing to me or to other historians. For example,
you linked to my piece in the Sydney Morning Herald. Did you
notice that it was my rebuttal of the politician who referred
to me as a "professor"? I even got to make fun of Senator
Brandis for the "professor" bit on Australian national
radio. Maybe you could explain why you found this exchange confusing.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: Myaso
Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 9:21 am
Subject: Re[2]: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Fraud exposed
Hello Peter,
Friday, April 9, 2004, 7:12:18 PM, you wrote:
No wonder it's confusing people
I can see that it's confusing to people
like you and Myaso, but it isn't confusing to me or to other
historians. For example, you linked to my piece in the Sydney
Morning Herald. Did you notice that it was my rebuttal of the
politician who referred to me as a "professor"? I even
got to make fun of Senator Brandis for the "professor"
bit on Australian national radio. Maybe you could explain why
you found this exchange confusing.
It is confusing to at least 2 people. So,
do you think it is not enough? If you do want to be honest -
you can not only critic some ideas, but also remove links with
false (or misunderstandings which can be seen as false) from
the web. Either that links was from senator's interview or from
anything else. This hurts you reputation as historian I think.
Best regards,
Myaso mzyaso
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 9:35 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Fraud exposed
At 18:12 09.04.2004, PS wrote:
Hi Tarjei, you wrote:
No wonder it's confusing people
I can see that it's confusing to people
like you and Myaso, but it isn't confusing to me or to other
historians.
You can confuse some of the people all the
time and all of the people sometimes, but you can't confuse all
of the people all the time.
For example, you linked to my piece in
the Sydney Morning Herald. Did you notice that it was my rebuttal
of the politician who referred to me as a "professor"?
I even got to make fun of Senator Brandis for the "professor"
bit on Australian national radio. Maybe you could explain why
you found this exchange confusing.
An assinine request arising from a naive assumption.
I am not confused. And I'm through explaining
anything to you. You're juggling with credentials and titles
and what have you, but you're not confusing me, because you behave
like a clever village idiot. You've said your'e not a professor
and that you're not a professional historian. So you're a hobby-historian
playing professor. However you twist and wiggle this around,
the point is that you're not on the level about anything, whether
it's the definitions of the words you write or what you claim
to be.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Sat Apr 10, 2004 8:55 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Fraud exposed
Myaso writes:
It is confusing to at least 2 people.
And Tarjei writes:
I am not confused.
Hmmmm.... you certainly sound confused to me. You seem to think
that I referred to myself as a professor, an amusing thought
indeed. Perhaps you could try explaining again how you concluded
that I am not on the level about this?
When I was new to the waldorf critics list, others sometimes
referred to me as an academic -- both critics and defenders of
anthroposophy. I explained repeatedly that I am not an academic,
and that I've been known to take that title as an insult. You
were on the waldorf critics list at the time, Tarjei, as was
Dottie. In fact several of my explicit statements in 2001 that
I am not an academic were responses to Dottie, who imagined that
my work on anthroposophy would somehow damage my reputation;
and in my responses to Tarjei from the same period I said very
clearly that I am not a professor. The suggestion that I have
been unforthcoming about the topic on this list is fatuous; I
addressed it in my February exchange with Christine about academic
conceptions of objectivity, and again last month in the PhD discussion.
Every member of this list knows that I am not a professor, with
the possible exception of very new members, and in their case
one has to wonder why they'd make any occupational assumptions
about anybody.
Thus you are indeed, as Myaso concedes, confused on this score.
I further get the impression that you are asking me to take responsibility
for your confusion, Tarjei. This is a very telling demand, rather
similar to Detlef's demand that anthroposophist translators take
responsibility for his confusion. If that is in fact what you
are asking, I respectfully decline.
Yours for exposing fraud,
Peter
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
