Terms and Their Meanings
From: at
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 10:35 am
Subject: Terms and their meanings
This does bring up the interesting question
of whether, when two people use the same terminology, they necessarily
mean the same thing. Especially in the area of spiritual beliefs,
and involving authors whose work is prolific, it may actually
be that they refer to different concepts under the same name.
That this is in principle possible is evident in the fact that
numerous and very different conceptions exist under the name
"God" and with this example, it should be very evident
that "God" will have a very different meaning in different
religious texts, even among such a narrow spectrum as protestant
theologians, despite the fact that the same word is used. I would
like to suggest that words like "Lemurian" will have
very different meanings to different authors, and the simple
occurrence of the term in a text is not sufficient to establish
a similarity of outlook, either in the narrower area of that
concept alone, or in the broader area of over all outlook.
Daniel Hindes
-----
Original Message -----
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 2:38 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.). 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
Continued in the thread "Atheism"
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 10:45 am
Subject: Re: Terms and their meanings
Daniel wrote:
This does bring up the interesting question
of whether, when two people use the same terminology, they necessarily
mean the same thing. Especially in the area of spiritual beliefs,
and involving authors whose work is prolific, it may actually
be that they refer to different concepts under the same name.
That this is in principle possible is evident in the fact that
numerous and very different conceptions exist under the name
"God"
Perhaps this explained the stunned confusion
and ensuing uneasy joking-about here when it is pointed out that
there are "atheists" who don't believe in "God"
but don't necessarily reject all manner of spiritual reality.
Gosh, even Dottie said she's not sure about "God" and
Dottie seems quite sure about spiritual reality in general!
Diana
(still not washed)
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 11:39 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Terms and their meanings
Diana wrote:
Gosh, even Dottie said she's not sure about
"God" and Dottie seems quite sure about spiritual reality
in general!
Hi Diana,
Dottie is quite sure of God as in her own
personal understanding but not in how others believe what God
is? Nor does she really care what others think God is. But she
is sure there is a greater reality and in that reality she believes
we all make up the entity so called as God. So she believes in
God, just not in mans definition of God, she has her own. So,
maybe Mr. Staudenmaier would say at one point because I contemplated
exactly what God is, or came to a different perspective than
others I was at an atheist moment in my life. And he would be
so full of shit in the same manner he is when speaking of Steiner.
And why do you think Steiners students should
leave it up to the Staudenmaier, Dugans and the Snells of the
world to define Dr. Steiners work? You seem to hold the idea
that one should not speak on a falsity because one shoulnd't
have to defend his work. Why not? Why shouldn't they speak up
to such twisted interpretations as have been offered up by Staudenamier,
who has Steiner flip flopping every which way but loose, and
every couple of years, to serve his own personal thesis of Dr.
Steiners culpabilitiy to a nazi ideology? He's embarrasing in
the way he comes to a reason why it is as he depicts. He has
to make one jump through fire, do tumblesauts, stand on his head
and stick his tongue out while holding his breath,(how do you
spell that word) in order to get what he wants. Seriously. His
argument is that ridiculous.
I love that those participating on this list
get to see first hand the outragiousness of Peter, how he is
unbendable in his determination of a thing in the face of hardcore
facts speaking to the opposite of his claim. He has absolutely
no facts to back up his theory. None. It is a watershed moment.
Steiner was not against Judaism as put by
you just a bit ago. Judaism is the heart of the inner workings
of the Kabbalah and the spirit world. Which is why Staudenmaier
would be hard pressed to find a learned Rabbi to agree that Steiner
was a anti-semetic. And even Frank has shared that the Rabbi
in Germany spoke to the opposite. If you can not get a Jewish
Rabbi to agree with you on Steiners culpability what is that
really saying? Steiner, it seems to me felt that the Jewish people
did not move along with the rest of the world in as far as a
community of brotherhood. They keep themselves seperate for the
most part and he commented on that. This does not make him anti-semetic.
And I am not speaking of non practicing Jews rather the Jews
that live the life of the Torah day in and day out and raise
their children in this same manner. Or maybe in your eyes one
shouldn't even have the conversation as that in and of itself
is anti-semetic.
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 11:59 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Terms and their meanings
Hi Daniel, welcome back. I think you make
a good point here:
This does bring up the interesting question of whether, when
two people use the same terminology, they necessarily mean the
same thing.
I'd say our recent discussion of 'atheism' is a fine example.
Especially in the area of spiritual beliefs, and involving
authors whose work is prolific, it may actually be that they
refer to different concepts under the same name.
I agree, that happens often.
I would like to suggest that words like "Lemurian"
will have very different meanings to different authors, and the
simple occurrence of the term in a text is not sufficient to
establish a similarity of outlook, either in the narrower area
of that concept alone, or in the broader area of over all outlook.
That is also true; a number of 19th century scientists believed
there had once been a continent called "Lemuria", and
the idea held no occult associations for them. But the case of
Evola and Steiner is importantly different; they didn't simply
use the same term, they used the exact same series of five terms
in the exact same order, which just happened to coincide exactly
with theosophical doctrie at the time. This suggests that both
figures inherited the scheme of root-races from Blavatsky's Secret
Doctrine. On Evola, I recommend the recent book by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke
(a fan of Steiner, by the way): "Black Sun: Aryan Cults,
Esoteric Nazism, and the Politics of Identity". Chapter
three is all about Evola.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 12:44 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Terms and their meanings
If you've been following my
recent posts, you will notice that if someone possesses spiritual
beliefs, then BY DEFINITION they are not an atheist. The moment
of stunned silence is perhaps people wondering "who rewrote
the dictionary?"
Daniel Hindes
----- Original Message -----
From: winters_diana
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 1:45 PM
Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Terms and their meanings
Daniel wrote:
This does bring up the interesting question
of whether, when two people use the same terminology, they necessarily
mean the same thing. Especially in the area of spiritual beliefs,
and involving authors whose work is prolific, it may actually
be that they refer to different concepts under the same name.
That this is in principle possible is evident in the fact that
numerous and very different conceptions exist under the name
"God"
Perhaps this explained the stunned confusion
and ensuing uneasy joking-about here when it is pointed out that
there are "atheists" who don't believe in "God"
but don't necessarily reject all manner of spiritual reality.
Gosh, even Dottie said she's not sure about "God" and
Dottie seems quite sure about spiritual reality in general!
Diana
(still not washed)
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 12:58 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Terms and their meanings
Daniel wrote:
If you've been following my
recent posts, you will notice that if someone possesses spiritual
beliefs, then BY DEFINITION they are not an atheist. The moment
of stunned silence is perhaps people wondering "who rewrote
the dictionary?"
Hi Daniel,
Well it seems that Peter gets to make up his
own definitions, which of course depends on his interpretations
which he then does not share that that is exactly what they are.
I get to make up my own words but at least they have my definition:)
Thanks for putting the dictionary up here.
I remember when first hearing Peters idea that you are an atheist
if you do not believe in God but that this did not include the
spiritual worlds. One could be a Buddhist Atheist and so forth
according to Peter. I was always under the understanding that
the atheists did not believe in any spiritural reality until
Peter set me straight: no it is a non belief in God. But it seems
he did not set me straight, he just showed me to be silly because
I did not check his definition/interpretation out in the dictionary.
Phooey on me.
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 1:01 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Terms and their meanings
Peter Staudenmaier:
That is also true; a number of 19th century
scientists believed there had once been a continent called "Lemuria",
and the idea held no occult associations for them. But the case
of Evola and Steiner is importantly different; they didn't simply
use the same term, they used the exact same series of five terms
in the exact same order, which just happened to coincide exactly
with theosophical doctrie at the time. This suggests that both
figures inherited the scheme of root-races from Blavatsky's Secret
Doctrine.
Daniel:
I don't think you have completely understood
what I was getting at. Is it possible that all three authors
write about a succession of five phases of human development,
and name them the same, but acutually concieve of different things
in each of those phases? Such that the differences may even outweigh
the similarities?
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: holderlin66
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:30 pm
Subject: Terms and their meanings/Hebrew People
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
dottie zold wrote:
Steiner was not against Judaism as put
by you just a bit ago. Judaism is the heart of the inner workings
of the Kabbalah and the spirit world. Which is why Staudenmaier
would be hard pressed to find a learned Rabbi to agree that Steiner
was a anti-semetic.
Bradford comments;
There are aspects of such high respect and
insight in Steiner's research of the Hebrew people that there
is no doubt that he, and I hate to say this but I offer the proof,
he really outshined most Rabbi's. Now my example for this has
had me stunned in relation to Solomon. For my money Steiner knew
the Hebrew People better than the Hebrew People know themselves.
The following has such stunning cohesive detail and the reason
why most insights are fragmented and lost is because the cohesive
structure of the human being has been lost even from the ancient
traditions of the Hebrew People themselves. They cling to an
external doctrine and there is no room anywhere on Earth for
people to merely cling, blindly, to an external doctrine.
http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Lectures/19100208p01.html
R.S.
"In order that he might
become what he was to be, at that time a body had to be prepared,
containing an extract, as it were, of what had been given to
a whole people, a people who had to give to humanity the qualities
which can only be communicated through physical inheritance.
We have seen that the most essential thing in the old Hebrew
people was the duty of developing in successive generations,
from father to son, from son to grandson, and so on, those qualities
which had to be inherited in a continually increased form, till
they finally appear in their highest and best form in the body
which was derived by inheritance from Abraham and Solomon and
which was finally occupied by Zarathustra.
We have a great deal more
to learn through our studies before we shall be able to understand
the full mission of the old Hebrew people, in all its details.
This necessitates that we should gradually learn how the qualities
needed for the body of Jesus were more and more ennobled in the
course of the descent from generation to generation. It had to
be made as perfect as possible for the fulfilment of its world-historical
mission, for that mission could only be carried out if all that
pertained to the body of the Solomonian Jesus Being was as perfect
as possible in itself as regards those qualities.
The germs of the perfection
in the body of Jesus of Nazareth had to be prepared long before.
We have seen how during the first period (extending from Abraham
to Solomon or David), the generations were worked upon just as
a man's physical body is worked upon during the time between
his birth and the change of teeth. This work was so performed
by the forces active behind evolution, that at a certain time
there was actually an ancestor of Jesus who already contained
within him, capacities as nearly perfect as possible, and these
re-appeared in the body which became the vehicle of Zarathustra.
Thus in an ancestor of Jesus
the foundations of a right development of all the seven principles
of man's nature were present. In other words: If we trace back
the ancestry of Jesus, we must find one ancestor who possessed
the germ of the seven-principled-nature — although not so
perfectly developed as in the body of Jesus of Nazareth —
yet present in rudimentary form.
Although not expressed in
their external tradition, the secret doctrine of the ancient
Hebrews was cognisant of this fact. It was aware that once upon
a time a man lived of whom it must be said that the seven principles
worked in him in such a way that they had to be described as
quite peculiarly worthy of note! The Initiates of the old Hebrew
secret doctrine actually pointed to an ancestor of Jesus of Nazareth,
knowing that be possessed these seven human principles in a quite
remarkable degree!
They called the ego of this
ancestor, `Itiel,' to indicate that in him the ego must have
possessed that force (for Itiel signifies something like `possessor
of force'). He must have possessed that dauntlessness, which
would, when carried down through the generations, become the
proper ego-vehicle for the high being who was to reappear in
Jesus of Nazareth.
In the same way they called
the astral body of this ancestor `Lemuel'; that would more or
less describe an astral body so far developed that it does not
merely feel the law, the conformity to law, outside itself, but
feels that it bears the law within it.
They called the etheric body
of this ancestor `Ben Jage'; that would signify an etheric body
as far as possible transmuted within, which having attained a
certain perfection, is able to take habits into itself.
The physical body of this
ancestor they called `Agur', because the physical activity, the
capacity of this ancestor on the physical plane, consisted in
his having assimilated everything brought over from old tradition;
for `Agur' signified a collector. `All the ancient conceptions
of the world, all the old traditions, were gathered together
in Jesus; and the rudiments of this were already developed in
this ancestor.
What worked as Spirit-Man
in this ancestor, was called, (because the Divine-Spiritual Beings
gave loving attention to their work on the rudiments of Spirit-Man,)
`Jedidjah', a word signifying something like `the darling of
the Gods'.
What worked in this ancestor
as Buddhi or Life-Spirit, was called `Kohelet'; for it was said:
`In this ancestor there must have worked a Life-Spirit which
was able to act as a teacher to the whole nation, so that its
content could be poured out to them all'.
And finally, Manas or Spirit-self
in this ancestor was known by the word, `Salomo', which signifies
inner balance, for they said: Such a Spirit-self must have had
within it the rudiments of being inwardly whole, of being in
a state of balance within. Thus this ancestor, who is usually
known only by the name of Schelomo, Schleimo, or Solomon, has
three principal names: Jedidjah, Kohelet, Salomo; and four additional
names: Agur, Ben Jage, Lemuel and Itiel, for these names signify
the four coverings, whereas the three first names signify the
divine inner part. The secret doctrine of the old Hebrews had
seven names for this person.
If later, people were dissatisfied
with Solomon, as was the case even among certain sects of the
Jews themselves. (whether rightly or wrongly cannot be gone into
here), this can easily be accounted for. In Solomon there were
great, important rudiments, which were to be further propagated
for a distinct purpose.
Now an individual human being,
at a definite stage of his evolution, does not always display
in his outer life the germs of the qualities he is to bequeath
to his descendants; perhaps for the very reason that such great
forces are within him he may even be more subject to failure
in this direction. The lack of morality to be observed in Solomon
is not in contradiction to what the old Hebrew secret doctrine
saw in him; on the contrary it would explain his failings.
Thus the old Jewish secret
doctrine looks back to an ancestor of Jesus, fully conscious
of his significance for the whole mission of their people."
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 8:54 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Terms and their meanings
Hi Daniel, you wrote:
I don't think you have completely understood
what I was getting at. Is it possible that all three authors
write about a succession of five phases of human development,
and name them the same, but acutually concieve of different things
in each of those phases? Such that the differences may even outweigh
the similarities?
Yes, that is entirely possible, in fact in this case it may well
be likely. There are lots of differences among Blavatsky, Steiner,
and Evola. A number of those differences, particularly between
the latter two men, are striking. I thought that Andrea had claimed
that there were no similarities at all between them, and that
is what I replied to. I seem to have a knack for misunderstanding
Andrea lately, though, so I may well have been replying to a
straw man. In any case, I do not hold that the evident similarities
between Steiner's doctrines and Evola's doctrines outweigh the
differences.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Wed Feb 25, 2004 3:01 am
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Terms and their meanings
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 5:54 AM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Terms and their meanings
Hi Daniel, you wrote:
Hi Daniel, you wrote:
I don't think you have completely understood
what I was getting at. Is it possible that all three authors
write about a succession of five phases of human development,
and name them the same, but acutually concieve of different things
in each of those phases? Such that the differences may even outweigh
the similarities?
Yes, that is entirely possible, in fact
in this case it may well be likely. There are lots of differences
among Blavatsky, Steiner, and Evola. A number of those differences,
particularly between the latter two men, are striking. I thought
that Andrea had claimed that there were no similarities at all
between them, and that is what I replied to. I seem to have a
knack for misunderstanding Andrea lately, though, so I may well
have been replying to a straw man. In any case, I do not hold
that the evident similarities between Steiner's doctrines and
Evola's doctrines outweigh the differences.
Peter
Well, since you seem, over and over, having understood nothing
about Steiner and Evola i have decided to be patient and I'l
reply, shortly, - mainly for the benefit of those listmates who
are unaware of Evola's teachings- as follows:
Basically:
1) Steiner's cosmology is based upon an Initiatic path, mainly
the experience known as "Lecture of Akasha's chronicle".
Steiner described his cosmology not only in his written works
but also in hundreds and hundreds of lectures, shaping and reshaping
it all till his last days (See "Leading Thoughts" book).
Doing so he EXPERIENCED not only the link between Mankind's and
Universe's Evolution but also that the Christ as the Core of
Worlds' Evolution )
For instance: a very important part of RS's
cosmology is about Christ's path towards mankind along the Ages.
2
2) Evola worked on a strict intellectual level borrowing, here
and there, from various different sources and traditions. The
core of his beliefs was "the Four Ages" doctrine over
and over depicted as a decadence process, in itself heavily deterministic.
He repeated this concept over and over without
reforming or reshaping it in any way. A very bothering matter.
He didn't write about the Evolution of the
Universe as Steiner but only - briefly-of recent history using
theosophic terms - "Polar" for instance in a total
different way. (He thought of those people to be like "physically"
existing ).
At the core;
Following such a path he rejected any idea of "freedom",
"individuality", "christianity" and so on
due to his total misunderstanding of the I AM principle, becoming
what he became.
This principle, on the contrary, is the foundation
of RS's teachings and in itself is the opposite of any racist
insight.
Whoever states the contrary knows really nothing
about it.
Well, I stop here.
Like anyone can see: there is no "evident similiarity"
at all but a gap big like the Universe!!
Again Peter. YOU MADE TENS OF FELLOWS LAUGH WITH SUCH A SENTENCE!!!!
Tks by them all for such an amusing experience.
Andrea
...................................................................................................................................
From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Wed Feb 25, 2004 5:21 am
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Terms and their meanings
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 8:59 PM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Terms and their meanings
also true; a number of 19th century scientists
believed there had once been a continent called "Lemuria",
and the idea held no occult associations for them. But the case
of Evola and Steiner is importantly different; they didn't simply
use the same term, they used the exact same series of five terms
in the exact same order, which just happened to coincide exactly
with theosophical doctrie at the time. This suggests that both
figures inherited the scheme of root-races from Blavatsky's Secret
Doctrine. On Evola, I recommend the recent book by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke
(a fan of Steiner, by the way):
GEEE ! People, Goodrick-Clarke a fan of Steiner???
This sentence is very helpful in orde to throw
more light over Charlatanmaier's mind.
. If he calls "fan" a professor
who has only been trying to gain a certain kind of objectivity
in his work about the issue, we can easily see what, on the contrary,
Don Pedro's precoinceved bias against RS (under his "aplomb
mask") are
Tks for this penalty kick, Pedro!!
A.
"Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism, and the Politics
of Identity". Chapter three is all about Evola.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Wed Feb 25, 2004 5:41 am
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Terms and their meanings
Peter S wrote:
On Evola, I recommend the recent book by
Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke (a fan of Steiner, by the way):
Andrea wrote:
GEEE ! People, Goodrick-Clarke a fan of
Steiner???
I wouldn't say that. In the book I read, he
ascribed to him egoistical, self-serving motives for major career
decisions. But he was taken aback by the sheer vehemence of the
attacks against Steiner and thought such attacks and hatred inexplicable
and totally undeserved and uncalled for. And he did not include
Steiner's anthroposophical ideas as a part of the so-called voelkisch
tradition, which Peter does. Perhaps that's why Peter calls Goodrick-Clarke
a fan of Steiner.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Wed Feb 25, 2004 6:30 am
Subject: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Terms and their meanings
----- Original Message -----
From: Tarjei Straume
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 2:41 PM
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Terms and their meanings
Peter S wrote:
On Evola, I recommend the recent book by
Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke (a fan of Steiner, by the way):
Andrea wrote:
GEEE ! People, Goodrick-Clarke a fan of
Steiner???
I wouldn't say that.
True, Tarjei!!!
(For the first time in my life I've been too
kind with someone......Am I getting old?)
A.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Wed Feb 25, 2004 2:57 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Terms and their meanings
Diana
(still not washed)
Not since your Dulcinea incarnation. Wow,
that's a record, possibly an unbreakable one.
Frank
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Feb 25, 2004 6:58 pm
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Terms and their meanings
Hi Tarjei, you wrote:
And he did not include Steiner's anthroposophical ideas as
a part of the so-called voelkisch tradition, which Peter does.
Perhaps that's why Peter calls Goodrick-Clarke a fan of Steiner.
I don't consider Steiner part of the voelkisch tradition (though
other historians do, such as Helmut Zander), but I do think there
were important areas of overlap between Steiner and many voelkisch
thinkers. Steiner himself was an admirer of Friedrich Lienhard,
a major voelkisch author and one of the leading lights of "idealistic
antisemitism", as Uwe Puschner calls it.
The reason I describe Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke as a fan of Steiner
is that Goodrick-Clarke wrote the preface to the book Rudolf
Steiner: Essential Writings, and his discussion of Steiner there
is entirely positive.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Wed Feb 25, 2004 8:03 pm
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Terms and their meanings
Peter Staudenmaier:
The reason I describe Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke
as a fan of Steiner is that Goodrick-Clarke wrote the preface
to the book Rudolf Steiner: Essential Writings, and his discussion
of Steiner there is entirely positive.
Daniel:
Isn't Goodrick-Clarke the acknowleged expert
on the occult origins of National Socialism? What do you make
of the fact that he doesn't consider Steiner to be among the
occultists who exercised influential on the development of National
Socialism?
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Feb 25, 2004 9:08 pm
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Terms and their meanings
Hi again Daniel, you asked:
Isn't Goodrick-Clarke the acknowleged expert
on the occult origins of National Socialism? What do you make
of the fact that he doesn't consider Steiner to be among the
occultists who exercised influential on the development of National
Socialism?
I partly agree with him. I don't think that Steiner importantly
influenced people like Rosenberg. I think that the range of ideological
common ground between the various esotericist factions of the
Nazis and early anthroposophy are not due primarily to direct
influence of one on the other, but to shared philosophical and
cultural roots. I think that Steiner's ideas did influence people
like Darre, Seifert, and so on. I think that a number of early
anthroposophists also found several aspects of Nazism appealing.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Wed Feb 25, 2004 9:18 pm
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Terms and their meanings
Peter:
I think that a number of early anthroposophists
also found several aspects of Nazism appealing.
Whooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Peter. Wake up Peter,
earth to Peter. So, what do you think these early anthroposophists,
and how many of them are we speaking of, two? is this correct
so far in your mind, found APPEALING IN NAZISM? Please be very
clear Peter what you are about to say or you are going to be
flushed down the river with the biggest whopper ever caught.
Ready? 1...2....3...
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Thu Feb 26, 2004 8:24 am
Subject: RE: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Terms and their meanings
Peter:
I think that a number of early anthroposophists
also found several aspects of Nazism appealing.
Whooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Peter. Wake up
Peter, earth to Peter. So, what do you think these early anthroposophists,
and how many of them are we speaking of, two? is this correct
so far in your mind, found APPEALING IN NAZISM? Please be very
clear Peter what you are about to say or you are going to be
flushed down the river with the biggest whopper ever caught.
Ready? 1...2....3...
Dottie
It should be remembered that a large majority
of Germans found several aspects of Nazism appealing. The anthroposophical
community was a small percentage of the German population. Of
that community, a percentage (I don't know how many) also found
these aspects appealing. One would suppose, or hope, that it
couldn't be the case, but it's not that surprising considering
that anthropops aren't so different from "normal" people.
In fact, I know at least one anthropsophical Republican
Frank
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Thu Feb 26, 2004 9:21 am
Subject: RE: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Terms and their meanings
Frank:
The anthroposophical community was a small
percentage of the German population. Of that community, a percentage
(I don't know how many) also found these aspects appealing. One
would suppose, or hope, that it couldn't be the case, but it's
not that surprising considering that anthropops aren't so different
from "normal" people. In fact, I know at least one
anthropsophical Republican
Frank, what ASPECTS of NAZISM did they find
appealing in Peters opinion? And now I can ask you what aspects
of NAZISM do you think these people founnd appealing according
to Dr. Steiners work? Because this is what we are speaking about
aren't we? Where Dr. Steiners work led or leads to anti-semitism?
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Sun Feb 29, 2004 7:31 am
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Terms and their meanings
In a message dated 2/26/2004 12:10:45 PM Eastern
Standard Time, franksmith writes:
In fact, I know at least one anthropsophical
Republican
Now that's truly scary!
Do we all share in the guilt by association??
Christine - trying to catch up on her backlog
of e-mail
...................................................................................................................................
From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Wed Mar 3, 2004 6:48 pm
Subject: RE: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Terms and their meanings
Dottie, you wrote:
Frank:
The anthroposophical community was a small
percentage of the German population. Of that community, a percentage
(I don't know how many) also found these aspects appealing. One
would suppose, or hope, that it couldn't be the case, but it's
not that surprising considering that anthropops aren't so different
from "normal" people. In fact, I know at least one
anthropsophical Republican
Frank, what ASPECTS of NAZISM did they
find appealing in Peters opinion?
I don't know Peter's opinion.
And now I can ask you what aspects of NAZISM
do you think these people founnd appealing according to Dr. Steiners
work? Because this is what we are speaking about aren't we? Where
Dr. Steiners work led or leads to anti-semitism?
Yes, we are talking about anti-Semitism, but
I didn't mean that. I meant other aspects of Nazism. I say this
because once an old, well known, honorable German anthroposophist
who lived through the Nazi era told me how shocked he was that
a few so-called (his word) anthroposphists, who completely misunderstood
Steiner, hung Hitler's picture alongside Steiner's, because they
thought the former to be realizing the latter's intentions regarding
the threefold society. This was early on, and they were soon
disillusioned. I don't know if this had anythng to do with anti-Semitism,
but it probably did, (or maybe they chose to ignore that aspect)
because Hitlers ideas concerning the Jews were well known from
the beginning. This doesn't mean that Steiner's work led to anti-Semitism,
only that a few idiots thought that the Nazis were good guys.
My informant thought it was a mistake to try to keep the Waldorf
schools and the Anthropsophical Society functioning at that time,
and it was done because many didn't realize the extreme evil
the Nazis represented until it was too late.
Frank
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re:
To Peter 2
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
