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
