agreement and disagreement 1

agreement and disagreement 2

 

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 2:16 am
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 10:58 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

accurate, if a bit overheated, but I disagree with the first sentence. Also, if I understood Andrea's recent post, she thinks that Evola's racial theories had nothing in common with Steiner's. I disagree with that claim as well.

What ?????

Mr.Studenmaier.

(First of all I'm not a "she". Andrea - as the greek word "anèr" states, is, in Italy, a male's name.)

Well , if you disagree it means only that you've got a very feeble and twisted knowledge not only of Steiner ( I did notice it, since you write on and on to demonstrate the nonsensical thesis of "Anthro-eco-fascism" remembering me the ways and the psycho-standards of Holocaust's deniers) )but also of the late Baron Giulio Cesare Evola, Himmelr's supporter, harsh antisemite who hatred, in the same way, Steiner,the Christ and "the Jew".

I wrote something about it, mainly:

"Antroposofia e Nazionalsocialismo" Riv:Antroposofia Luglio 2001 pagg. 14-104

"L'Equivoco Tragico del tradizionalismo esoterico" Riv.Kairòs 2002 /33

If you're not able to read Italian language ....it's your own problem.

Well, Evola dedicated several writings to the aim of "destroying" every insight of Steiner's. Anyone reading Evola and Steiner is able to see that there exists a total opposition between them: it's a real matter of fact.

Lets' start with one of these oppositions.

Steiner pictures the man being as centered on "I AM" principle, rooted on the Logos, in itself free from "nama" and "-rupa" , who embodies himself in Earthly Time , following the laws of karma, in several different soul-physical "forms". So the Human Being , more and more the Ages are passing by, is able to free himself more amd more from the powers of those "forms", shaping and transforming them , till today's Michael Age in which we see the trend towards the mixing and moulding of every "racial" issue.
Following this conception there is no place for racism in Anthroposophy like the historical facts are able to demonstrate either in the 1920's or today ( have you never heard of N.Perlas' attempts to perform Threefolding Movement,Mr Studenmaier, but sure, being an anthropop Perlas MUST BE an "Eco Fascist", or have you ever heard of mr.Ben Aharon " (a"nazi-jew" in your opinon?): have you ever visited Cruz Azul's school ?and so on)

it's not enough to show a couple of "oddities" from 82.000 pages of Steiner's teachings to demonstrate the opposite, ( As we see below is a matter of be "nut" oir "something else".)

Following the above statements we are able to explain also the basic opposition between Anthroposophy and the racist and nationalistic issue of Nazism, of which Evola was, on the contrary, an active supporter, sure in his somewhat "personal" way of "ghibellino".

Evola got about the esoteric-basical Man's picture a total different point.

In his insights there is no "I AM-Christ" , no "I" principle at the core of reincarnation's process , resounding somehow the "anatta Buddhism" teachings mixed with the Esoteric Roman Traditional Insight that the "after death life"is a whinning post only for the Initiates

Following this path we arrive at the foundations of his racism WHO IS EXACTLY AT THE OPPOSITE POLE OF RS'S TEACHINGS SINCE, IN EVOLA, THE "RACE" ELEMENT TRANSCEND THE "I AM ELEMENT" IN ITSELF SIMPLY NON-EXISTING"

So it's impossible to move near RS and JE without spreading falsehoods.

(Mr Studenmaier I believe that when I communicate your opinion about Steiner and Evola to my fellows researchers and students there will be a big laughter)
.
.

Conclusion: whoever speaks of "Steiner's racism" is either a nut or.......something else

Andrea the cave Dweller (Dottie said)

Tarjei again:

How would you define an "ethnic doctrine" or a "racial doctrine"?

Doctrines about ethnicity and about race.

If the achievements in question relate to natural-scientific research, I agree that they are not affected by the morality of doctrines adhered to.

I wasn't talking about morality. I fundamentally disagree with your take on concepts like 'racism' (assuming I've understood what you're getting at); I don't think it makes sense to use these concepts primarily as moral categories; to my mind our first task is to see what they mean descriptively, and then we can move on to normative judgements.

Claiming insight regarding other people's perceptions of themselves requires intimate knowledge of the individuals in question. Otherwise, such claims are not only arrogant, but extremely presumptious and conceited as well.

I disagree entirely. Claiming insight about other people's perceptions of themselves requires paying attention to what they say.

What do you mean by Steiner's "theosophical/anthroposophical period"

The period from 1902 onward during which he publicly identified with Theosophy and anthroposophy.

I seem to recall a claim by you that Steiner was an atheist in the 1890's

Yes, in my view Steiner oscillated between atheism and a mystical re-affirmation of christianity between the mid-1890's and 1900-1901.

which would make him a liar when he wrote in his autobiography thirty years later that the spiritual world had been wide open to him since childhood.

Why would that make him a liar? Atheism means disbelief in god. It does not mean disbelief in the spiritual world. In any case, there is nothing unusual about autobiographies re-interpreting their authors' past; that's part of the point of the whole endeavor.

Someone accustomed to communicate with the souls of the departed cannot be called atheists.

Why on earth not? Atheists are people who don't believe in god, not people who don't believe in souls or in communication with the dead.

RS also made it clear that what later became Anthroposophy was evolving within him long before the turn of the century. For this reason, Steiner's "theosophical/anthroposophical period" can be said to have started with his work on Goethe in the 1880's.

You're forgetting his caustic criticisms of Theosophy in the 1890's.

By using the expression "Aryan myth", you seem to indicate that no Aryans have ever existed. You also seem to imply that stating that Aryans have existed, and still exist, is a racist statement.

I tried to explain this to you at considerable length last month. Maybe I could ask you to read that post again:

http://www.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1715726619

It is indeed the case that "no Aryans have ever existed" if by Aryans you mean a race that founded the civilizations of antiquity. The Aryan myth mixed up language and biology. There was never any such thing as an Aryan race. That's why it's a myth.

The significance of Christ's first sign, and of the RS lecture quoted here, is that Anthroposophy is a New Christ-Proclamation that seeks to lead humanity behond the old ties of blood, soil, nationality, tribe, and race. You have previously claimed that Steiner spoke in favor of glorifying "blood and soil" and race like the Nazis did, and that this was his "doctrine", but that is a lie.

I don't know whether this is a "lie", but it isn't my position. It sounds to me like you're getting my discussion of Steiner mixed up with my discussion of Darre.

Steiner did not insist on assimilation; he recommended it. (Please notice the difference.)

I disagree. His recommendations on this score were categorical and emphatic.

There are orthodox Jews who share your misgivings about assimilation

I do not have misgivings about assimilation as such. I do have misgivings, as everyone should, about the specific version of assimilation that Steiner propagated. What he understood by assimilation was very different from what pro-assimilationist Jews understood by it. These Jews were anything but Orthodox.

The Jerusalem Post, Sunday December 30, 2001 - Health minister compares assimilation to Holocaust - Assimilation was a greater catastrophe for the Jewish people than the Holocaust, Health Minister Nissim Dahan said this morning.

Yes, I recall that remark. I think such comparisons are foolish. I don't see what this has to do with Steiner's views, however, which were formulated and expressed before the holocaust.

Nonsense. There was just a discussion about Mel Gibson and anti-Semitism after your arrival here, because you and nobody else is endeavoring to make a "hot topic" of Steiner's view on the Jews.

Dottie devoted several posts to the topic last week.

Here is another piece of blatant falsehood. Rudolf Steiner never had a "pan-German period." That is another lie.

Steiner was actively involved in the pan-German ("deutchnational") movement in Austria in the 1880's. He wrote dozens of articles for the pan-German press and briefly edited an important pan-German journal, the Deutsche Wochenschrift. These articles can be found in two of the volumes I mentioned yesterday: Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kultur- und Zeitgeschichte and Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Literatur (GA 31 and 32). Both Lindenberg's and Wehr's biographies discuss this period.

As previously mentioned, Rudolf Steiner held the view that all racial ties should disappear, for the simple reason that racial ideals lead mankind into decadence. The Jews were no exception. This view is aparently what you refer to as Steiner's "broader racial doctrines."

That's part of it. But there's a lot more to Steiner's racial theories than that. I'm not sure I understand your second sentence above. Are you saying that the mere existence of Jews depends on some sort of racial ideal? If so, which one? Do you agree with Steiner's dictum that the best thing would be for Jewry as a people to cease to exist?

Peter Staudenmaier

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 5:34 am
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Andrea the cave Dweller (Dottie said)

ANDREA!!! I said not! Whew.

Thanks for the post on Evola. It's pretty interesting to me that no matter what is going to be said Mr. Peter is stuck in his thesis and that is the way it is going to be.

In answering Tarjei, once again he shows how 'he knows Steiner better' than even Steiner knew himself. The whole Steiner didn't know he said this, and Steiner didn't know he was that, as if because he claims to have studied the man he knows what he was thinking that even the Dr. didn't know about himself. Truly unbelievable. Thanks again,

Dottie (non cave dweller, of course:)

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

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 8:01 am
Subject: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

----- Original Message -----
From: dottie zold
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 2:34 PM
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Andrea the cave Dweller (Dottie said)

ANDREA!!! I said not! Whew.

Uhu, rhis is true but, sometimes, when I read some "Charlatan's post" (guess who,guess who?) i just feel like this !!

A.

Dottie (non cave dweller, of course:)

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 8:27 am
Subject: Re: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Andrea

Uhu, rhis is true but, sometimes, when I read some "Charlatan's post" (guess who,guess who?) i just feel like this !!

I haven't heard the word faggot in a long, very long, time. It was so funny. Sorry. I wish I could have seen your face/expression when you wrote it.

d

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

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 8:55 am
Subject: R: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

I heard it used in one of my favourite songs: Dire Strait's "Money for Nothing".
A.

----- Original Message -----
From: dottie zold
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 5:27 PM
Subject: Re: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Andrea

Uhu, rhis is true but, sometimes, when I read some "Charlatan's post" (guess who,guess who?) i just feel like this !!

I haven't heard the word faggot in a long, very long, time. It was so funny. Sorry. I wish I could have seen your face/expression when you wrote it.

d

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

From: patrick evans
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 11:07 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Mr. Staudenmaier,

Please consider another way of interpreting Dr. Steiner's writings and statements particularly with regard to figures like Nietzsche, Haeckel, and Stirner. Rudolf Steiner was a spiritual teacher as I'm sure you know. To develop one's character he recommended that the student practice the Six Subsidiary Exercises. You can find this in the book, Guidance in Esoteric Training. By way of explanation one of the exercises is accompanied by an apocryphal story. In this story, Christ is walking with his disciples along a dusty road. Along the side of the road, the disciples find a wolf in an advanced state of decay. The disciples turn away in disgust. Christ approaches the animal and says to the disciples, "Look at his beautiful teeth!" Steiner used this approach when thinking about ideas and people. He tried to find what was pertinent, relevant, and truthful in the spirit of the other. In Nietzsche's case he saw him to be a Fighter for Freedom in the sense of the Philosophy of Freedom. Both of these books are important in understanding Rudolf Steiner. Because he defended and supported Nietzsche does not mean he held all of his views. To use his support of Nietzsche as of verification of his atheism is not, I believe, a well reasoned evaluation of Steiner and his views, if that is in fact what you are doing. The same goes for Haeckel. Rudolf Steiner saw in Haeckel -- and in Darwin for that matter -- an important proponent of the idea of evolution. His contemplation of Haeckel gave birth to his book, An Outline of Esoteric Science. In his book the Philosophy of Freedom, the idea emerges that one must even "think away" the idea of a creator in order to become completely free in one's thinking. A human being, in order to be free, must approach the idea of God without compulsion. This does not mean that God does not exist or that Steiner is an atheist. From your response to Dottie and Tarjei, I read that you evaluate what people say from your own lexicon. (You are also a master of rhetoric, especially when translating and interpreting others words.) It is critical however, I believe, that we seek to understand the spirit and intent of what one is saying and to do this, we must be open-minded. I think that certain doors of understanding are closed in your mind with regard to Steiner. If one uses the aforementioned discipline to evaluate his words then he is quite consistent in what he says. When speaking of natural science, he supports and praises certain aspects and is critical of others, and so on.

Respectfully,

Patrick Wakeford-Evans

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Staudenmaier
To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 7:38 PM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Hi Dottie, you wrote:

I remember this conversation happening on the critics list and I recall you, Peter, saying that Dr. Steiner changed his tune to be politically correct; in other words he lied.

No, that isn't at all what I said. Steiner didn't care about what we now call 'political correctness' (add that to the list of things I admire about him). I do not think that he lied on this topic. I can't even recall him saying much about in the autobiography. In any case, changing your tune and lying are entirely different things. What I claimed is that Steiner very much changed his tune on a number of issues in the course of the 1890's (I agree with Daniel that anti-clericalism was among these issues), including his views on god. I still don't understand why that sounds so implausible; this is the period when his chief indentifications were with figures like Nietzsche, Haeckel, and Stirner. According to one part of the encyclopedia article Daniel forwarded, a person has to reject spirituality as such in order to count as an atheist (though by my reading the article contradicts itself several times on exactly this point); that is not the sense of 'atheist' that I had in mind. I think of atheism as meaning disbelief in god, nothing more, nothing less.

Peter

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 11:38 am
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Hi Andrea,

my apologies for mixing up your gender. You wrote:

Anyone reading Evola and Steiner is able to see that there exists a total opposition between them: it's a real matter of fact.

I disagree. In the late 1920's Evola was on good terms with the first generation of Italian Steinerites (Colazza, Colonna, et al.). In the 1930's one of Evola's closest collaborators was Massimo Scaligero, who went on to become perhaps the single best-known Italian follower of Steiner. Moreover, Evola's root-race scheme -- as laid out in Revolt Against the Modern World, for example -- is identical to Steiner's: Polarians, Hyperboreans, Lemurians, Atlanteans, Aryans. I consider these parallels significant.

Peter Staudenmaier

Terms and Their Meanings

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 11:50 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Hi again Peter S,

I wrote:

I think it's important to keep the moral aspect of racism up front, especially when you throw the word around almost every time you mention Steiner, causing readers to form moral judgements because of it.

And you wrote:

Then we disagree. I think moral judgements are distinct from descriptive claims.

Tarjei:

You're not communicating. The words "racism" and "racist" are charged with associations related to ethics, and when they are used in the manner you are using them, the reader is led to moral judgements, consciously or subconsciously. That does not mean that the author of a description is passing judgements of any kind, although he or she may imply ever so subtely that a moral judgement is implicit.

Tarjei:

In the late 1880's. Chapter 7 of the autobiography, where the excerpt is taken from, covers "1886-1889 - Vienna."

Peter S:

But that's not the time period you and I were talking about. I do not believe that Steiner was an atheist in the 1880's.

Tarjei:

RS explained that he observed strict silence about his spiritual-religious conceptions until 1899

Peter S:

He may have later claimed this, but the claim is inaccurate, unless you mean that his caustic 1897 critique of Theosophy does not count as an expression of his own spiritual-religious conceptions.

Tarjei:

It does not, because RS spoke or wrote nothing at all about his spiritual-religious conceptions before the turn of the century. RS makes this very clear in his autobiography, which he wrote in order to avoid such misunderstandings.

There is another thing that should be mentioned concerning Steiner's affiliation with the Theosophical Society and his endeavor to link his own spiritual work to the pioneering groundwork made by HPB and the Theosophical Society. This is related to the spiritual background of the movement itself: Rudolf Steiner's karma was linked to the founding of the Theosophical Society from the beginning. And to borrow your very own expression (quoted and commented below), one can say with a great deal of certainty that if it not understood that the founding of the Theosophical Society was an initiative originating in the spiritual world, among the higher hierarchies, one has indeed an impoverished conception of spirituality - in this case, a negation of the spiritual.

Peter S:

Indeed. I said nothing about his beliefs regarding god in the late 1880's. My claim was about his beliefs regarding god in the late 1890's.

Tarjei:

If that makes any difference at all, it's for the worse.

Peter S:

I disagree that gods are part and parcel of the spiritual world. They are only part and parcel of some versions of the spiritual world, certainly not all.

Tarjei:

That's worth a Quote of the Day. Your word-game makes absolutely no sense.

Peter S:

Perhaps you think this makes no sense because you really do believe that spirituality as such requires belief in god. If that is the case, I think you have an impoverished conception of spirituality.

Tarjei:

Here you make a simple assumptiom about my belief, which you twist into an "impoverished conception of spirituality." If you wish to demonstrate that my conception of spirituality is indeed impoverished, you should be able to show that your own conception of spirituality is enriched and enlightened. So far, I have seen nothing of the kind from your voluminous list messages and articles.

Tarjei:

So if he said and wrote later that he was a theist at that time but kept it strictly to himself, you don't believe him?

Peter S:

That depends. Where does he say that he was a theist in the late 1890's? (By the way, I don't even necessarily dispute this -- I can't recall coming across any later mention of it one way or the other -- but what I originally said is that Steiner at this time wavered between atheism and re-affirmation of mystical christian belief.)

Tarjei:

Pure unadulterated nonsense. He was familiarizing himself with the sciences, epistemologies and philosophies of his age and carving out his own position in relation to them. In order to do this, he had to keep theology and religion at arm's length. He certainly admired thinkers who were atheists, but he was never naîve enough to be an atheist. Besides, his spiritual faculties made such a position impossible. At one point in a lecture later in life, he said that agnosticism is a misfortune, and that atheism is a disease. If RS had ever suffered from this disease (in his present incarnation), he would probably have said so.

Peter S:

That is not what List or Lanz, the two leading ariosophists, taught, and I don't know of any Nazi race theorist who made this claim

Tarjei:

'To Gobineau, "History... shows us that all civilization flows from the white race, that none can exist without the co-operation of this race," and that to the ordinary white race, the Aryan race is what the white man is to the black.' [Pennick]

Uh, Tarjei? Do you know when Gobineau lived, and where? He wasn't an ariosophist, and he wasn't a Nazi. He died in 1882, when ariosophy was still a glimmer in Guido List's eye (and when Lanz von Liebenfels, who coined the term 'ariosophy', was ten years old), and half a century before the Nazis came to power.

Tarjei:

I have read Webb (The Occult Establishment). He made no attempt to stigmatize Anthroposophy in that manner

Peter S:

Webb's book explores the interplay between anthroposophy and the völkisch movement in detail (pp. 285-290) and discusses several areas of overlap between Theosophy, anthroposophy, and the esoteric wing of the Nazis, including race theory, the Atlantis myth, and the Aryan myth (pp. 312-333).

Tarjei:

The difference between you and Webb is that Webb doesn't play intellectual games in order to target a specific movement.

[I've been writing about James in the past tense, because he died suddenly death at the age of 34, apparently by committing suicide

http://www.gurdjieff-internet.com/article_details.php?ID=213&W=36 ]

Tarjei:

I already said that: The Indo-European peoples who migrated between Europe and Asia. You may say that these migrations never took place, that these people didn't exist, or that they were called something else, but that's your personal opinion, not an objective conclusive fact.

Peter S:

Sorry, Tarjei, this is a very well studied topic.

Tarjei:

Everything related to pre-history is subject to disputes and divided opinions.

Tarjei:

Steiner had ideological links to Nazism?

Peter S:

Yes, of course. That's largely what my first article on anthroposophy was about.

Tarjei:

Which is another pink elephant. In the opening paragraph of your article you write that RS said the following to his audience in Oslo:

[PS]

The "national souls" of Northern and Central Europe were, Steiner explained, components of the "germanic-nordic sub-race," the world's most spiritually advanced ethnic group, which was in turn the vanguard of the highest of five historical "root races." This superior fifth root race, Steiner told his Oslo audience, was naturally the "Aryan race."

Tarjei:

You've gone to great pains to defend this falsehood and/or explain it away by calling it "an opening device" and so on, but it doesn't alter the fact that you are deliberately falsifying Steiner's utterances in this lecture cycle.

Tarjei:

It's ironic that someone who believes Steiner was an atheist and a Nazi ideologue thinks it's the others who misunderstand him."

Peter S:

I don't see why that would be ironic, but in any case, I do not believe that Steiner was a Nazi ideologue. Gobineau, to choose your own example, had multiple ideological links to Nazism, yet was obviously not a Nazi ideologue.

Tarjei:

What you're doing is pick and choose among Nazi ideologues, Ariosophists, war criminals and racists; and then you throw Steiner into the basket too and shake it like a mechanic Blackjack dealer, making sure that Steiner ends up on top with all the notorious murderous racists sticking to him from the bottom of the pit when you take the lid off. You get your applause and take a bow from your audience, most of whom didn't observe your sleight of hand.

Tarjei:

If Jews aren't a race, why do you keep talking about Steiner's "racism" in connection with Jews?"

Peter S:

Because Steiner thought they were a race.

Tarjei:

That's a good one :)

Tarjei:

Why do you insist that Anthroposophy is "racist to the core" on the basis of Steiner's alleged anti-Semitism if Jews are not a race?"

Peter S:

I don't argue that anthroposophy is racist on the basis of Steiner's antisemitic beliefs.

Tarjei:

Steiner had no anti-Semitic beliefs.

Peter S:

I argue this on the basis of his stated views on race, particularly his claims about blacks, Asians, indigenous peoples, and so forth.

Tarjei:

OK....

Tarjei:

There is an urgent need for all peoples in the world to assimilate.

Peter S:

Into what?

Tarjei:

Into new societies, new social groups, new races, based upon total freedom for each individual about whom to have babies with, how to leive, what to believe, etc. There are too many wars in the world linked to ethnic tensions. Old ethnicities and races have outlived their purpose. We should all move away to distant continents and mix with strangers.

Tarjei:

Your notion that Steiner was anti-Semitic is a pink elephant; calling a pro-assimilation stance anti-Semitism is playing abstract games with words, and you know it."

Peter S:

I don't, as it happens, know that, but it does seem to me that you are still having an unusually difficult time understanding my argument about Steiner's views on Jews.

Tarjei:

Someone calling your argument a pink elephant has not, ipso facto, misunderstood it. I just think it's worthless.

Peter S:

There were lots of pro-assimilationist antisemites in Steiner's day. If you are unaware of that fact, you would do well to familiarize yourself with the history of antisemitism. As for Steiner's own views, why don't we discuss those? Then you can show everybody here how wrong I am. Tell me what you think of Steiner's assertion that the very existence of Jewry as such is a mistake of world history. I will gladly entertain an explanation of why this statement was not antisemitic. Thanks in advance,

Tarjei:

Steiner thought the very continuation of 19th century culture into the 20th century was a mistake of world history, and his criticism of Jewish culture (which should always be read along with his praises of this culture as well), is part and parcel of this view.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: holderlin66
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 12:34 pm
Subject: agreement and disagreement/Princess Bride

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Tarjei Straume wrote:

Tarjei:

What you're doing is pick and choose among Nazi ideologues, Ariosophists, war criminals and racists; and then you throw Steiner into the basket too and shake it like a mechanic Blackjack dealer, making sure that Steiner ends up on top with all the notorious murderous racists sticking to him from the bottom of the pit when you take the lid off. You get your applause and take a bow from your audience, most of whom didn't observe your sleight of hand.

Dear Peter;

Yes we all admire your crisp coolness and fencing skills, but in all seriousness, which is not the Pompous Seriousness you have enjoyed, up till now fencing away on the foredecks, aft and stern of the good ship AT, Tarjei is precisely correct and warmly human as well.

Plus he is gifted with a Personality. Sorry, did you no know this was a beauty contest for the shining human soul and saving the Princess of the Castle. Saving Sophia against the dangerous dragon of deceit. Mike has brought up a few honest and wonderful statements you have made and one of the most honest statements I thought you made was something to do with, "I am not Fair and Balanced, never intended to be and ain't gonna happen, I don't like anthroposophy"...etc... as some honest and clear non fence sitting position. That is OK by us.

Now Dear Peter.

It is my duty to tell you that this wonderful scen that we are living now has been filmed before. The movie was called "Princess Bride". "Princess Bride" is all about saving the human princess, SOUL, (yours as well) from the dry cunning nonsense that you spin. Naturally I don't expect your face to crack but, just as the above, the Imagination of this entire visit by you is taken with a hearty sense of warmth and your style, Dear Peter, is impeccable. Here is the scene you would need to study. (There is another one with the two fencers which I should really include later) Call this INTERMISSION.

"Princess Bride" and the quest of the human soul:

Vizzini: Let me put it this way: Have you ever heard or Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?
Man in black: Yes.
Vizzini: Morons!
Man in black: Really! In that case, I challenge you to a battle of wits.
Vizzini: For the princess? To the death? I accept!
Man in black: Good, then pour the wine. [Vizzini pours the wine] Inhale this but do not touch.
Vizzini: [taking a vial from the man in black] I smell nothing.
Man in black: What you do not smell is Iocaine powder. It is odorless, tasteless, and dissolves instantly in liquid and is among the more deadly poisons known to man.
Vizzini: [shrugs with laughter] Hmmm.
Man in black: [turning his back, and adding the poison to one of the goblets] Alright, where is the poison? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both drink - and find out who is right, and who is dead.
Vizzini: But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine it from what I know of you. Are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemies? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you...But you must have known I was not a great fool; you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Man in black: You've made your decision then?
Vizzini: [happily] Not remotely! Because Iocaine comes from Australia. As everyone knows, Australia is entirely peopled with criminals. And criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me. So, I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.
Man in black: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Vizzini: Wait 'till I get going!! ...where was I?
Man in black: Australia.
Vizzini: Yes! Australia! And you must have suspected I would have known the powder's origin,so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Man in black: You're just stalling now.
Vizzini: You'd like to think that, wouldn't you! You've beaten my giant, which means you're exceptionally strong...so you could have put the poison in your own goblet trusting on your strength to save you, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But, you've also bested my Spaniard, which means you must have studied...and in studying you must have learned that man is mortal so you would have put the poison as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me!

Man in black: You're trying to trick me into giving away something. It won't work.
Vizzini: It has worked! You've given everything away! I know where the poison is!
Man in black: Then make your choice.
Vizzini: I will, and I choose...[pointing behind the man in black] What in the world can that be?
Man in black: [turning around, while Vizzini switches goblets] What?! Where?! I don't see anything.
Vizzini: Oh, well, I...I could have sworn I saw something. No matter. [Vizzini laughs]
Man in black: What's so funny?
Vizzini: I...I'll tell you in a minute. First, lets drink, me from my glass and you from yours.

[They both drink]

Man in black: You guessed wrong.
Vizzini: You only think I guessed wrong! That's what's so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned! Ha ha, you fool!! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia; and only slightly less well known is this: Never go in against a Sicilian, when death is on the line!

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

From: holderlin66
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 12:55 pm
Subject: Re: agreement and disagreement/Princess Bride 2

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, PART II of the Peter steals the Princess Show: Intermission starring Janice J. and the giggilos

Inigo: Is there another way you'll trust me?
Man in black: Nothing comes to mind.
Inigo: I swear on the soul of my Father, Domingo Montoya, you will reach the top alive.
Man in black: Throw me the rope.

[Inigo throws the rope to the Man in black, and helps him to the top where there's a Clearing]

Man in black: [exhausted] Thank you. [He struggles to draw his sword]
Inigo: wait wait wait wait wait wait 'till you're ready.
Man in black: Again, thank you. [He sits and removes a stone from his boot]
Inigo: I do not mean to pry, but you don't by any chance happen to have six fingers on your right hand?
Man in black: [revealing his five fingers] Do you always begin conversations this way?
Inigo: My father was slaughtered by a six fingered man. He was a great sword-maker, my father. When the six fingered man appeared and requested a special sword, my father took the job. He slaved a year before he was done.

[Inigo unsheathes his sword, and shows it to the Man in black]

Man in black: I've never seen its equal.
Inigo: Six fingered man returned and demanded it...but at one-tenth his promised price. My father refused. Without a word, the six fingered man slashed him through the heart. I loved my father, so naturally I challenged this man to a duel. I failed...Six fingered man leave me alive, but he gave me this [a scar on his cheek] and this [another scar].
Man in black: How old were you?
Inigo: I was eleven years old. When I was strong enough, I dedicated my life to the study of fencing; so the next time we meet I will not fail. I will go up to the six fingered man and say 'Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.'
Man in black: [intrigued] You've done nothing but sword-play?
Inigo: More pursue more than study lately. You see, I cannot find him...it's been twenty years now and I'm starting to lose confidence. I just work for Vizzini to pay to bills. There's not a lot of money in revenge.

[After a moments silence, the Man in black stands up and prepares to
battle]

Man in black: Well I....I certainly hope you find him someday.
Inigo: You all ready then?
Man in black: Whether I am or not, you've been more than fair.
Inigo: [drawing his sword] You seem a decent fellow...I hate to kill you.
Man in black: You seem a decent fellow...I hate to die.
Inigo: [confidently] Begin.

[Slowly, a great battle ensues. Inigo tests the Man in black, and the Man in black tests Inigo. They continue to battle on.]

Inigo: You are using Bonetties Defense against me, ah?
Man in black: I thought it fitting considering the rocky terrain.
Inigo: Naturally, you must suspect me to attack with Capa Fero?
Man in black: Naturally...but I find that Tibal cancels out Capa Fero. Don't you?
Inigo: Unless the enemy has studied his Agliepa...which I have.

[They continue to exchange attacks and parries]

Inigo: You are wonderful!
Man in black: Thank you. I've worked hard to become so.
Inigo: I admit it, you are better than I am.
Man in black: Then why are you smiling?
Inigo: Because I know something you don't know.
Man in black: And what is that?
Inigo: [switching hands] I am not left-handed!

[Inigo switches to his right hand, and appears to overwhelm the Man in black]

Man in black: You're amazing!
Inigo: I ought to be after twenty years.
Man in black: [struggling to keep Inigo away] There's something I ought to tell you.
Inigo: Tell me!
Man in black: I'm not left-handed either.

[The Man in black switches to his right hand, and performs a few amazing feats]
[They stop fencing for a brief moment]

Inigo: [in awe] Who are you?
Man in black: No one of consequence.
Inigo: I must know.
Man in black: Get used to disappointment.
Inigo: [disappointed] Okay...

[The battle rages on again, this time, the Man in black is dominating]
[The Man in black knocks the sword out of Inigo's hand, and circles in behind him]

Inigo: [kneeling] Kill me quickly.
Man in black: I would as soon destroy a stained glass window as an artist like yourself. However, since I can't have you following me either...

[The Man in black hits Inigo on the back of his head with the hilt of his sword, knocking him out.]

Man in black: [sincerely] Please understand I hold you in the highest respect.

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

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 1:01 pm
Subject: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Staudenmaier
To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 8:38 PM
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Hi Andrea,

my apologies for mixing up your gender. You wrote:

Anyone reading Evola and Steiner is able to see that there exists a total opposition between them: it's a real matter of fact.

I disagree. In the late 1920's Evola was on good terms with the first generation of Italian Steinerites (Colazza, Colonna, et al.).

It's absurd.
You're twisting the things, as usual.

To be in a good personal relationships means NOTHING AT ALL about each one's point of wiew.
I have lots of written and personal memories about it.

Those pèople were able to struggle and dicuss for hours one another on a conceptual plane and, after a while, they were eating together. That's the way they acted.

You surely also know that Colonna di Cesarò was investigated as the puppeteer of one of the attempts to kill Mussolini, don't you? (What a fascist this Colonna!!...)

In the 1930's one of Evola's closest collaborators was Massimo Scaligero, who went on to become perhaps the single best-known Italian follower of Steiner.

Uhu, Don Pedro be careful!! You're telling stories, in this case halftruths. (Well, you got the entire package I see)..

Unfortunately for you .
You're talking about my own personal Spiritual Teacher that i knew and followed for years!!
The whole truth is that Scaligero (and his fellows disciples) wrote also the strongest possible critics against Evola's insights.

Evola did the same about Massimo..
What a beutiful spiritual commonground relationships!!!

There are also several purely spiritual issues,(I was at Massimo's home two days after Evola's death) but i have to follow the principle "Nolite proicere margaritas...."

But If you want some info about the occult bacgkround of the relationship between Massimo and Evola read Scaligero's own autobiographyin which he also explains the purely esoteric and spiritual way by which he met Steiner's teachings.

Moreover, Evola's root-race scheme -- as laid out in Revolt Against the Modern World, for example -- is identical to Steiner's: Polarians, Hyperboreans, Lemurians, Atlanteans, Aryans. I consider these parallels significant.

Uhu, my God!! Significant?? You are REALLY nut!!
Well if it is so you're not able to separate "the name" from "the thing" , that's the basic work of a rational mind.

You can "consider" everything like you wish, making all the rest of the world laugh, but iin this case ,among more or less 117876 differences among Steiner's and Evola's cosmologies there is the biggest one, the core of it all.

His name is "Christ Event".

Have you never heard this name, mr.Charlatanmaier ?

In any case , I thank you. I 'd never be able to believe that there is on the earth someone able to write what you've been writing about Steiner and Evola

We have ever and ever to learn!!

Andrea the Cave Dweller

Peter Staudenmaier

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 1:53 pm
Subject: some corrections

Thanks for your vote of confidence, Bradford, but you quoted one of my mangled sentences:

What you're doing is pick and choose among Nazi ideologues, Ariosophists, war criminals and racists; and then you throw Steiner into the basket too and shake it like a mechanic Blackjack dealer, making sure that Steiner ends up on top with all the notorious murderous racists sticking to him from the bottom of the pit when you take the lid off. You get your applause and take a bow from your audience, most of whom didn't observe your sleight of hand.

Make it looks as if the audience is bowing to the performer. So please read the last sentence:

"You take a bow and get your applause from your audience, most of whom didn't observe your sleight of hand."

Btw I know how to spell 'ariosophists', but my cat, who is purely astral because I live with people who are allergic to furs, is a prankster who had changed some keys around on my keyboard when I wrote the word. [Editorially corrected]

Incidentally, a "mechanic" used to mean a blackjack dealer who skims off taxable income for the house by dealing good cards to the shills.

Tarjei

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 3:55 pm
Subject: Re: agreement and disagreement

Hey Patrick,

I just wanted to say thanks for the reminder to keep an open mind when looking at information. Dr. Steiner set such an amazing example of taking into consideration work by great teachers even if they did not come to the same understanding of a thing. And in this manner I am finding the path to freedom.

Nice post,
Dottie

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 4:23 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Hi Patrick, thanks for your post. You wrote:

Please consider another way of interpreting Dr. Steiner's writings and statements particularly with regard to figures like Nietzsche, Haeckel, and Stirner.

Your interpretation sounds plausible to me. I do think that Steiner's commitment to Haeckel's views was stronger in the late 1890's than you seem to acknowledge, but believe it or not this isn't a major interest of mine.

Because he defended and supported Nietzsche does not mean he held all of his views.

You're quite right.

To use his support of Nietzsche as of verification of his atheism is not, I believe, a well reasoned evaluation of Steiner and his views, if that is in fact what you are doing.

That isn't really what I was getting at, though you do have a good point about my truncated argument from yesterday. What I was trying to say was that it shouldn't strike anybody as wildly outrageous that someone who strongly identified with three of the best-known atheists ever might have tended at that moment toward atheism himself. Whether Steiner's own writings from the period in question actually display atheist tendencies is a matter that we could productively argue about (though it really isn't why I came here, and I don't have a whole lot more to say on the topic), but treating the very notion as a priori preposterous doesn't strike me as the most promising route to an accurate conclusion. That's why I brought up Nietzsche et al.

This does not mean that God does not exist or that Steiner is an atheist.

I don't think that Steiner was an atheist when he wrote PoF.

From your response to Dottie and Tarjei, I read that you evaluate what people say from your own lexicon.

Yes, I think that this is unavoidable at some level. But I also partly agree with your caveat:

It is critical however, I believe, that we seek to understand the spirit and intent of what one is saying and to do this, we must be open-minded.

I'm skeptical about the "intent" part, but otherwise I think you're right.

I think that certain doors of understanding are closed in your mind with regard to Steiner.

That is very likely true. I doubt that this is one of those cases, however; after all, it certainly isn't derogatory, coming from me, to suggest that the younger Steiner temporarily stopped believing in god.

Thanks for your thoughtful comments,

Peter Staudenmaier

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 4:33 pm
Subject: the atheist initiate (was: agreement and disagreement)

Patrick:

I think that certain doors of understanding are closed in your mind with regard to Steiner.

Peter S:

That is very likely true. I doubt that this is one of those cases, however; after all, it certainly isn't derogatory, coming from me, to suggest that the younger Steiner temporarily stopped believing in god.

Tarjei:

Your opinion proves that you do not understand Rudolf Steiner for the simple reason that you cannot temporarily stop believing in something you see with your own eyes.

An atheist initiate is an oxymoron.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 4:48 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Hi Tarjei,

I don't know why you think I'm not communicating. I simply disagree that it is impossible, or even particularly difficult, to use words like "racism" in a descriptive way, without invoking moral judgements. Try to keep in mind that there are a number of self-proclaimed racists out there who appreciate and promote Steiner's racial theories precisely because they see these theories as compatible with their own racist worldviews. Those folks evidently have a very different sense of moral judgement from yours and mine. I'm still not clear why you consider this controversial; just look at this very exchange right here: you and I can dispute what constitutes proper spirituality, according to our own moral judgements, but this won't tell us anything important about what the basic category of "spirituality" means.

if it not understood that the founding of the Theosophical Society was an initiative originating in the spiritual world, among the higher hierarchies, one has indeed an impoverished conception of spirituality - in this case, a negation of the spiritual.

I think that's silly. Tying spirituality as such to a specific conception of the "higher hierarchies" is a very bad idea. There are lots and lots of spiritual traditions in the world.

Everything related to pre-history is subject to disputes and divided opinions.

Indeed. Some opinions are justified, and others are not. The belief in an "Aryan race" is not. Can you point to any contemporary scholarship at all that supports your views on this topic? Do you by any chance believe that there is a "Romance race" or a "Finno-Ugric race"?

You've gone to great pains to defend this falsehood and/or explain it away by calling it "an opening device" and so on, but it doesn't alter the fact that you are deliberately falsifying Steiner's utterances in this lecture cycle.

What part do you think is false?

What you're doing is pick and choose among Nazi ideologues, Ariosophists, war criminals and racists

Alas, yes, that is indeed how I spend my days.

and then you throw Steiner into the basket too

Steiner was not a war criminal, a Nazi ideologue, or an Ariosophist.

Steiner had no anti-Semitic beliefs.

That's what we should be arguing about, Tarjei. Why don't you present an argument to this effect? Just tell me what you think he meant when he said that Jewry should cease to exist, and why you think this stance was not antisemitic. It isn't a trick question. How about it?

Peter

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 5:13 pm
Subject: Re: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Hi Andrea, you wrote:

You surely also know that Colonna di Cesarò was investigated as the puppeteer of one of the attempts to kill Mussolini, don't you? (What a fascist this Colonna!!...)

Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but you seem to be saying that anybody who tries to kill a fascist cannot possibly be a fascist. Shall I take it, then, that you think the Nazis who Hitler had killed in the 1934 "night of the long knives" were not really Nazis?

Unfortunately for you .You're talking about my own personal Spiritual Teacher that i knew and followed for years!!

Yes, I had you figured for an acolyte of Scaligero months ago. What do you think of his fascist-era writings, for example in Critica Fascista?

The whole truth is that Scaligero (and his fellows disciples) wrote also the strongest possible criticsagainst Evola's insights.Evola did the same about Massimo.. What a beutiful spiritual commonground relationships!!!

Am I misunderstanding you, or are you really saying that people who later criticize one another's work cannot have been collaborators previously? If that is indeed your position, could you perhaps explain how you came to hold it? Thanks,

Peter

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 5:45 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Peter, you wrote:

Try to keep in mind that there are a number of self-proclaimed racists out there who appreciate and promote Steiner's racial theories precisely because they see these theories as compatible with their own racist worldviews.

Tarjei:

Abuse of Steiner's conceptions of racial evolution does not ipso facto make those conceptions false; nor does it make them racist.

Tarjei:

if it not understood that the founding of the Theosophical Society was an initiative originating in the spiritual world, among the higher hierarchies, one has indeed an impoverished conception of spirituality - in this case, a negation of the spiritual.

Peter S:

I think that's silly. Tying spirituality as such to a specific conception of the "higher hierarchies" is a very bad idea. There are lots and lots of spiritual traditions in the world.

Tarjei:

Living spirituality has nothing to do with traditions; it is cognition and awareness of spirit. It is not an abstract "idea", and it is therefore irrelevant whether you call it a good or bad "idea." In this case, we're dealing with the spiritual-occult origins of the Theosophical Society, not with abstract notions to be evaluated through external and superficial standards.

Peter S:

Indeed. Some opinions are justified, and others are not. The belief in an "Aryan race" is not. Can you point to any contemporary scholarship at all that supports your views on this topic?

Tarjei:

This category of pre-history belongs to the New Age, based upon psychic explorations and so on and linking more or less loosely to theosophical lore. The term "Aryan race" fell into such disrepute after the Nazi regime and the holocaust that different terminologies have been preferred, but I am quite confident that the more serious aspects of New Age will win the future and replace much of the present materialistic skepticism and cynicism.

Peter S:

Do you by any chance believe that there is a "Romance race" or a "Finno-Ugric race"?

Tarjei:

http://www.genealogia.fi/emi/art/article297ce.htm - "The Finns belong to that linguistic if not racial group of languages known as Finno-Ugric, first used by the Finnish ethnologist Mathias A. Castren."

Tarjei:

You've gone to great pains to defend this falsehood and/or explain it away by calling it "an opening device" and so on, but it doesn't alter the fact that you are deliberately falsifying Steiner's utterances in this lecture cycle.

Peter S:

What part do you think is false?

Tarjei:

That Steiner told his Christiania audience that the world's most spiritually advanced ethnic group was the "Aryan race."

Tarjei:

What you're doing is pick and choose among Nazi ideologues, Ariosophists, war criminals and racists

Peter S:

Alas, yes, that is indeed how I spend my days.

Tarjei:

and then you throw Steiner into the basket too

Peter S:

Steiner was not a war criminal, a Nazi ideologue, or an Ariosophist.

Tarjei:

So what is he doing in your basket in that company?

Tarjei:

Steiner had no anti-Semitic beliefs.

Peter S:

That's what we should be arguing about, Tarjei.

Tarjei:

I don't think so. Arguing is not how I spend my days.

Peter S:

Why don't you present an argument to this effect?

Tarjei:

You know the answer to that, because you've been through this dance many many times before.

Peter S:

Just tell me what you think he meant when he said that Jewry should cease to exist, and why you think this stance was not antisemitic. It isn't a trick question. How about it?

Tarjei:

Steiner believed that traditional religious rituals and beliefs should be replaced by a new apprach to the spiritual. Catholics don't cease to exist only because they stop being Catholics and become New Agers instead. Jews don't cease to exist because they become Buddhists and marry Thai. Muslims don't cease to exist if they change religion, unless the fatwa against such conversions are enforced. If you're looking forward to a cultural-spiritual revolution, you're not anti anybody just because you consider old traditions passé.

Reality is a lot more complicated than this, of course, because for a long time to come, the new and the old will exist side by side. Steiner also mentioned this in connection with traditional religions, but he also warned that sects based upon old beliefs and old scriptures may develop increasingly destructive tendencies.

I won't venture to say too much about the Jews for several reasons: I'm not Jewish myself, but I have always had this strange reverence and fascination for this tradition and its music and arts and literature. There may be others on this list who may take this further, because there's been some talk about the Kabbalah here. As I have understood it, you must learn Hebrew to understand the Kabbalah, and if you know some Hebrew, you're most likely Jewish. The bottom line is, however, that I favor assimilation because it gives each individual Jew complete personal freedom, and I think Steiner may also have had that in mind. That said, I don't think there is much restriction of freedom among ordinary Jews today; their traditions and ethnic identity don't seem to make them very different from others; that's why you can't tell who is Jewish and who isn't. But preservation of the Jewish identity into the future requires individual commitment among Jews; and as long as people are willing to make that commitment without being forced or pressured into it, I most certainly have no objections.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 7:23 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Hello Tarjei, you wrote:

Steiner believed that traditional religious rituals and beliefs should be replaced by a new apprach to the spiritual.

That may be, but what does it have to do with his statement that "Jewry as a people" should cease to exist? He didn't say that Judaism as a religion should cease to exist, he said that Jews as an ethnic group should cease to exist, that is, should cease being Jewish. If you believe that "Jewry as a people" is structured around traditional religious rituals and beliefs, either now or in Steiner's day, I invite you to say so. If you do not believe that, I fail to see how your claim above is a response to my question: what do you think Steiner meant when he said that Jewry should cease to exist, and why do you think this stance was not antisemitic?

Thanks in advance,

Peter

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 7:40 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Hi Peter, you wrote:

That may be, but what does it have to do with his statement that "Jewry as a people" should cease to exist? He didn't say that Judaism as a religion should cease to exist, he said that Jews as an ethnic group should cease to exist, that is, should cease being Jewish. If you believe that "Jewry as a people" is structured around traditional religious rituals and beliefs, either now or in Steiner's day, I invite you to say so. If you do not believe that, I fail to see how your claim above is a response to my question: what do you think Steiner meant when he said that Jewry should cease to exist, and why do you think this stance was not antisemitic?

You know very well by now what I mean and what Rudolf Steiner meant. You don't need to let the dictionary definitions of "people", "Jewry", "cease" and "exist" and their juxtapositions get in your way. If you fail to see that my previous post was a response to your question, perhaps I didn't care to answer your question. Some of your questions carry the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" syndrome. In other words, what I wrote was a comment on what you wrote, and I do believe it clarified my understanding of the issue and my perception of what Steiner's position was with regard to this topic.

Tarjei

Continued in another thread: "Answering Questions"

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

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 2:15 am
Subject: R: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 2:13 AM
Subject: Re: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Hi Andrea, you wrote:

You surely also know that Colonna di Cesarò was investigated as the puppeteer of one of the attempts to kill Mussolini, don't you? (What a fascist this Colonna!!...)

Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but you seem to be saying that anybody who tries to kill a fascist cannot possibly be a fascist.

You're reading much but with bad results

Colonna di Cesarò was a notorius antifascist, before and after the fall of Regime.

In 1946 he was in a political party called "Democrazia del Lavoro"

Unfortunately for you .You're talking about my own personal Spiritual Teacher that i knew and followed for years!!

Yes, I had you figured for an acolyte of Scaligero months ago.

Acolyte? TUO NONNO! I have been a scholar, that is a very different issue.

Months ago?? Hey man what is your job, to spy anthropop? ("Sophia" pls get a galnce at the conclusion of this post!)

What do you think of his fascist-era writings, for example in Critica Fascista?

If we follow Scaligero's biography we see that his fascist writings are typical of his "evolian" period.
They have a certain importance that it is not difficult to grasp. (Sure to those who are open minded researchers and not "spiritual Stalinist" like you, Pietruccio)

Outside the "pro-fascist" form and language Scaligero was able, here and there, to fill them with the results of his personal spiritual research ,in itself , meta-poltically oriented..

After the inner events that led him to find his own personal experience of the Living Thinking Path as the core of Steiner's Anthroposophy also (following his autobiography those events occurred between 1941 and 1944 and the mean to gain such an Initiatic winining post was just Steiner's cosmology as depicted in "Occult Science") everything in his life changed.

From 1959 tom 1980 he wrote 28 books about the Spiritual Path....but it's a matter that is of no us for a guy like you.

The whole truth is that Scaligero (and his fellows disciples) wrote also the strongest possible criticsagainst Evola's insights.Evola did the same about Massimo.. What a beutiful spiritual commonground relationships!!!

Am I misunderstanding you, or are you really saying that people who later criticize one another's work cannot have been collaborators previously?

Did I say so?

If you were a goodfaith nut I'd tell to you "try to see a biography in his wholeness and try, also, to grasp the basical and important features in it".

But you are only doing a job here.

Well after those discussions you have to pay some bill.

You have to be so kind to write "HY LIST, I WAS WRONG ABOUT THIS TOPIC , AND I APOLOGIZE"

You have 48 hours of time to do it.

If you don't do it I'll ask "Sophia" to eject you, FOLLOWING YAHOO RULES, due to your sistematic intellectual dishonesty and mobbing.

Andrea (who is bothering himself to lose time "discussing" with such a badfaith liar)

If that is indeed your position, could you perhaps explain how you came to hold it? Thanks,

Peter

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 7:06 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Peter:

I doubt that this is one of those cases, however; after all, it certainly isn't derogatory, coming from me, to suggest that the younger Steiner temporarily stopped believing in god.

Peter, it isn't that it is derogatory rather isn't the truth. Derogatory is besides the point and not one I would care about. We each hold our own truths and have our own opinions of things, but that does not mean we can make our opinions of another be true against what the other persons truth was. I mean we can try as you obviously are doing with really no success.

This is a pretty open group, and it's funny they are from all over the world and have mostly not met one another, yet they can easily see through what you are trying to make true from your own personal world outlook and perspective. And mostly it seems there is no Anthro church so to speak just groups of people that come together to study further the words of Dr. Steiner. No cultish type behavior going on and one can see clearly that most of this group would hightail it out of here if there was. as it would seek to curtail their personal freedom in understanding and pursuing a thing.

Dottie

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

From: Detlef Hardorp
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 10:52 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Dear anthroposophers of tomorrow,

permit me to jump in on this thread.

PS wrote:

That may be, but what does it have to do with his statement that "Jewry as a people" should cease to exist?

Where do you, PS, get the statement ""Jewry as a people" should cease to exist" from?

I am inclined to believe - but maybe you will prove me wrong - that this is not a statement by Steiner, but your interpretation of Steiner's meaning. Now everybody is entitled to their opinions. But these should be clearly delineated from statements of someone else.

This "statement" does not come from the controversial paragraph we have been discussing (from the 1888 Hamerling Humunculus review). There Steiner writes that Jewry as a self-contained entity (he uses the expression "Jewry as such"; the "as such" is referring back to the previous sentence where he is speaking about Jewry as a self-contained entity) "has outlived itself and has no justification within the modern life of nations". From this you can only conclude that Steiner is saying that that Jewry as a self-contained entity has no justification within the modern life of nations" (or peoples, if you prefer). This clearly does not indicate a positive stance towards a state like Israel. But it is not saying that ""Jewry as a people" should cease to exist".

Steiner then continues in his essay:

"Wir meinen hier nicht die Formen der jüdischen Religion allein, wir meinen vorzüglich den Geist des Judentums, die jüdische Denkweise."

“By this we mean not only the forms of the Jewish religion but above all the spirit of Judaism and of the Jewish way of thinking."

Summary of this statement: Although Judaism has had a very favourable influence on Western culture, it has outlived itself as a self-contained entity and as a distinct Jewish way of thinking.

I don't want to enter into the debate whether or not this statement is anti-Semitic. Intelligent people have argued both ways. In the end this will certainly depend a lot on your definition of anti-Semitism. There are certain very broad definitions which will classify even mildly critical statements about Israel as anti-Semitic - because anything remotely critical of anything to do with Jewish people and their institutions is, by definition, anti-Semitic. Other definitions are less broad. In the end, it matters less how people judge this. What matters more is how much people understand. In order to understand and certainly to judge statements made by Steiner in the context of Hamerling's thoughts in 1888, a minimal understanding of the historical context is necessary. An attempt to go into this in detail is the book by Bader, Ravagli and Leist, which can be found in English at http://www.waldorfschule.info/aktuell/anti.pdf. A summary of some of this has been recently condensed into a short text, as yet unpublished in English, from which I would like to paste the nitty gritty in a long excerpt here:

 

Historical Context

Allegations of anti-Semitism against Steiner demonstrate an unfortunate lack of historical awareness of the time he lived. For instance, such allegations consider his use of the term “the Jewish question” as so called “proof” of anti-Semitism.4 In fact, in his day this expression was in constant use by the general public, including German Jews. Later it gained anti-Semitic connotations in connection with Hitler’s “final solution.”

In the early 1880’s, the young Steiner was already speaking against one of the most high-profile representatives of anti-Semitism in Germany, the socialist Eugen Dühring, portrayed by Jacob Katz as the 19th century prototype of Nazi-Anti-Semitism. Steiner described Dühring’s anti-Semitism as barbaric and hostile to culture. In the following decade, he referred to “anti-Semitic brutes” as enemies of all human rights.

As a keen and open-minded observer whose views conformed with those of many liberal Jews, he spoke up for the full legal and social equality of European Jews: “The Jews need Europe and Europe needs the Jews,” he wrote in 1888.5 He countered the hate propaganda of anti-Semitism with his own ideal:

“Value should be attached solely to the mutual interaction of individuals. It is irrelevant whether someone is a Jew or a German. This is so obvious that one feels stupid even putting it into words. So how stupid must one be to assert the opposite!”

 

Anti-Semitism: “...the opposite of any sane point of view”

In 1900 Steiner described anti-Semitism as “a mockery of every kind of cultural achievement in modern times,” and the “opposite of any sane point of view.” The foremost Jewish journal waging the battle against anti-Semitism at the time, Mitteilungen aus dem Verein zur Abwehr des Antisemitismus (“Reports from the Society Against Anti-Semitism”), published a series of essays by Steiner in 1901. In these he countered the German racists’ myth of Germanic superiority and condemned their “nonsensical anti-Semitic chatter.” He likened the laws affecting Jews in European countries to “conditions of slavery.”

He considered the prevailing racial antipathies of the time to be an expression of ignorant emotions and instincts being articulated by nationalistic and racist movements. The leaders of these movements soon turned against Steiner himself.

As early as 1919, Adolf Hitler’s mentor Dietrich Eckhart accused Steiner of participation in the so-called “Jewish plot” against the German people. In the newspaper, Der Völkische Beobachter in 1921, Hitler personally continued the campaign against Steiner by denouncing Anthroposophy as “a Jewish method of destroying the normal mental attitude of nations.”6 Militant opposition by nationalist and racist groups culminated with an attempt on Steiner’s life in Munich in 1922.

Because many prominent Jews were students of Steiner’s anthroposophy at that time, the Anthroposophical Society itself was attacked as being “a society of Jews.” Although he was critical of Zionism as a movement, he counted the Zionists Ernst Müller and Hugo Bergman among his friends. Bergman, as Chancellor of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, worked to bring about the realization of Steiner’s political ideas in Palestine because he knew that the “Arab question” could only be solved by overcoming the principle of nation states – a view that is still highly relevant today.

 

Zionism – a consequence of anti-Semitism

Due to his critical concerns about the principle of nation states in general, Steiner opposed Zionism for the same reasons that Hannah Arendt did later. He once even rated Zionism as being more dangerous than anti-Semitism in that it militated against the equality of Jews as citizens. This view was echoed by the Jewish scholar Victor Klemperer, the well-known author of diaries which he kept throughout the period of the Third Reich. As early as the 1930’s, Klemperer was placing Zionism on an equal footing with National Socialism. Here, once again, the impartial observer can clearly see that the yardsticks in use prior to the Holocaust differed from those applied thereafter. For Steiner, the Zionism of Herzl and Nordau was the consequence of anti-Semitism, a self-constructed identity which prospered on the soil of anti-Jewish hostility. His philosophical disagreement with Zionism does not in any way indicate an anti-Semitic attitude.

The “ethic of commandments” is no longer valid – an “ethic of freedom” is needed for the future

Steiner’s clear opposition to anti-Semitism and to racism arose as a matter of course from what he called “ethical individualism.” This concept is the very foundation on which Anthroposophy itself is built. Ethical individualism is concerned with every human being taking responsibility to develop his/her self-determining individual spirit.

Steiner’s essay on Hamerling’s Humunkulus (1888), in which he defended the author against the charge of anti-Semitism (and which contains the previously cited sentence about Jews belonging to Europe) contains another sentence that calls for further clarification as it can only be understood in the context of the ideal of “ethical individualism.” The whole tenor of the essay is quite clearly not anti-Semitic, but this sentence has sometimes been purposely quoted out of context in an attempt to present Steiner as anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic.

The statement in question holds that the continuing existence of Jewishness amid the modern life of nations is a “mistake of world history.” Steiner continued: “By this we mean not only the forms of the Jewish religion but above all the spirit of Judaism and of the Jewish way of thinking.”8

The subsequent text then explains what Steiner meant by calling this a “mistake,” namely that Judaism represented “a moral ideal brought over from ancient times into modern life where it is entirely useless.” These remarks by Steiner could easily be seen to contradict his unconditional plea in favor of Jewish life in Europe and his disapproval of contemporary anti-Semitism. How, then, can we understand this?

The “moral ideal” and the “Jewish way of thinking” here referenced are seen by Steiner as a belief in an abstract monotheism and an ethic of commandment or duty received through revelation. In contrast, he felt that the future development of humanity required that we overcome the constraints of “moral commandments” in favor of individual freedom and responsibility. This conviction also led Steiner to criticize some contemporary Christian denominational thinking which specified moral norms when these did not require the individual to also take personal responsibility to think for him/herself.

 

Steiner’s positive appraisal of Judaism

As mentioned, Steiner recognized aspects of the Judaic religion which he regarded as being timeless in their validity. He emphasized the central role played by Judaism in the establishment of the modern age in the West. For instance, he recognized Moses as having set humanity a task that is still on-going today: “What subsequent humanity owes to Moses is the power to develop reason and intellect.”10 And: “Moses stands as the founder of the new, conceptualized, view of the world which will yet teach humanity to bring the way people live into harmony with the manifestations of nature.”11

By developing monotheism and proclaiming a moral law, Moses had brought the divine will down into the inner core of human beings, and this laid the foundation for the emancipation of the human ego from the law. It was in this sense that Steiner saw the transformation of the ethic of commandments into an ethic of freedom as a logical further evolution of Judaism. To remain bound to traditional law was to give up the moral imperative of every free human being today: The human being must become his or her own lawgiver.

End of excerpt. Maybe this will add some meat to this discussion. Much more meat can be found at the above mentioned link!

Best regards, Detlef Hardorp

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:23 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Hello Tarjei, you wrote:

Steiner believed that traditional religious rituals and beliefs should be replaced by a new apprach to the spiritual.

That may be, but what does it have to do with his statement that "Jewry as a people" should cease to exist? He didn't say that Judaism as a religion should cease to exist, he said that Jews as an ethnic group should cease to exist, that is, should cease being Jewish. If you believe that "Jewry as a people" is structured around traditional religious rituals and beliefs, either now or in Steiner's day, I invite you to say so. If you do not believe that, I fail to see how your claim above is a response to my question: what do you think Steiner meant when he said that Jewry should cease to exist, and why do you think this stance was not antisemitic?

Thanks in advance,

Peter

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 11:13 am
Subject: Re: R: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Hi again Andrea, you wrote:

Colonna di Cesarò was a notorius antifascist, before and after the fall of Regime.

I have no idea what Colonna's politics were, and I said nothing about them. What I said was that the logic you seemed to invoke was faulty: I took you to be saying that anybody who tries to kill a fascist is therefore automatically not a fascist himself or herself. If that is not what you meant, we can drop the matter.

If we follow Scaligero's biography we see that his fascist writings are typical of his "evolian" period.

Indeed. Perhaps we have a language barrier here: I thought that you said, just two days ago, that Scaligero did not have an Evolian period. Wouldn't this rather complicate your categorical insistence that Evola had nothing in common with anthroposophy?

but it's a matter that is of no us for a guy like you.

On the contrary, I am quite interested in Scaligero's work.

Did I say so?

I don't know, Andrea, that's why I asked. You did note the question marks at the end of my sentences, didn't you?

You have to be so kind to write "HY LIST, I WAS WRONG ABOUT THIS TOPIC , AND I APOLOGIZE"

Which topic do you think I was wrong about?

You have 48 hours of time to do it.

No problem. I can do so more much more quickly, once you tell me what it is you think I was wrong about. I am very frequently wrong about all kinds of things. Thanks in advance,

Peter

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 12:16 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Hello Detlef,

Where do you, PS, get the statement ""Jewry as a people" should cease to exist" from?

From Steiner's lecture on "The Essence of Jewry", held in Dornach on May 8, 1924, printed in Steiner, Die Geschichte der Menschheit und die Weltanschauungen der Kulturvölker, pages 179-196. I provided two lengthy passages from this text in my first post to this list.

I am inclined to believe - but maybe you will prove me wrong - that this is not a statement by Steiner, but your interpretation of Steiner's meaning.

Obviously that is my interpretation of Steiner's meaning, Detlef. Since Steiner is dead, we cannot ask him what he meant. Instead, we all have to interpret his words, as they appear in the published editions of his work. If you disagree that Steiner says in this lecture that the best thing would be for Jewry as a people to cease to exist, then I urge you to provide your own interpretation of the passages in question. Here are the two Steiner quotations that I provided earlier. I highly recommend that you check the original.

"This discussion that I have just described to you took place before the Great War of 1914 to 1918, you see. The fact that people no longer want the great universal-human principles, but prefer to segregate themselves and develop national forces, that is exactly what lead to the great war! Thus the greatest tragedy of this 20th century has come from what the Jews are also striving for. And one can say that since everything the Jews have done can now be done consciously by all people, the best thing that the Jews could do would be to disappear into the rest of humankind, to blend in with the rest of humankind, so that Jewry as a people would simply cease to exist. That is what would be ideal. This ideal is still opposed, even today, by many Jewish habits – and above all by the hatred of other people. That is what must be overcome."

(that's from p. 189)

"Today all aspects of the Jews are dominated by racial qualities. Above all they marry among themselves. They see the racial qualities, not the spiritual. And this is what must be said in reply to the question: has the Jewish people fulfilled its mission within the evolution of human knowledge? It has fulfilled it; for in earlier times one single people was needed to bring about a certain monotheism. But today spiritual insight itself is necessary. Therefore this mission has been fulfilled. And therefore this Jewish mission as such, as a Jewish mission, is no longer necessary in evolution; instead the only proper thing would be for the Jews to blend in with the other peoples and disappear into the other peoples."

(that's from p. 190)


Please tell us what you think Steiner was trying to say here.

Peter

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 12:27 pm
Subject: Re: agreement and disagreement

Peter:

Obviously that is my interpretation of Steiner's meaning, Detlef. Since Steiner is dead, we cannot ask him what he meant.

PETER!

Are you saying that the phrase: Jewery as a people is your own interpretation?! You must be kidding me. What is the correct translation of this sentence exactly?

You must stop this silliness Peter. Just stop it. You have people believing that this is what Dr. Steiner said and it is your interpretation! This is just beneath you which I think is a compliment to your person. You for some reason your studies have been tied up to Dr. Steiners work. This is no mistake. And you just blinked. Well actually you blinked on Sunday and I caught it but I do not have time to go back and find it. I see what you are seeking and it came full out and said 'hello dottie' and I smiled and said 'hey Peter'.

You should put your amazing skills of writing together for something positive Peter. You did it with the Bookstore and you can do it for something else. You are around a college town and have a great possibility to effect change with your skills. I know you can. Your heart is a good strong heart Peter, use it wisely.

Sincerely,
Dottie

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

From: at
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 12:27 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Peter Staudenmaier:

I disagree that gods are part and parcel of the spiritual world. They are only part and parcel of some versions of the spiritual world, certainly not all. In any case, if you'd like to persuade me that Steiner was indeed a theist in the latter half of the last decade of the 19th century, I will gladly consider any writings from that period.

Daniel:

In the common understanding, atheism is not just the opposite of theism. So proving Steiner a theist is not necessary to show that he was not an atheist. You yourself have agreed that Steiner was not an atheist when you agree that he believed in a spiritual world. Only, you have an understanding of the term that is at variance with the common understanding of 'atheism'. If atheism means whatever you want it to, then it can of course apply to whomever you wish it to apply to.

Daniel Hindes

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

From: at
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 12:37 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Peter Staudenmaier:

What I was trying to say was that it shouldn't strike anybody as wildly outrageous that someone who strongly identified with three of the best-known atheists ever might have tended at that moment toward atheism himself. Whether Steiner's own writings from the period in question actually display atheist tendencies is a matter that we could productively argue about (though it really isn't why I came here, and I don't have a whole lot more to say on the topic), but treating the very notion as a priori preposterous doesn't strike me as the most promising route to an accurate conclusion. That's why I brought up Nietzsche et al.

Daniel:

In arguing about translations, you are quite adamant that a narrow dictionary translation be the only one considered. Yet the standard definition of atheism is precisely the one you are now requiring that we bend. You argument here gets rather slippery. Rather than deciding whether Steiner fits the standard definition of "atheist" you turn to a guilt-by-association argument ("Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, he admired atheists..."). Then comes the phrase 'display atheist tendencies'. Even if his writings 'display atheist tendencies' this tells us nothing about his personal beliefs. And Nietzsche has many admirers among the clergy.

Peter Steudenmaier:

I don't think that Steiner was an atheist when he wrote PoF.

Daniel:

That was what, 1895?

Daniel Hindes

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

From: holderlin66
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 3:38 pm
Subject: Re: agreement and disagreement

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Detlef Hardorp wrote:

As a keen and open-minded observer whose views conformed with those of many liberal Jews, he spoke up for the full legal and social equality of European Jews: “The Jews need Europe and Europe needs the Jews,” he wrote in 1888.5 He countered the hate propaganda of anti-Semitism with his own ideal:

“Value should be attached solely to the mutual interaction of individuals. It is irrelevant whether someone is a Jew or a German. This is so obvious that one feels stupid even putting it into words. So how stupid must one be to assert the opposite!”

Bradford comments;

What is the nature of the new paradigm of brotherhood? Well naturally it is having well considered all the horrors of the 20th century and some local and intimate prejudice that comes, even from Northerners and Southerners in the good ole U.S. of A. Red Necks and how do you know your're a redneck and the wonderful curative work of Jeff Foxworthy, all reveal various forms of overcoming inner atagonisms, racism and antisemitism. Overcoming the bully in the soul life with warm humor has done more for the therapy of those sick souls than any amount of Intellectual bite. Except for the incredible Hardorp direct hit on the nerves of grammar and intellects famous barbed wire. Peter, Hardorp said their wss a dead goat caught in your electric fence.

It appears to be a terrible trial to come forward and attempt to approach Cosmopolital and global isssues with a sincere sense of brotherhood. Let me give you an example.

Now there are different ways to arrive at cosmopolitan and global issues that either open one up so that one finds it stupid to bash the French or the Germans, as some members of the U.S. did recently over Iraq. But you can also arrive at some sort of Bounty Hunter for Racist views where you get a nickel for ever Native American scalp you can bring back to the trading post. The bigger and more ferocious the warrior, as, lets say, Dr. Steiner, the greatest warrior of the Michael School...if you can get his scalp and put it on your saddle bow or hang it on your belt...Well that has got to be a trophy worth something. That isn't exactly the route of brotherhood or cosmopolitan humanism I was hoping for. Yet it is certainly another way to approach the idea.

You can come up the back side of the mountain or you can come up the front side of the mountain, at the top of the mountain you face each other. Shouldn't the vista of the vast peoples of humanity spread out before you from Atlantis to America give your heart a sense of the greatness and diversity of it all? Well, not exactly. Clawing up the mountain over the corpses of fallen intellects that have dropped like flies and stooping to pick on their bones and finally arriving at the top of the mountain having hunted down and brought to justice every unclean pagan or spirit blabbering fool who ever believed in humanity and brotherhood, is apparently also a path up the mountain. It sort of gives a whole new meaning to Mountain. King of the Hill sort of. Porckchop Hill..Heartbreak Ridge.

So let me end with the famous American Grail Quest quote from Forest Gump. Indeed the Pure Fool of "Forest Gump" was a carried over vision of the sub-cultural unfolding of the memory of the Parsifal story...drawn down through Veit Nam.. Steiner would probably agree with Parsifal errrr Forest Gump here. "Stupid is as Stupid does".

Bradford

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

From: golden3000997
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 5:57 pm
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

In a message dated 2/23/2004 2:47:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, pstauden writes:

Hyperboreans, Lemurians, Atlanteans, Aryans. I consider these parallels significant.

Peter, you do understand that he is talking about antediluvian periods here of about 21,600 years each, right? and that in "our" world view of reincarnation, we ALL - every single human being that is, was and will be were part of all of these "root races". In fact, the "biology" that Rudolf Steiner described for these periods (far out and wacky as it may be) was such that we didn't even have physical bodies in the earliest periods and soft, malleable bodies in the Lemurian and Atlantean periods. "Race" as is thought of in the past, oh, 5,000 years didn't exist - not biological, not theological, not even cultural. He is talking about eons and epochs of time that included every human being. To refer to "Aryan" as a root race in the schematic that you just referred to includes every human being that survived the Great Flood - what ever that was! WE ARE ALL ARYANS - black, white, peach with ultramarine hue, burnt sienna with alizarin crimson highlights, yellow ocher with vermillion undertones, raw umber with viridian shadings - EVERYONE - it is a term that designates post-apocalyptic survivors and has nothing to do with the infinite variations on a theme that have come about in the past (I make it) 9,127 years! Wait a minute, let me check my calendar - no, sorry, I make it the year 9,131 PA (post-Atlantean) I have my own calendar, you know.

Is this the schematic you use to draw a "racist" conclusion!??? I can't help giggling! It is totally different than the use of the word "Aryan" by Nazis or Neo-Nazis, most of whom haven't the intelligence to know what day it is, much less what year!

: D Christine

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 6:08 pm
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Peter:

Hyperboreans, Lemurians, Atlanteans, Aryans. I consider these parallels significant.

Christine:

To refer to "Aryan" as a root race in the schematic that you just referred to includes every human being that survived the Great Flood - what ever that was! WE ARE ALL ARYANS - black, white, peach with ultramarine hue, burnt sienna with alizarin crimson highlights, yellow ocher with vermillion undertones, raw umber with viridian shadings - EVERYONE - it is a term that designates post-apocalyptic survivors and has nothing to do with the infinite variations on a theme that have come about in the past (I make it) 9,127 years! Wait a minute, let me check my calendar - no, sorry, I make it the year 9,131 PA (post-Atlantean) I have my own calendar, you know.

Christine, bring that bacon home!!!

Dottie, trying so hard not to shatter my buddhist demeanor for Kabbalah class, Zold

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 6:18 pm
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Dottie: that would be me:)

Dottie, trying so hard not to shatter my buddhist demeanor for Kabbalah class, Zold

And me:, Did you know that the Jews consider that Buddha was also of their lineage? That one of the great men of the Jewish line mosied on over to, this is how my wonderful Rabbi tweaks my intelligence, the place of Buddhas birth and most likely got together with one of theirs. And wahala we have a Jewish Buddha:)))))

Seriously,
Dottie

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

From: golden3000997
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 6:28 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

In a message dated 2/23/2004 7:56:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, pstauden writes:

Try to keep in mind that there are a number of self-proclaimed racists out there who appreciate and promote Steiner's racial theories precisely because they see these theories as compatible with their own racist worldviews.

WHO?????

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 8:32 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: agreement and disagreement

Hi Dottie, you wrote:

Are you saying that the phrase: Jewery as a people is your own interpretation?!

No, Dottie, that is quite obviously not what I am saying. The very same post that you are supposedly replying to contained the full quotation from Steiner, as did another post that I sent you yestderday, as did my very first post to this list. The phrase "Jewry as a people" is Steiner's, not mine.

What is the correct translation of this sentence exactly?

For the fourth time: "And one can say that since everything the Jews have done can now be done consciously by all people, the best thing that the Jews could do would be to disappear into the rest of humankind, to blend in with the rest of humankind, so that Jewry as a people would simply cease to exist."

Those are Rudolf Steiner's words. I am still wondering what you make of them.

Sincerely,

Peter

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 8:48 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Hi again Daniel, you wrote:

In arguing about translations, you are quite adamant that a narrow dictionary translation be the only one considered.

No, not at all. I'm not sure how I managed to come across that way, but this is definitely not my viewpoint. I mentioned dictionaries to help several list members who seemed confused about the meaning of the phrase "nichts weniger". It's a phrase in German, not just a couple of words. You don't need a dictionary to know that, but for anyone who might be skeptical of my claim, I heartily recommend checking a dictionary.

Yet the standard definition of atheism is precisely the one you are now requiring that we bend.

No, no. Really, you can keep whatever definition of atheism seems proper to you. I have no interest in challenging it. I plead guilty to using the term "atheism" improperly according to your definition, and that of any dictionary that says it involves spirits and such. What I meant by the term was quite simply the opposite of theism.

You argument here gets rather slippery.

I didn't really present an argument, did I? I just replied to Tarjei's post, which then occasioned a flood of angry emails about lying and all sorts of other irrelevancies. I never got around to offering much in the way of actual argument about why I think Steiner doubted the existence of god in the late 1890's.

Rather than deciding whether Steiner fits the standard definition of "atheist" you turn to a guilt-by-association argument

But there is no guilt involved in disbelieving in god! How on earth could that constitute a guilt-by-association argument?

Even if his writings 'display atheist tendencies' this tells us nothing about his personal beliefs.

It doesn't? In that case, I wasn't talking about his personal beliefs, I was talking about his writings. I can't even remember them anymore -- I am much less interested in this question than you and Tarjei and Dottie are -- but I think they're in Methodische Grundlagen der Anthroposophie. I do not think that Steiner expressed doubt about god's existence in PoF, which was published in 1894.

Peter

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 10:31 pm
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Hi again Christine, you wrote:

To refer to "Aryan" as a root race in the schematic that you just referred to includes every human being that survived the Great Flood - what ever that was! WE ARE ALL ARYANS - black, white, peach with ultramarine hue, burnt sienna with alizarin crimson highlights, yellow ocher with vermillion undertones, raw umber with viridian shadings - EVERYONE - it is a term that designates post-apocalyptic survivors

No, that's not true. Steiner taught that the Aryans are the descendents of a select racial group that evolved further after the Atlantean flood, and that there are still remnants of the earlier Atlantean and Lemurian root races on the earth today. He lays this out fairly clearly in Cosmic Memory:

The ancestors of the Atlanteans lived in a region which has disappeared, the main part of which lay south of contemporary Asia. In theosophical writings they are called the Lemurians. After they had passed through various stages of development the greatest part of them declined. These became stunted men, whose descendants still inhabit certain parts of the earth today as so-called savage tribes. Only a small part of Lemurian humanity was capable of further development. From this part the Atlanteans were formed. Later, something similar again took place. The greatest part of the Atlantean population declined, and from a small portion are descended the so-called Aryans who comprise present-day civilized humanity. According to the nomenclature of the science of the spirit, the Lemurians, Atlanteans and Aryans are root races of mankind. If one imagines that two such root races preceded the Lemurians and that two will succeed the Aryans in the future, one obtains a total of seven. One always arises from another in the manner just indicated with respect to the Lemurians, Atlanteans, and Aryans. Each root race has physical and mental characteristics which are quite different from those of the preceding one. While, for example, the Atlanteans especially developed memory and everything connected with it, at the present time it is the task of the Aryans to develop the faculty of thought and all that belongs to it. In each root race various stages must also be gone through. There are always seven of these. In the beginning of a period identified with a root race, its principal characteristics are in a youthful condition; slowly they attain maturity and finally enter a decline. The population of a root race is thereby divided into seven sub-races. But one must not imagine that one subrace immediately disappears when a new one develops. Each one may maintain itself for a long time while others are developing beside it. Thus there are always populations which show different stages of development living beside each other on earth.

(Steiner, Cosmic Memory, pp. 45-46)

[Christine:]

Is this the schematic you use to draw a "racist" conclusion!???

Yes, that is certainly part of it. I consider the above passage racist. Don't you?

Peter

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 10:40 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Hi Christine,

Try to keep in mind that there are a number of self-proclaimed racists out there who appreciate and promote Steiner's racial theories precisely because they see these theories as compatible with their own racist worldviews.

WHO?????

For starters, there's the 1999 pamphlet "Rudolph Steiner & the Mystique of Blood and Soil: The Volkisch Views of the Founder of Anthroposophy" from New Zealand; you can find extensive excerpts from it at the waldorf critics list archive, in a message from Dan Dugan on August 11, 2002, subject heading "racist pamphlet from NZ neo-nazi". (The pamphlet also contains a fair bit of material on Steiner's views on Jews.)

Peter

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

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Wed Feb 25, 2004 2:00 am
Subject: R: R: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Staudenmaier
To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 8:13 PM
Subject: Re: R: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Hi again Andrea, you wrote:

Colonna di Cesarò was a notorius antifascist, before and after the fall of Regime.

I have no idea what Colonna's politics were,

Whaat? You wrote "having been studying" a lot about these topics and you are not informed about this basic fact about Colonna di Cesaro????

Pls can you tell the list, what are your bibliograhic ref. about the History of the Italian Esoteric movement?

If we follow Scaligero's biography we see that his fascist writings are typical of his "evolian" period.

Indeed. Perhaps we have a language barrier here: I thought that you said, just two days ago, that Scaligero did not have an Evolian period.

Well, I went back trying for such a sentence. I did not find it. ( Did you dream about it ?)

Anyway :. Scaligero was never a "blind follower" of JE- as most of Evola's disciples were and are- and in anything he wrote during those years showed mainly himself like an independent researcher.
Again: what yours bibliographic ref. about Scaligero's life are ?

Wouldn't this rather complicate your categorical insistence that Evola had nothing in common with anthroposophy?

Oh people! If MS was a kind of JE''s follower BEFORE meeting Steiner's work- in the way I told you, that you seem totally unable to grasp- where is ,here, "the smoking gun" that you'are looking for in such a pointless way ?

but it's a matter that is of no us for a guy like you.

On the contrary, I am quite interested in Scaligero's work.

A good new!! You should know, surely, that the work of MS is based on the development of the esoteric and "inner-working" oriiented side of Anthroposophy.

Tell me :
!) What did you read of MS ?
2) How is going your training with the "concentration exercise" whose practice, as every MS's reader knows, is the core of his teaching ?

(The best book for you is surely "Guarire con il pensiero " . For the list (you surely read Italian good, since MS's work, for the most part is untranslated) it sounds like "To heal by the means of Thinking Life")

You have to be so kind to write "HY LIST, I WAS WRONG ABOUT THIS TOPIC , AND I APOLOGIZE"

Which topic do you think I was wrong about?

Are we discussing or not about the "relationships " between Steiner's and Evola's cosmoconceptions ?

You have 48 hours of time to do it.

No problem. I can do so more much more quickly, once you tell me what it is you think I was wrong about.

See, above, Pedro.

Peter

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

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Wed Feb 25, 2004 3:40 am
Subject: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Staudenmaier
To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 7:31 AM
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Hi again Christine, you wrote:

To refer to "Aryan" as a root race in the schematic that you just referred to includes every human being that survived the Great Flood - what ever that was! WE ARE ALL ARYANS - black, white, peach with ultramarine hue, burnt sienna with alizarin crimson highlights, yellow ocher with vermillion undertones, raw umber with viridian shadings - EVERYONE - it is a term that designates post-apocalyptic survivors

No, that's not true. Steiner taught that the Aryans are the descendents of a select racial group that evolved further after the Atlantean flood, and that there are still remnants of the earlier Atlantean and Lemurian root races on the earth today. He lays this out fairly clearly in Cosmic Memory:

The ancestors of the Atlanteans lived in a region which has disappeared, the main part of which lay south of contemporary Asia. In theosophical writings they are called the Lemurians. After they had passed through various stages of development the greatest part of them declined. These became stunted men, whose descendants still inhabit certain parts of the earth today as so-called savage tribes. Only a small part of Lemurian humanity was capable of further development. From this part the Atlanteans were formed. Later, something similar again took place. The greatest part of the Atlantean population declined, and from a small portion are descended the so-called Aryans who comprise present-day civilized humanity. According to the nomenclature of the science of the spirit, the Lemurians, Atlanteans and Aryans are root races of mankind. If one imagines that two such root races preceded the Lemurians and that two will succeed the Aryans in the future, one obtains a total of seven. One always arises from another in the manner just indicated with respect to the Lemurians, Atlanteans, and Aryans. Each root race has physical and mental characteristics which are quite different from those of the preceding one. While, for example, the Atlanteans especially developed memory and everything connected with it, at the present time it is the task of the Aryans to develop the faculty of thought and all that belongs to it. In each root race various stages must also be gone through. There are always seven of these. In the beginning of a period identified with a root race, its principal characteristics are in a youthful condition; slowly they attain maturity and finally enter a decline. The population of a root race is thereby divided into seven sub-races. But one must not imagine that one subrace immediately disappears when a new one develops. Each one may maintain itself for a long time while others are developing beside it. Thus there are always populations which show different stages of development living beside each other on earth.

(Steiner, Cosmic Memory, pp. 45-46)

[Christine:]

Is this the schematic you use to draw a "racist" conclusion!???

[PS:]

Yes, that is certainly part of it. I consider the above passage racist. Don't you?

[Andrea:]

Since this morning I got a few time more in order to have a glance at the Charlatan's posts I jump in and say:

Not at all.

We see here a description of long time gone spiritual facts..

If you are unable to grasp a drop of the contents and prefer to "close" them into your mental habits , it's your own problem.

You'll go on and on to call them "racist" and you'll go on on on the wrong path. I have a long time knowledge about the way of " how does it work a convinced marxist's mind ?"

(Be sure : Waldorf schools will continue to exist also if you write 1000 boo ks about this racist monster who gave mankind, among other 10000 things, the Foundation Stone Meditation)

Qui tte vedo e qui tte piagno (GG Belli , Poesie, 1823)
Prosit, Pedro.

Peter

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Wed Feb 25, 2004 4:27 am
Subject: Root Races and Marxists (was: agreement and disagreement)

Christine wrote:

Is this the schematic you use to draw a "racist" conclusion!???

Peter S wrote:

Yes, that is certainly part of it. I consider the above passage racist. Don't you?

Andrea wrote:

Since this morning I got a few time more in order to have a glance at the Charlatan's posts I jump in and say:

Not at all.

We see here a description of long time gone spiritual facts..

That's precisely what I told Dan Dugan on the WC list in February 1999 - exactly five years ago! when he tried to serve me that crap about "Cosmic Memory":

From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Steiner's scientific method
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 12:37:05 +0100

[Excerpt]

Dan:
What I point out, Tarjei, is that the theory of evolution of humanity from
Atlantis that Blavatsky elaborated (from popular fiction) and Steiner
developed further as "spiritual science," formed a suitable part of the
foundation of Nazi mythology. See Alfred Rosenberg.

Tarjei:
Several other leading Nazis distorted orthodox Christianity. So does the Ku Klux Klan. According to your logic, Christianity is a Nazi religion. Charles Darwin's theory of evolution was also important to the Nazis. And so was Nietzsche. So Darwin and Nietzsche were also Nazis?

Dan:
This theory is not only wrong, contradicted by all of the historical sciences like archaeology and geology,

Tarjei:
That is not true. Even Thor Heyerdahl has conceded that the story about Atlantis cannot be excluded as one of the possibilities. Scientists are divided on this issue. Please quote your gurus and site their conclusive evidence.

Dan:
but it is racist, in its description of races as stages of development.

Tarjei:
If the very description of human races and their evolution is racist, so be it. I'm a racist. Put that in your notebook.

Dan:
Steiner's history is not only wrong, and racist, but it has been forever contaminated by its subsequent incorporation by Nazi ideologists

Tarjei:
In that case, Darwin, Nietzsche, Christianity, and Feng-Shui (the Chinese origin of Nazi geomancy) have also been "forever contaminated by its subsequent incorporation by Nazi ideologists." By this line of logic, there will be little left that hasn't been forever contaminated by the Nazis.

<snip>

Dan:
What I'm telling you is that this belief system is religion, not science, and because of its racism, it is distasteful.

Tarjei:
What if it is the truth? What is your truth about evolution, about Christianity, and so on? Who are your gurus? And what makes them less distasteful?

This was five years ago. We went through this dance several times. And then again in 2001 with Peter S involved. As you can see, those people are not progressing very far. They're doing the same old Nazi war dances over and over and over again ad nauseum demanding that anthroposophists "refute" their cosmic origins because it's immoral and racist and disgusting and what have you.

Peter S just said to me here that this isn't boring, but frankly, I'm very very bored with repeating this idiotic exchange time and time again.

[Andrea:]

If you are unable to grasp a drop of the contents and prefer to "close" them into your mental habits , it's your own problem.

You'll go on and on to call them "racist" and you'll go on on on the wrong path. I have a long time knowledge about the way of " how does it work a convinced marxist's mind ?"

Hold it a second, Andrea. What's this stuff about Marxist? Has Peter S declared himself a Marxist? Did I miss something here? Last time I saw him mentioning something about himself, it was on the WC a few weeks ago when he said that he identified with the Anarchist Movement. The Anarchist Movement has some important roots in Marxism/Communism, but as an offshoot, it postulates the autonomy of the human being, and this is why Steiner admired Max Stirner, was influenced by his anarchist friend Henry MacCay, and endorsed and promoted Benjamin Tucker.

There is more. One of the personal legacies I have the deepest love and admiration for is the late Norwegian Waldorf teacher, poet, author, Anthroposophist, *and Marxist* Jens Bjørneboe:

http://home.att.net/~emurer/

I have very very much in common with Jens Bjørneboe. I do disagree with him about Marxism, but that's no big deal. Many people are influenced by Marx in various ways. Steiner disagreed with Marx' materialistic interpretation of history and this "surplus value" thing in economics, but if you take the Marxist maxim, "To each according to his need, from each according to his ability", this makes a lot of sense within families and small communes and communities. The early Christian church had a Communist structure for instance, and the same made be said about certain Christian communities in the Middle Ages and later.

I admire Peter S for being one helluva gutsy fighter and for holding his own against so many smart and knowledgeable people simultaneously. And notice how respectful and polite he is for the most part. I believe he's learned that from Dan Dugan, who always used to be a gentleman. Well he barks, but he doesn't step on you, and he even defended my rude outburst once. If you're ruder than your counterpart, you show defensiveness. I may have been guilty of that too, also here, so I'm going to try to take my sweet time and write a sincere honest post to our honored guest.

Cheers,

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Wed Feb 25, 2004 8:08 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Peter S:

Try to keep in mind that there are a number of self-proclaimed racists out there who appreciate and promote Steiner's racial theories precisely because they see these theories as compatible with their own racist worldviews.

Christine:

WHO?????

Peter S:

For starters, there's the 1999 pamphlet "Rudolph Steiner & the Mystique of Blood and Soil: The Volkisch Views of the Founder of Anthroposophy" from New Zealand; you can find extensive excerpts from it at the waldorf critics list archive, in a message from Dan Dugan on August 11, 2002, subject heading "racist pamphlet from NZ neo-nazi". (The pamphlet also contains a fair bit of material on Steiner's views on Jews.)

Some sources! Steiner didn't have any voelkisch views. Goodrick-Clarke doesn't support that notion either. Your sources are of the same ilk as the fascist right-wing pamphlets that circulated against Steiner in the 1920's and long after his death. They are propagansists with the same agenda you have. What happened to your alleged scholarship all of a sudden?

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Feb 25, 2004 10:48 am
Subject: Re: R: R: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Hello Andrea, you wrote:

Whaat? You wrote "having been studying" a lot about these topics and you are not informed about this basic fact about Colonna di Cesaro????

I have not been studying a lot about Colonna, and I said nothing at all about his politics. I think you are having as hard a time understanding what I write as I have understanding what you write.

Oh people! If MS was a kind of JE''s follower BEFORE meeting Steiner's work- in the way I told you, that you seem totally unable to grasp- where is ,here, "the smoking gun" that you'are looking for in such a pointless way ?

I'm not looking for a smoking gun. I don't think there are any smoking guns in history. On February 23 you wrote: "The whole truth is that Scaligero (and his fellows disciples) wrote also the strongest possible criticsagainst Evola's insights.Evola did the same about Massimo.. What a beutiful spiritual commonground relationships!!!" Since that did not strike me as "the whole truth", as you put it, I replied to you: "Am I misunderstanding you, or are you really saying that people who later criticize one another's work cannot have been collaborators previously?" It remains unclear to me whether or not I misunderstood your initial remark.

you surely read Italian good, since MS's work, for the most part is untranslated

No, my Italian is awful. Scaligero's "Treatise on Living Thought" and "The Light" are available in German and English.

Are we discussing or not about the "relationships " between Steiner's and Evola's cosmoconceptions ?

I'm not sure. What I pointed to were Evola's early interest in anthroposophical ideas, and the similarities between his root-race schema and Steiner's. I am not certain to what extent those factors might reveal the relationships between their respective cosmoconceptions.

Peter

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

From: at
Date: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:26 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Daniel:

Rather than deciding whether Steiner fits the standard definition of "atheist" you turn to a guilt-by-association argument

Staudenmaier:

But there is no guilt involved in disbelieving in god! How on earth could that constitute a guilt-by-association argument?

Daniel:

You appear to have misunderstood what "guilt-by-association" means. I am not implying that there is anything "guilty" about being an atheist, I am saying that your argument is attempting to establish Steiner's atheism by associating it with his admiration of atheists. I propose that this does not follow logically. A shorthand way of saying this is calling it a "guilt-by-association" argument. Perhaps you are less well-read than you apper. A person who writes as well as you do ought to know this.

Daniel Hindes

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Wed Feb 25, 2004 12:27 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

At 20:26 25.02.2004, you wrote:

Daniel:

Rather than deciding whether Steiner fits the standard definition of "atheist" you turn to a guilt-by-association argument

Staudenmaier:

But there is no guilt involved in disbelieving in god! How on earth could that constitute a guilt-by-association argument?

Daniel:

You appear to have misunderstood what "guilt-by-association" means. I am not implying that there is anything "guilty" about being an atheist, I am saying that your argument is attempting to establish Steiner's atheism by associating it with his admiration of atheists. I propose that this does not follow logically. A shorthand way of saying this is calling it a "guilt-by-association" argument. Perhaps you are less well-read than you apper. A person who writes as well as you do ought to know this.

My 2 cents:
This is very interesting. The roles could so easily have been reversed here. From what I've seen in the past, PS is a master of syntax and metaphors and grammar and all that, and the most sophisticated and quaint expressions and jargons are familiar to him. If PS had used the "guilt-by-association argument" phrase himself and Daniel had honestly misunderstood, he would probably have been advised to take English classes. That's the way PS plays his word-and-mind games.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: patrick evans
Date: Wed Feb 25, 2004 12:14 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Mr. Staudenmaier:

Although I wish to communicate with you regarding Steiner's views on evolving cultures, allow me to comment on your response to my previous post. I commented that you are a master at rhetoric. In your response you gave me two sentences that support my claim. The sentences are as follows:

What I was trying to say was that it shouldn't strike anybody as wildly outrageous that someone who strongly identified with three of the best-known atheists ever might have tended at that moment toward atheism himself.

And;

...but treating the very notion as a priori preposterous doesn't strike me as the most promising route to an accurate conclusion.

It seems that you are engaging in a bit of hyperbole, wouldn't you say? I did not suggest that you were being "wildly outrageous" or that your notions were "a priori preposterous". As for Nietzsche, Haeckel, and Stirner being "the best-known atheists ever", well I don't know about that either! This is the very type of habit I've also noticed with Dan Dugan and -- I'm afraid -- with you. I find when I read both of you that the meanings of words are often shifted away from the intended meanings of the authors. It is a kind of reasoning that is warned against in high school debate classes. I don't know why you resorted to hyperbole with me, but it looks like you are assuming that I think that you are being "wildly outrageous" or "a priori preposterous". In other posts to this list you are at pains to infer that you do not make assumptions but carefully read from the texts with the authors have said.

Back now to the more important line of thinking: I think that Steiner is completely consistent in his remarks about evolving cultures. You're not looking at the whole of his thought when you talk about his "phases". His views about evolving cultures can be expressed quite simply. Different cultures arise throughout history that bring different gifts to the evolution of humanity. They play their role and then melt back into the whole. This is true for all cultures, not just the ones under discussion. You asked in one of your responses -- and I paraphrase -- tell me where Steiner ever said that the Germans should disappear. If you read the whole of Steiner, especially his cycles regarding the evolution of cultures, you will find that the present leading cultures will fade away and others will arise. So, yes, the German culture, the central European cultures, the American culture will all disappear and others will take their places. This does not mean that a particular culture that has completed its main role or task is no longer valued. It is the same with individuals and their contributions. Rudolf Steiner was ever truthful; he looked for the truths in others. He found something worthy in Nietzsche, Haeckel, and Stirner and defended them. He spoke positively about the contributions of Jewish culture to humanity. He was also honest to speak the truth when it was clear to him that a person or culture was bringing an influence to the evolution of humanity that was not progressive or in its best interests. He was not anti-anyone! He did oppose that which retarded a healthy development of humankind. Both Sune and Tarjei and others have given the detailed renditions of the same thoughts I have just uttered. If you want to find the truth I would advise you to look at Steiner's work comprehensively with an open mind.

Respectfully,

Patrick Wakeford-Evans

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Staudenmaier
To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 4:23 PM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Hi Patrick, thanks for your post. You wrote:

Please consider another way of interpreting Dr. Steiner's writings and statements particularly with regard to figures like Nietzsche, Haeckel, and Stirner.

Your interpretation sounds plausible to me. I do think that Steiner's commitment to Haeckel's views was stronger in the late 1890's than you seem to acknowledge, but believe it or not this isn't a major interest of mine.

Because he defended and supported Nietzsche does not mean he held all of his views.

You're quite right.

To use his support of Nietzsche as of verification of his atheism is not, I believe, a well reasoned evaluation of Steiner and his views, if that is in fact what you are doing.

That isn't really what I was getting at, though you do have a good point about my truncated argument from yesterday. What I was trying to say was that it shouldn't strike anybody as wildly outrageous that someone who strongly identified with three of the best-known atheists ever might have tended at that moment toward atheism himself. Whether Steiner's own writings from the period in question actually display atheist tendencies is a matter that we could productively argue about (though it really isn't why I came here, and I don't have a whole lot more to say on the topic), but treating the very notion as a priori preposterous doesn't strike me as the most promising route to an accurate conclusion. That's why I brought up Nietzsche et al.

This does not mean that God does not exist or that Steiner is an atheist.

I don't think that Steiner was an atheist when he wrote PoF.

From your response to Dottie and Tarjei, I read that you evaluate what people say from your own lexicon.

Yes, I think that this is unavoidable at some level. But I also partly agree with your caveat:

It is critical however, I believe, that we seek to understand the spirit and intent of what one is saying and to do this, we must be open-minded.

I'm skeptical about the "intent" part, but otherwise I think you're right.

I think that certain doors of understanding are closed in your mind with regard to Steiner.

That is very likely true. I doubt that this is one of those cases, however; after all, it certainly isn't derogatory, coming from me, to suggest that the younger Steiner temporarily stopped believing in god.

Thanks for your thoughtful comments,

Peter Staudenmaier

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

From: eyecueco
Date: Wed Feb 25, 2004 4:38 pm
Subject: Re: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

While, for example, the Atlanteans especially developed memory and everything connected with it, at the present time it is the task of the Aryans to develop the faculty of thought and all that belongs to it.

(Steiner, Cosmic Memory, pp. 45-46)

Hummm, it has been many years since i read COSMIC MEMORY, and it was prior to my taking up the Christologies. Now, reflecting on this passage with more than two decades of biblical study behind me I can't help but think that the root race mentioned above would have to be pointing to a task given to the jews?

I mean they were the people chosen to internalize the capacity/faculty of intellectual discernment. First Moses gave the jews the written Ten Commandments, but, it was the task of the jews to develop an internalization of Mosaic Law.

We find a further development of internalization of this capacity/faculty in the Greeks as an experience inwardly of a feeling of guilt and or remorse when having acted wrongly, whereas prior to a personalize conscious it had been task of the harpies, an exterior luciferic source, that visited upon certain sufferings and afflictions upon the individual who has offended the gods.

Wonder if anyone else here who is into the Christologies, would agree that it would be valid to see the jewish people being referred to in the above quote?

Thanks in advance,

Paulina

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Feb 25, 2004 7:00 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Hi again Tarjei, you wrote:

Your sources are of the same ilk as the fascist right-wing pamphlets that circulated against Steiner in the 1920's and long after his death.

Yes, the New Zealand pamphlet is similar to the stuff you posted last month, but the orientation is reversed -- the pamphlet praises Steiner, it doesn't condemn him.

They are propagansists with the same agenda you have. What happened to your alleged scholarship all of a sudden?

Far-right gunk like that is what my scholarship focuses on, for better or worse. Their agenda is obviously the contrary of mine; I'm a critic of Steiner, and these folks are admirers of Steiner.

Peter

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Feb 25, 2004 8:07 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Hi Patrick, you wrote:

I did not suggest that you were being "wildly outrageous" or that your notions were "a priori preposterous".

How do you read Dottie's and Tarjei's initial responses to my post? It seemed to me that they were saying exactly that.

I find when I read both of you that the meanings of words are often shifted away from the intended meanings of the authors.

Unless you have personal access to an author, it is frequently a mistake to think that you know what their intended meaning was.

It is a kind of reasoning that is warned against in high school debate classes.

Sorry, I didn't take debate classes.

I don't know why you resorted to hyperbole with me, but it looks like you are assuming that I think that you are being "wildly outrageous" or "a priori preposterous".

It wasn't a reference to you. You asked me about my earlier exchange on the topic, where I had mentioned Nietzsche originally. That is what the "outrageous" comment referred to: I brought up Nietzsche not as some sort of 'proof' that RS was also an atheist, but to counter the claim (which did not come from you, but from other listmates) that the very idea that RS might possibly have had atheist leanings was absurd. If you think I misconstrued what others were saying, please say so.

In other posts to this list you are at pains to infer that you do not make assumptions but carefully read from the texts with the authors have said.

I don't think it's possible to read a text without making at least some assumptions about it. In any case, I apologize for sounding like I was attributing these views to you personally.

He was also honest to speak the truth when it was clear to him that a person or culture was bringing an influence to the evolution of humanity that was not progressive or in its best interests. He was not anti-anyone! He did oppose that which retarded a healthy development of humankind.

Honesty has nothing to do with it. I do not doubt that Steiner honestly believed the various things he said about Jews. I simply think that some of those things were antisemitic. Let's abstract from Steiner for the moment and look at the substance here: I think that the claim that the existence of Jews as a people retards the healthy development of humankind can accurately be described as antisemitic. Do you disagree?

Peter

Continued in another thread: "The Hebrews"

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Wed Feb 25, 2004 8:23 pm
Subject: Re: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Cosmic Memory:

While, for example, the Atlanteans especially developed memory and everything connected with it, at the present time it is the task of the Aryans to develop the faculty of thought and all that belongs to it.

(Steiner, Cosmic Memory, pp. 45-46)

Paulina wrote:

Hummm, it has been many years since i read COSMIC MEMORY, and it was prior to my taking up the Christologies. Now, reflecting on this passage with more than two decades of biblical study behind me I can't help but think that the root race mentioned above would have to be pointing to a task given to the jews?

Dear Paulina,

I think this is a very strong possibility if not the outright truth. And it seems, which may be unthinkable to those with a non karmic understanding of things, and maybe with a karmic understanding, that certain Rabbis call the holocaust a thing that showed the Jews to be truly the chosen people of God. That may cause a great shout amongst those with no understanding but this just came from student quoting various Rabbis here in Los Angeles. I will have to see how my Rabbi speaks of this horrific moment in time.

Sincerely,
Dottie

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

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Thu Feb 26, 2004 1:14 am
Subject: R: R: R: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Staudenmaier
To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 7:48 PM
Subject: Re: R: R: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Hello Andrea, you wrote:

Whaat? You wrote "having been studying" a lot about these topics and you are not informed about this basic fact about Colonna di Cesaro????

I have not been studying a lot about Colonna,

Wow!!

And how could you say that "he was in good terms" with Evola on a spiritual point of view ? What is your reference about it ? How can you give sentences about Italian Esotericism's Historical background with no knowledge of italian language, since the 99% of the studies about it ( mainly due to the bright friend of mine Michele Beraldo, that you surely know) are in such a language?

I think you are having as hard a time understanding what I write as I have understanding what you write.

No,Pedro, I understand very well not only the "mask" of what you're saying but also "the face" behind it. ( Topic from Evola's book about "modern " spirituality).

Oh people! If MS was a kind of JE''s follower BEFORE meeting Steiner's work- in the way I told you, that you seem totally unable to grasp- where is ,here, "the smoking gun" that you'are looking for in such a pointless way ?

I'm not looking for a smoking gun. I don't think there are any smoking guns in history. On February 23 you wrote: "The whole truth is that Scaligero (and his fellows disciples) wrote also the strongest possible criticsagainst Evola's insights.Evola did the same about Massimo.. What a beutiful spiritual commonground relationships!!!" Since that did not strike me as "the whole truth", as you put it, I replied to you: "Am I misunderstanding you, or are you really saying that people who later criticize one another's work cannot have been collaborators previously?" It remains unclear to me whether or not I misunderstood your initial remark.

Well I'm a really kind man and I repeat :

From WWII's end onwards Evola (and the "evolites") and Scaligero's disciples were used to criticize one another every passing day,

This is a further evidence of the total lack of fundations of your goofy chatting about "similarties" between RS and JE. Do you understand ?

you surely read Italian good, since MS's work, for the most part is untranslated

No, my Italian is awful. Scaligero's "Treatise on Living Thought" and "The Light" are available in German and English.

Did you read them ?
What can you tell me about ?

(Sure, people he will not answer anymore......)

Are we discussing or not about the "relationships " between Steiner's and Evola's cosmoconceptions ?

I'm not sure

NO??
Well, people this guy start a thread and when the discussion grows and become interesting he becomes to......fade away!!

What I pointed to were Evola's early interest in anthroposophical ideas, and the similarities between his root-race schema and Steiner's. I am not certain to what extent those factors might reveal the relationships between their respective cosmoconceptions.

What? What are you doing, Pedro, a step forward and three step back ?

Hey people there is a man on the run here!!

To Sophia.

48 hours are passed by, you know what I have been asking about this guy.
Anyway: Whatever decision you take it will the best for me.

A.

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

From: bryanmillermail
Date: Thu Feb 26, 2004 6:48 am
Subject: Re: agreement and disagreement

Peter wrote

Yes, the New Zealand pamphlet (..,)

With all due respect, Mr. Staudenmaier. If I understand your logic, I could put together a group of freaks and write a pamphlet praising your communist stands and racist tendencies and place it on the net. Then Anthroposophers all over the world would be able to quote it and make references to it to prove the above allegations. This New Zealand Pamphlet is irrelevant and you know it. I'm sure you have better cards to pull off your sleve.
Bryan

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Thu Feb 26, 2004 9:22 am
Subject: Re: R: R: R: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Good morning Andrea, you wrote:

How can you give sentences about Italian Esotericism's Historical background with no knowledge of italian language, since the 99% of the studies about it ( mainly due to the bright friend of mine Michele Beraldo, that you surely know) are in such a language?

I don't know where you got the 99% figure from. There is an enormous literature about Evola in particular in English.

No,Pedro, I understand very well not only the "mask" of what you're saying but also "the face" behind it.

You do? Could you explain it to me? I'm very curious.

Well I'm a really kind man and I repeat : From WWII's end onwards Evola (and the "evolites") and Scaligero's disciples were used to criticize one another every passing day,This is a further evidence of the total lack of fundations of your goofy chatting about "similarties" between RS and JE. Do you understand ?

No, I certainly don't. If you really are saying that people who later criticize one another's work cannot have been collaborators previously, then I think you have made a basic logical error. If you are not saying that, then what are you getting at?

Peter

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Thu Feb 26, 2004 9:33 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: agreement and disagreement

Hi Bryan, you wrote:

With all due respect, Mr. Staudenmaier. If I understand your logic, I could put together a group of freaks and write a pamphlet praising your communist stands and racist tendencies and place it on the net. Then Anthroposophers all over the world would be able to quote it and make references to it to prove the above allegations.

No, I don't think you have understood my logic. In the course of my discussion with Tarjei, he and I argued over whether it is possible to use terms like "racist" in descriptive ways (at least that's what I think we were arguing over). At one point in that discussion I remarked that there are a number of self-proclaimed racists who appreciate and promote Steiner's racial theories precisely because they see these theories as compatible with their own racist worldviews. Christine then responded with evident incredulity, and I offered the New Zealand pamphlet as an example. The pamphlet cannot serve to "prove" any "allegations" other than my simple claim that some racists like and promote Steiner's work, specifically his racial and ethnic theories.

This New Zealand Pamphlet is irrelevant and you know it.

Irrelevant to what? It is certainly not irrelevant to the question of whether latter-day racists sometimes find aspects of Steiner's work appealing. It is irrelevant to countless other questions, such as what roles did Steiner's racial and ethnic theories actually play within their original historical context. I think we could productively discuss that issue. What do you say?

Peter

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

From: bryanmillermail
Date: Thu Feb 26, 2004 10:40 am
Subject: Re: agreement and disagreement

Peter wrote:

The pamphlet cannot serve to "prove" any "allegations" other than my simple claim that some racists like and promote Steiner's work, specifically his racial and ethnic theories.

It is irrelevant to countless other questions, such as what roles did Steiner's racial and ethnic theories actually play within their original historical context. I think we could productively discuss that issue. What do you say?

Bryan:

Why would I do that? I am not going to change my views and neither will you. You are using this list as a free test lab for polishing your theories; then you're going to write a book and get some financial and personal advantages from it. I get zilch apart from wasting time that I can use more productively for my own good. So you see, there's no point. Anyway, thanks for offering.
B

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

From: eyecueco
Date: Thu Feb 26, 2004 12:39 pm
Subject: Re: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, dottie zold wrote:

Cosmic Memory:

While, for example, the Atlanteans especially developed memory and everything connected with it, at the present time it is the task of the Aryans to develop the faculty of thought and all that belongs to it.

(Steiner, Cosmic Memory, pp. 45-46)

Paulina wrote:

Hummm, it has been many years since i read COSMIC MEMORY, and it was prior to my taking up the Christologies. Now, reflecting on this passage with more than two decades of biblical study behind me I can't help but think that the root race mentioned above would have to be pointing to a task given to the jews?

Dear Paulina,

I think this is a very strong possibility if not the outright truth. And it seems, which may be unthinkable to those with a non karmic understanding of things, and maybe with a karmic understanding, that certain Rabbis call the holocaust a thing that showed the Jews to be truly the chosen people of God. That may cause a great shout amongst those with no understanding but this just came from student quoting various Rabbis here in Los Angeles. I will have to see how my Rabbi speaks of this horrific moment in time.

Tread lightly, Dottie, as this kind of question can really push painful buttons. Rabbi Gershom talks about how the Holocaust not only killed the body, but, the soul of many. Among the survivors and children of survivors there are serious issues, some Jews even feel shame, some have turned away from their faith, Gershom speaks to the psychological damage that has been so great it has taken more than 40 years to begin to speak about it. Also, given that the Jews say prayers for their dead there is the issue with the Hasidim Jew of the souls still trapped and unable to move into the light. It doesn't make the news, but, it is common knowledge of sensitives,psychics, and many who lived near the sites of the former Concentration Camps that these places are still very much haunted.

Let us know why you find out.

Btw, which version of Kaballah are you studying and with what kind of Rabbi - Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Ashkenazic, Hasidic, Havurah, Reconstructionist, etc. Am interested.

Paulina

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Thu Feb 26, 2004 2:20 pm
Subject: Re: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Paulina wrote:

Btw, which version of Kaballah are you studying and with what kind of Rabbi - Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Ashkenazic, Hasidic, Havurah, Reconstructionist, etc. Am interested.

Hi Paulina,

I am studying with Rabbi Rodal of Mount Olympus. He is a Hasidic Rabbi. He is a young Rabbi and I have had the fortune to be invited at various holidays which unfortunately I have been unable to make until now. I have celebrated his sons first haircut and was invited to cut a piece. Pretty strange for me as I tried to understand what the little boy must be thinking with this strange lady cutting his hair, but he just smiled:)

And yes you are right it is extremely sensitive, and I am glad you took the time to share some other thoughts that continue to haunt their culture today. Kind of sets me in the right heart frame when approaching or discussing such a subject. I never really thought about it to the extent you shared as I was mostly caught up in the physical aspect of the Holocaust.

Sincerely,

Dottie

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

From: eyecueco
Date: Thu Feb 26, 2004 3:09 pm
Subject: Re: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, dottie zold wrote:

Paulina wrote:

Btw, which version of Kaballah are you studying and with what kind of Rabbi - Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Ashkenazic, Hasidic, Havurah, Reconstructionist, etc. Am interested.

Hi Paulina,

I am studying with Rabbi Rodal of Mount Olympus. He is a Hasidic Rabbi.

So glad, Dottie! Thanks for sharing. More later.

pkl

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Thu Feb 26, 2004 6:03 pm
Subject: Re: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Paulina wrote:

--- So glad, Dottie! Thanks for sharing. More later.

pkl

You and Bradford are making me quite nervous with all these smiles towards my person:) Just wanted to say I have noticed...

Dottie with a knot between her eyes Zold

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Thu Feb 26, 2004 6:07 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

At 04:00 26.02.2004, PS wrote:

Far-right gunk like that is what my scholarship focuses on, for better or worse. Their agenda is obviously the contrary of mine; I'm a critic of Steiner, and these folks are admirers of Steiner.

Steiner's "admirerers" called him a megalomaniac Zionist Jew with a political agenda as an agent of Moscow, a threat to Christendom and an enemy of true patriots?

Tarjei

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

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Fri Feb 27, 2004 1:54 am
Subject: R: R: R: R: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Staudenmaier
To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 6:22 PM
Subject: Re: R: R: R: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Good morning Andrea, you wrote:

How can you give sentences about Italian Esotericism's Historical background with no knowledge of italian language, since the 99% of the studies about it ( mainly due to the bright friend of mine Michele Beraldo, that you surely know) are in such a language?

I don't know where you got the 99% figure from. There is an enormous literature about Evola in particular in English.

Have you have heard of a figure of speech called "hyperbole" ? Obviously Evola is well known as an author, ("rust never sleeps") but the "Italian Esotericism Historical background" (ties, streams, events, links with the cultural and political world outside esotericism and so on) is something much more complex and rich than the features concerning a single personality can be and it has been studied in deep, recentky, only in Italy due also to a problem of access to the documents, most of them in private hands (mine, for instance)

No,Pedro, I understand very well not only the "mask" of what you're saying but also "the face" behind it.

You do? Could you explain it to me? I'm very curious.

Curiosity killed the cat. I'm sure that all listmates have understood.

Well I'm a really kind man and I repeat : From WWII's end onwards Evola (and the "evolites") and Scaligero's disciples were used to criticize one another every passing day,This is a further evidence of the total lack of fundations of your goofy chatting about "similarties" between RS and JE. Do you understand ?

No, I certainly don't. If you really are saying that people who later criticize one another's work cannot have been collaborators previously, then I think you have made a basic logical error. If you are not saying that, then what are you getting at?

Oh Pedro: can you explain where and when anthroposophists and evolites were "collaborators" ? And what does it mean to be "collaborator" ? It itself the world says very litlle. I am myself used to be a collaborator of magazine where there are articles that I completely dislike !

The only case I know ( from 1925 -the year of the absolutely destructive Evola's essay about Syeiner on "Ignis" magazine -onwards ) of a "collaborations "in which you can find together articles from Anthropop and Evola was the "UR" group but, if you know "UR" this has nothing to do with the "similiarities" between Evola's racism and Steiner's insights that is at stake in this discussion.. The "UR" group was a magic-ritual operative club who lived a couple of years between 1927 and 1929. The articles following by such an experience are mainly rooted on the inner developmental path experience. And this was the work of Onofri,Colazza and Colonna inside this club where there were personalities belonging to very different spiritual streams.

But this has nothing to do with your fantasies about Evola "inspired" as a racist by Steiner's cosmology.

In conclusion, :

Well, as any listmates is able to, see is perfectly pointless to discuss with a guy like this, at least in the sense the word "discussion" is worldwide used. But we knew it in advance.

Peter Studenmaier jumped into the list to fulfill a task of which he is able to see only a part. He brings with him the only thing by the means of which his fading personality can be sure to exist his obsession about "Steiner is a racist".

Such a statement has not the tiniest possible evidence as a basis ( onl.y some controversial word here and there, imagine what a professional historian should be able to say about a topic like this?) but PS defend it by repeating over and over and over his slogans.

But.. in absolute sincerity here I have to confess that , in spite of the bad words I have been throwing on this Matrixworld-like head , well, I amused myself and I hope to be amused also in future, if the prickhead will stay among us.

A.

Continued in another thread: "Mindgames"

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:37 am
Subject: Re: R: R: R: R: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Hi Andrea, you wrote:

Obviously Evola is well known as an author, ("rust never sleeps") but the "Italian Esotericism Historical background" (ties,streams,events, links with the cultural and political world outside esotericism and so on) is something much more complex and rich than the features concerning a single personality can be and it has been studied in deep, recentky, only in Italy due also to a problem of access to the documents, most of them in private hands (mine, for instance)

In that case, it sounds like you have simply confused historical background with your own private occult beliefs. The two things are not identical.

I'm sure that all listmates have understood.

But they all seem to disagree about me. Some of them apparently think I'm Catholic, while others think I'm an atheist (though according to some evidently popular conceptions of atheism, I'm not even an atheist), some think I'm an anarchist, while others think I'm a marxist, and so forth. All this attention is flattering, I suppose, but it's still hard to see what any of it might have to do with Rudolf Steiner's views on Jews.

I am myself used to be a collaborator of magazine where there are articles that I completely dislike !

Gosh, you don't say. Every writer has this experience, Andrea. It is nevertheless perfectly accurate to describe you as a collaborator of a magazine to which you submit your work and which publishes your work.

The only case I know ( from 1925 -the year of the absolutely destructive Evola's essay about Syeiner on "Ignis" magazine -onwards ) of a "collaborations "in which you can find together articles from Anthropop and Evola was the "UR" group but

Yes, Evola's involvement with the UR group is a fine example of what we were discussing (well, what I thought we were discussing, anyway).

if you know "UR" this has nothing to do with the "similiarities" between Evola's racism and Steiner's insights that is at stake in this discussion.

That is only part of what is at stake in this discussion. I get the sense that you haven't been paying particularly close attention to the course of our discussion.

But this has nothing to do with your fantasies about Evola "inspired" as a racist by Steiner's cosmology.

I do not think that Evola was inspired as a racist by Steiner's cosmology. You might try re-reading my posts on the matter. Three days ago I said that I think it likely that both Evola and Steiner inherited their root-race frameworks from prior Theosophical writings. Do you find this unlikely?

Peter

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

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Fri Feb 27, 2004 10:27 am
Subject: R: R: R: R: R: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Staudenmaier
To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 6:37 PM
Subject: Re: R: R: R: R: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Hi Andrea, you wrote:

Obviously Evola is well known as an author, ("rust never sleeps") but the "Italian Esotericism Historical background" (ties,streams,events, links with the cultural and political world outside esotericism and so on) is something much more complex and rich than the features concerning a single personality can be and it has been studied in deep, recentky, only in Italy due also to a problem of access to the documents, most of them in private hands (mine, for instance)

In that case, it sounds like you have simply confused historical background with your own private occult beliefs.

Private beliefs ? I was discussing of private DOCUMENTS.

The two things are not identical.

I'm sure that all listmates have understood.

But they all seem to disagree about me. Some of them apparently think I'm Catholic, while others think I'm an atheist (though according to some evidently popular conceptions of atheism, I'm not even an atheist), some think I'm an anarchist, while others think I'm a marxist, and so forth. All this attention is flattering, I suppose, but it's still hard to see what any of it might have to do with Rudolf Steiner's views on Jews.

Those features , "atheist", catholic" ans so on are , in my opinion , often of very littleinterest to understand a personality. If you got an ahrimanic infected brain it really does not matter if you are a believer in some god or in some "revolution" or only in your personal inflated ego.
. Moreover : it's not hard to see that this fact (your "face") has very much to do not about the views of RS about Jews (or race) but about your twisted and defamatory interpretation of it all.

I am myself used to be a collaborator of magazine where there are articles that I completely dislike !

Gosh, you don't say. Every writer has this experience, Andrea. It is nevertheless perfectly accurate to describe you as a collaborator of a magazine to which you submit your work and which publishes your work.

And so ?

The only case I know ( from 1925 -the year of the absolutely destructive Evola's essay about Syeiner on "Ignis" magazine -onwards ) of a "collaborations "in which you can find together articles from Anthropop and Evola was the "UR" group but

Yes, Evola's involvement with the UR group is a fine example of what we were discussing (well, what I thought we were discussing, anyway).

if you know "UR" this has nothing to do with the "similiarities" between Evola's racism and Steiner's insights that is at stake in this discussion.

That is only part of what is at stake in this discussion. I get the sense that you haven't been paying particularly close attention to the course of our discussion.

A:

And I have got the sense that you are only trying to shuffle the cards on the table.

But this has nothing to do with your fantasies about Evola "inspired" as a racist by Steiner's cosmology.

I do not think that Evola was inspired as a racist by Steiner's cosmology. You might try re-reading my posts on the matter. Three days ago I said that I think it likely that both Evola and Steiner inherited their root-race frameworks from prior Theosophical writings. Do you find this unlikely?

A:

Again! And I have explained to you and to the list why this statement is nonsensical ( in Rome we say : UNA CAZZATA) not only for me but also for the rest of the world.

What have we got to do now , play again the whole song, now?

Or are you a 14 year kid who wants to have , ever and ever, the last word?

Andrea

Peter

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

From: patrick evans
Date: Fri Feb 27, 2004 3:13 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

Mr. Staudenmeier:

You wrote:

Let's abstract from Steiner for the moment and look at the substance here: I think that the claim that the existence of Jews as a people retards the healthy development of humankind can accurately be described as antisemitic. Do you disagree?

I reply, "I disagree." I disagree for two reasons. First all, your suggestion that we abstract from Steiner and look at the substance will just as likely lead us away from the truth as towards it. The truth is in Steiner's meaning and that can be only arrived at after a comprehensive study and understanding of the evolution of humanity. Every culture has contributed something to the healthy development of humankind. One might say, each culture has a gift to give. In time every culture completes its task and another takes its place. The present leading cultures will complete their tasks and then melt back into the whole as the others before them. According to anthroposophy, any people or culture that separates itself in an unhealthy way from the rest of humanity is impeding the progression of humanity. Rudolf Steiner spoke in the same spirit when he criticized President Wilson's idea, the self-determination of nations. He saw it to be social Darwinism at its worst. We see a result of this idea in the Balkan tragedy. Secondly, the word anti-Semitic isn't merely descriptive. It attaches a stigma to anyone that is labeled by it. Surely you understand that by saying that anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner are racist and anti-Semitic you contribute mightily to the perception of them as such. This could not be further from the truth. But as you know, perception becomes reality. Anthroposophy brings forth the spiritual ideal that humanity is progressing towards universal brotherhood. It encourages us to look at the individual not the color of his skin. This idea opposes racist ideologies. In our time one must use these terms with care. When you use them you bear the responsibility of their effects. Do you disagree?

Respectfully,

Patrick

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 8:07 PM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement

<snip>
Honesty has nothing to do with it. I do not doubt that Steiner honestly believed the various things he said about Jews. I simply think that some of those things were antisemitic. Let's abstract from Steiner for the moment and look at the substance here: I think that the claim that the existence of Jews as a people retards the healthy development of humankind can accurately be described as antisemitic. Do you disagree?

Peter

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

agreement and disagreement 3


Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
 

February/March 2004

The Uncle Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files

Anthroposophy & Anarchism

Anthroposophy & Scientology

Anthroposophical Morsels

Anthroposophy, Critics, and Controversy

Search this site powered by FreeFind