agreement and disagreement 4

"Group-soulness" of the ancient Hebrews

 

From: winters_diana
Date: Sun Mar 14, 2004 7:23 pm
Subject: "Group-soulness" of the ancient Hebrews

Daniel:

It occurred to me that the problem with this specific example is that it refers to the ancient Hebrews. Since Peter does not have much of an understanding of Anthroposophy, he wouldn't know that to Steiner everything has it's proper place and time, and that for the ancient Hebrews, embodying the element of group-soulness was a very good thing, and high praise of the Hebrews. In Steiner's world-view, that time was the period (the pre-Christian era) where group-soul characteristics were proper, good, and healthy. 2000 to 2600 years later, Steiner considered a continuation of such a trend unhealthy. But if you don't have an understanding of Steiner's evolution of consciousness, you would miss this. A proper researcher, on the other hand, would take this into consideration.

Daniel – get a clue, get a clue, get a clue. A "proper researcher" will look at both Steiner's statement, and the fawning acceptance of it by anthroposophists, in the context of intense skepticism toward "high praise" for this or that ethnic group. That throws this person's "evolution of consciousness" scheme into question right there, because it is such an obvious way to justify or rationalize ancient prejudices. "High praise" for the ancient Hebrews' supposedly former, appropriate state of consciousness, complemented (no surprise) by the assertion that, today, their mission is over, casts his entire "evolution of consciousness" scheme into question – not the other way around, as you would have, where if critics would only, only understand evolution of consciousness first, we would then, eureka, stop having a problem with the idea that "group soulness" can be embodied in a particular ethnic group.

Wake up and smell the coffee. It is not that the critics "don't understand" Steiner's "evolution of consciousness" (it is not exactly a complicated or original scheme), or haven't read or properly understood the documents you solemnly instruct us to read and understand. It is that Steiner's evolution of consciousness looks very shaky the minute you notice it justifies morally repugnant and intellectually junky ideas like "group-soulness" as embodied in the Jews. Don't make no difference, Daniel, if he meant in Biblical times or the 21st century.

Your bias is showing, your polemic is transparent and the more so the more you pontificate about "proper research."

Put it this way: ain't gonna come a day you decide "proper research" shows Steiner to be a racist, is there? Your "proper research" has a foregone conclusion as obvious as Idaho.

Diana

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Sun Mar 14, 2004 7:33 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] "Group-soulness" of the ancient Hebrews

Diana to Daniel:

Your bias is showing, your polemic is transparent and the more so the more you pontificate about "proper research."

Blah blah blah...Smoke and mirrors Diana, that's all you got going on. No matter how much you try to make Peter look good you can't do it. Don't argue for his limitations, Peter has a great mind and should or could use it for something other than tearing things down. To me it shows a lack of having faith in your own projects that you have to use others to give you a boost.

Unfortunately you are not one with whom a rational dialogue on anything pertaining to different cultures can be had, as you see racism everywhere. Pro or con it doesn't matter its not to be discussed.

Just found an article from 1997 where your great vice president blamed Anthroposophy for the murder of a Denver policeman. For shame.

Dottie

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

From: winters_diana
Date: Sun Mar 14, 2004 7:40 pm
Subject: Re: "Group-soulness" of the ancient Hebrews

Dottie:

Unfortunately you are not one with whom a rational dialogue on anything pertaining to different cultures can be had, as you see racism everywhere.

Dottie, I certainly do not see racism everywhere. Around me, I actually see many people working against racism. Where did you get the idea I see racism everywhere? I see it in anthroposophy, which is the subject of this list.

Different cultures? It's very enjoyable to discuss different cultures.

Pro or con it doesn't matter its not to be discussed.

Again that makes no sense. If you mean "pro or con" racism, I think just the opposite, that either pro or con racism is a good thing to discuss.

Diana

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Sun Mar 14, 2004 7:59 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: "Group-soulness" of the ancient Hebrews

Dottie, I certainly do not see racism everywhere. Around me, I actually see many people working against racism. Where did you get the idea I see racism everywhere? I see it in anthroposophy, which is the subject of this list.

Diana, your discussions with Tarjei where you stated that it was bad to say even something postive about the Jews was just mind boggling to read. That whole argument was just flabergasting to listen in on. In your want to show 'your personal interpretations' of Dr. Steiners work on cultures you throw common sense out the window.

So what, you think his work is racist. Does that mean you are correct and the Steiner students wrong. You don't get the gist of what is being spoken of and you don't seem to want to either. That's all fine and good but did you ever think to stop for a second and listen to why the Steiner students don't decipher it the way you do? Did it ever cross your mind that maybe you don't get what is really being said that maybe those who study Dr. Steiner do? I mean did it ever occur to you it is more than just 'well your a Steiner student of course you wouldn't see it'? Ever? These are intelligent people on this list with great minds do you really think the racism would pass them by. We live in todays world do you really think we have not grown up with this disgusting social habit?

You have seen how freedom minded most on this list are have you ever considered that they have their own minds and wouldn't mind stating it if they saw it. These are the most accountable people I have ever been in contact with to the point where they even say they misunderstood even knowing it will bring ridicule by Peter or whomever. They actually say 'hey sorry about that'. Did you ever see anything like this on your critics list? I don't think so. You guys are on message and that is that. At least the people here are not afraid to confront one another nor stick up for one who is in direct confrontation with Dr. Steiners work. If only the critics could be as open minded.

So what makes you think you are right about Dr. Steiner and racism over the Steiner students?

Dottie

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Sun Mar 14, 2004 8:08 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] "Group-soulness" of the ancient Hebrews

Dottie to Diana:

Just found an article from 1997 where your great vice president blamed Anthroposophy for the murder of a Denver policeman. For shame.

Diana, have you read the article from 1997 pertaining to Dan blaming the parents for having been Anthroposophists? There son was in the KKK and Dugan blamed the point that the parents were teachers and so forth and that the kid must have heard all about it and decided to be a skin head. Crock of peanut butter is what I say. Now I understand Tarjei's point a few years back about Dugan and race/religion baiting: his son having to worry about ignorance like Dugans coming back to haunt young people in Waldorf schools.

Your group has gotten so far off the path of what originally was a valid point for some of the parents there. And it has lost any kind of warm feelings one might have had towards its cause in the manner it has been used to promote a Humanist point of view by Dugan and his promotion of Staudenmaier and his nazi ridiculousness.

Dottie

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

From: winters_diana
Date: Sun Mar 14, 2004 8:13 pm
Subject: Re: "Group-soulness" of the ancient Hebrews

Dottie:

Diana, your discussions with Tarjei where you stated that it was bad to say even something postive about the Jews was just mind boggling to read.

I'm aware it boggles your mind, but it is indeed what I think - almost. Maybe you missed that I said it is bad (well, I don't think I put it quite so simplistically) to "say something positive" about the Jews as Jews - to imply that they have either some inherent superiority or inferiority as a result of being Jewish. When it's based on that kind of misconception, Dottie, it isn't actually saying anything positive, after all. There is such a thing as prejudices that are positive, can't you think of examples yourself? Like blacks have rhythm or something. People still say this and think they are complimenting blacks. I heard the crossing guard at the elementary school down the street from us say it to someone the other morning. She meant to say a very nice thing about black people. The statement is racist.

Did it ever cross your mind that maybe you don't get what is really being said that maybe those who study Dr. Steiner do?

Dottie, with all due respect for your personal spiritual searches, with which, as I have told you, I am in great sympathy and actually very much admire - but I can't go where you want to go on this one. The fact is, I do think I "get" what Rudolf Steiner was saying, I don't think there's a thing wrong with either my reading or comprehension abilities or my observations of this community's investment in Steiner the great spiritual master and initiate and speaker of holy truths who cannot be wrong, and certainly cannot be racist. No, I don't think I am missing a thing there.

They actually say 'hey sorry about that'.

I guess I missed that. I never seem to miss the jokes about dumping urine on peoples' heads, unfortunately.

'Night.
Diana

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Sun Mar 14, 2004 8:38 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: "Group-soulness" of the ancient Hebrews

Diana:

Like blacks have rhythm or something. People still say this and think they are complimenting blacks.

Dude, I have black kids that will fight you for that exact point and an Anisthesiologist as well. You want to be politically correct and not notice the differences of the people around you that is fine, keep walking as if you do not see and feel the various cultures surrounding us. The beauty of the differences that add to the whole. But just because you have this narrow world outlook don't expect everyone else to. Politically correct bullshit is yours to have. You want to keep it small by all means go ahead but don't blame others that want to live life with all the colors of the rainbow expressed and diaologued.

Diana

I heard the crossing guard at the elementary school down the street from us say it to someone the other morning. She meant to say a very nice thing about black people. The statement is racist.

Dottie:

According to your own narrow minded definition (not saying you have a narrow mind) You might be right and you might be wrong I can not trust your judgement on this as you follow a politically correct concept or at least it appears to me from what you right on this list.

Saying a black person has rhythm is racist in your mind. It is not in mine. Who is correct you or I? And remember you are speaking with a cat who basically lives with the black homeless kids that she is even considered againt her 'own people' by the caucasions and latinos. And no that does not make me right but before you go and say I am being racist I think you should just take that into consideration before pulling a politically correct answer.

Diana:

The fact is, I do think I "get" what Rudolf Steiner was saying, I don't think there's a thing wrong with either my reading or comprehension abilities or my observations of this community's investment in Steiner the great spiritual master and initiate and speaker of holy truths who cannot be wrong, and certainly cannot be racist.

Dottie:

No you don't Diana. You don't get it but you think you do. But then again you have such a large window of what is racist and what is not that its hard to tell if you misunderstand Steiner or if you just have very rigid ideas of what racism is.

Diana:

No, I don't think I am missing a thing there.

Dottie:

Yes you are. I think he can be wrong but I have not seen it yet. But then again I do not understand all he has said. And I have heard Daniel say something similar as well as many other admirers of Dr. Steiner. Most are not of the opinion that he is infallible as you state. They may find him highly ethical and of a high moral standard and I would have to agree. It was Dr. Steiners work that helped me to walk away from the racism I was raised around in this society. It is his work that has opened my mind to all different cultures without having to call them 'cults' or devil worshippers and so forth.

Diana:

I guess I missed that. I never seem to miss the jokes about dumping urine on peoples' heads, unfortunately.

'Night.

Dottie:

Yeah, not comfortable for me either but boys will be boys and gross is all I can say. I just skipped the thread completely after reading a few disgusting remarks pointed towards you and Peter. But then again reading Peters terrible translations and interpretations seem just as disgusting if not more including Dugans race/religion baiting. One silly, one malicious. I'll take the silly over malicious any day.

Dottie

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Sun Mar 14, 2004 10:25 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] "Group-soulness" of the ancient Hebrews

Dottie:

Your group has gotten so far off the path of what originally was a valid point for some of the parents there. And it has lost any kind of warm feelings one might have had towards its cause in the manner it has been used to promote a Humanist point of view by Dugan and his promotion of Staudenmaier and his nazi ridiculousness.

Oh yeah and Dugan saying that the Nazis let Waldorf continue because they like the idea that Waldorf was keeping them down intellectually. Nice huh? How's that for a VP of the critics? Twisted thats what it is. An expert, puhlease.

I'm on a roll, trying to find something out about the 1921 article in the New York Times and instead I got to keep finding slime by Dugan. Lies lies and vicious innuendo: Lisa's cult list being from the PLANS people and passed on, as if, as if it is a regular occurrance that Anthroposophy is considered a cult. Ignorance is what it is.

Dottie

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

From: holderlin66
Date: Mon Mar 15, 2004 7:08 am
Subject: Re: "Group-soulness" of the ancient Hebrews

winters_diana wrote:

I guess I missed that. I never seem to miss the jokes about dumping urine on peoples' heads, unfortunately.

'Night.

Well, there's that.

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

From: holderlin66
Date: Mon Mar 15, 2004 7:12 am
Subject: Re: "Group-soulness" of the ancient Hebrews

dottie zold wrote:

But then again reading Peters terrible translations and interpretations seem just as disgusting if not more including Dugans race/religion baiting. One silly, one malicious. I'll take the silly over malicious any day.

Well, there's that.

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

From: holderlin66
Date: Mon Mar 15, 2004 7:39 am
Subject: Re: "Group-soulness" of the ancient Hebrews

dottie zold wrote:

Oh yeah and Dugan saying that the Nazis let Waldorf continue because they like the idea that Waldorf was keeping them down intellectually. Nice huh? How's that for a VP of the critics? Twisted thats what it is. An expert, puhlease.

Then there's this; along with Dan's Heart is pump advanced science theories and his "Hi my name is Herb and I'm not medicine" Paracelsus would come after his honky ass, along with the mountain herbalist, represented as Felix Balde and anyone else who understand Golden Seal and Echanaea, let along Native Americans chewing willow as aspirin.

"Bauemler's "Report on the Waldorf Schools" and "Report on Rudolf Steiner and Philosophy" are noteworthy attempts to understand the thoughts underlying anthroposophy: Baeumler's hope was to find means to adopt aspects of Waldorf pedagogy into National Socialist education. He concluded, however, that the principles underlying anthroposophy contradict the aims of the National Socialistic State.

"The fateful distinction", he wrote, "occurs through the fact that Steiner replaces the theory of heredity with a different, positive theory. Steiner does not simply overlook the biological reality, but rather consciously converts it to its opposite. Anthroposophy is one of the most consequent antibiological systems." In that race and Volk are discounted in ahroposophy as the essential determining factor of individual capacity,..."

Attracting yourself toward hatefilled ideas, the ideas gradually take you in like quicksand, so that any ole lie will do. And you ask yourself, "How did I get here? Is this my wife? Is this my happy life" something David Byrneish.

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Mar 15, 2004 9:00 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: "Group-soulness" of the ancient Hebrews

At 05:13 15.03.2004, Diana wrote:

I'm aware it boggles your mind, but it is indeed what I think - almost. Maybe you missed that I said it is bad (well, I don't think I put it quite so simplistically) to "say something positive" about the Jews as Jews - to imply that they have either some inherent superiority or inferiority as a result of being Jewish.

I see. Saying that blacks play most excellent basket ball, or that Indians have the prettiest eyes, makes them superior and renders the rest of us inferior.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Mar 15, 2004 9:06 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] "Group-soulness" of the ancient Hebrews

At 04:23 15.03.2004, Diana wrote:

"High praise" for the ancient Hebrews' supposedly former, appropriate state of consciousness, complemented (no surprise) by the assertion that, today, their mission is over, casts his entire "evolution of consciousness" scheme into question – not the other way around, as you would have, where if critics would only, only understand evolution of consciousness first, we would then, eureka, stop having a problem with the idea that "group soulness" can be embodied in a particular ethnic group.

Wouldn't you expect the one and only Elohim Being to ever tread the earth in the flesh, the God of the Spiritual Sun, to incarnate in the most suitable body humanity could provide? And wouldn't you expect the higher Powers to participate in the preparations involved in producing such a body many generations in advance?

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Mon Mar 15, 2004 2:07 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: "Group-soulness" of the ancient Hebrews

I see. Saying that blacks play most excellent basket ball, or that Indians have the prettiest eyes, makes them superior and renders the rest of us inferior.

Racism! You never saw me play basketball.

Frank

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

From: winters_diana
Date: Mon Mar 22, 2004 6:28 pm
Subject: Re: "Group-soulness" of the ancient Hebrews

Tarjei:

I see. Saying that blacks play most excellent basket ball, or that Indians have the prettiest eyes, makes them superior and renders the rest of us inferior.

I don't know why you can't grasp this simple distinction. There is nothing wrong with saying Indians have pretty eyes. Physical differences are obvious. It is when you decide your white skin gives you a special mission that you turn into a dangerous nutcase.

There ya go.

Diana

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Tue Mar 23, 2004 2:25 am
Subject: Missions (was: "Group-soulness" of the ancient Hebrews)

At 03:28 23.03.2004, Diana wrote:

I don't know why you can't grasp this simple distinction. There is nothing wrong with saying Indians have pretty eyes.

But it would be something wrong with saying they're the best astral travellers in the world, and that this may have something to do with their beautiful eyes?

Physical differences are obvious. It is when you decide your white skin gives you a special mission that you turn into a dangerous nutcase.

There we go again, this association thing. Subtle smear tactic all over again. Shame on you, Diana. Hypothetically speaking, of course, I could say something about my "white skin", but why do you assume my skin is white in the first place? Europeans have had a mission, and they probably still have a mission. That's what's traditionally meant by "white-skinned" people: Europeans. But these dangerous nutcases of yours, where do they come from? Are they your redneck neighbors? Or do you simply assume that believing in a mission makes you an Al Qaeda cell of sorts with suicidal and homicidal plans? Are you so freaked out about missions?

There ya go.

With a big blow?

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: winters_diana
Date: Tue Mar 23, 2004 5:22 am
Subject: Re: Missions (was: "Group-soulness" of the ancient Hebrews)

I wrote:

I don't know why you can't grasp this simple distinction. There is nothing wrong with saying Indians have pretty eyes.

Tarjei:

But it would be something wrong with saying they're the best astral travellers in the world, and that this may have something to do with their beautiful eyes?

I don't know. I really don't know much about astral travel, so I'm not in a position to evaluate claims that a particular race or ethnicity is better at it or whether there is a correlation to eye color. Hm.

Physical differences are obvious. It is when you decide your white skin gives you a special mission that you turn into a dangerous nutcase.

There we go again, this association thing. Subtle smear tactic all over again.

I don't get you, Tarjei. What smear? I am referring to Rudolf Steiner's doctrines, which you and other people here defend. Why would I have to "associate" you with it to "smear" you? You associate yourself with it, gladly. If you believe in these doctrines then why do you consider yourself "smeared" if I acknowledge as well that you believe in them?

I could say something about my "white skin", but why do you assume my skin is white in the first place?

Why do you think what I wrote has anything to do with you? I was referring to Rudolf Steiner's doctrines, which you defend. He stated that you can understand a great deal about a person via their skin color, and he spun theories about the missions of various races. You subscribe to these doctrines if I'm not mistaken. Feel free to correct me if I've misunderstood your position. No need though, since below you write:

Europeans have had a mission, and they probably still have a mission. That's what's traditionally meant by "white-skinned" people: Europeans. But these dangerous nutcases of yours, where do they come from?

All walks of life, it would seem.

Are they your redneck neighbors? Or do you simply assume that believing in a mission makes you an Al Qaeda cell of sorts with suicidal and homicidal plans?

Most people on a mission, whether based on skin color and race or something less misguided, never take their ideas to the suicidal or homicidal level, but it is a definite danger of "missions" historically.

Diana

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Tue Mar 23, 2004 10:36 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Missions (was: "Group-soulness" of the ancient Hebrews)

Diana wrote:

I don't know why you can't grasp this simple distinction. There is nothing wrong with saying Indians have pretty eyes.

I (Tarjei) wrote:

But it would be something wrong with saying they're the best astral travellers in the world, and that this may have something to do with their beautiful eyes?

Diana:

I don't know. I really don't know much about astral travel, so I'm not in a position to evaluate claims that a particular race or ethnicity is better at it or whether there is a correlation to eye color. Hm

Tarjei:

I suggested astral travel because you said it was so objectionable to talk about the relationship between racial and spiritual characteristics. And now you say you're not in a position to evaluate anything! How can you call something objectionable or unpalatable when you're not in a position to evaluate it at all?

Diana:

Physical differences are obvious. It is when you decide your white skin gives you a special mission that you turn into a dangerous nutcase.

Tarjei:

There we go again, this association thing. Subtle smear tactic all over again.

Diana:

I don't get you, Tarjei. What smear? I am referring to Rudolf Steiner's doctrines, which you and other people here defend.

Tarjei:

You try to misrepresent and smear Steiner's teachings through your above remark. Folk soul missions are not given by complexion or skin color, even though a given people may happen to have a certain complexion in common. Folk soul missions are given by the Archangeloi. Each people has a different Archangel, which is why peoples have different missions. But you're even blind to your own distortion here, aren't you? You're suggesting that I am a white person who believes that his white skin is giving him a mission.

Diana:

Why would I have to "associate" you with it to "smear" you?

Tarjei:

You'll have to ask yourself that question.

Diana:

You associate yourself with it, gladly. If you believe in these doctrines then why do you consider yourself "smeared" if I acknowledge as well that you believe in them?

Tarjei:

What you call "these doctrines" don't even remotely resemble anything I believe in. And if you don't understand the role of Archangeloi in human spiritual evolution, you know nothing about races or nationalities or peoples' missions. Every time you refer to these so-called "doctrines," you distort everything beyond recognition.

Tarjei:

I could say something about my "white skin", but why do you assume my skin is white in the first place?

Diana:

Why do you think what I wrote has anything to do with you?

Tarjei:

Your post was addressed to me, and you addressed me in the second person when you wrote:

It is when you decide your white skin gives you a special mission that you turn into a dangerous nutcase.

If that is not a white-supremacist-baiting smear attempt in disguise, you're not even aware of what you're writing!

Diana:

I was referring to Rudolf Steiner's doctrines, which you defend.

Tarjei:

Perhaps you intended to refer to RS, but what you wrote did not reflect any of Steiner's ideas. You're saying that if I defend Steiner's doctrines, I automatically defend your nonsense because you thought you were referring to them. That does not hold water, Diana.

Diana:

He stated that you can understand a great deal about a person via their skin color,

Tarjei:

Do you have a quote and a reference here?

Diana:

and he spun theories about the missions of various races.

Tarjei:

I believe the mission of the Hebrews in particular is a "spun theory" that is shared by most Christians, and yet you say they are not racists. How come?

Diana:

You subscribe to these doctrines if I'm not mistaken. Feel free to correct me if I've misunderstood your position.

Tarjei:

Your misunderstandings, deliberate or subconscious, are quite apparent.

Diana:

No need though, since below you write:

Europeans have had a mission, and they probably still have a mission. That's what's traditionally meant by "white-skinned" people: Europeans.

Tarjei:

I'm subscribing to a "doctrine" by pointing out that so-called "white people" originate from the European continent? If that's another spun tale, where do "white people" originally come from in your opinion?

But these dangerous nutcases of yours, where do they come from?

Diana:

All walks of life, it would seem.

Tarjei:

That's one hell of an answer, Diana.

Tarjei:

Are they your redneck neighbors? Or do you simply assume that believing in a mission makes you an Al Qaeda cell of sorts with suicidal and homicidal plans?

Diana:

Most people on a mission, whether based on skin color and race or something less misguided, never take their ideas to the suicidal or homicidal level, but it is a definite danger of "missions" historically.

Tarjei:

The mission to bring unconditional love to humanity, or to teach ancient wisdom - is there a definite danger in those missions too?

You say "most people on a mission". How thoroughly have you studied the kind of missions Steiner was talking about, and how do they compare with the missions you consider dangerous?

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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


Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
 

March/April 2004

The Uncle Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files

Anthroposophy & Anarchism

Anthroposophy & Scientology

Anthroposophical Morsels

Anthroposophy, Critics, and Controversy

Search this site powered by FreeFind