Loose Threads
From: at
Date: Sat Mar 13, 2004 1:37 pm
Subject: Loose Threads
Peter,
Picking up a few loose thread from the last
few days...
How do you know Detlef never read the Secred
Doctrine?
Have you figured out the difference between
a "Hauptrasse" (main race) and a "Wurzelrasse"
(root race)?
Are you clear about the number of "Hauptrassen"
(main races) when the term refers exclusively to a biological
context?
Are you clear on the number of "Wurzelrassen"
(root races) in the current Round, and the relationship of Root
Races to Rounds?
Have you found the Polarian, Hyperborian,
Lemurian and Atlantean biological races? (I am quite curious
to know what a Polarian looks like).
In what way do you feel Heydrich failed to
understand Anthroposophy?
Do you think German Jews in Steiner's day
were identifyable as Jews in the course of ordinary social interaction?
Or do you think they blended so well as to be unidentifyable?
Awaiting your responses with interest.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter
Staudenmaier
Date: Sun Mar 14, 2004 1:17 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Loose Threads
Hi Daniel, you wrote:
Have you figured out the difference between a "Hauptrasse"
(main race) and a "Wurzelrasse" (root race)?
Methinks you are having some trouble paying attention on this
one. Steiner used the two terms interchangeably. If you mean
to dispute that, go right ahead and say so.
Are you clear about the number of "Hauptrassen"
(main races) when the term refers exclusively to a biological
context?
Steiner didn't use racial terminology to refer exclusively to
biological contexts. He linked race to spirituality. His numbering
was not consistent.
Are you clear on the number of "Wurzelrassen"
(root races) in the current Round
Yep. So far there are five, not seven. The other two don't exist
yet.
Have you found the Polarian, Hyperborian, Lemurian and Atlantean
biological races?
The Polarians and Hyperboreans didn't have material form in the
sense of biological races. The Lemurians did. Both Steiner and
Blavatsky taught that there are still remnants of Lemurians and
Atlanteans populating the earth today.
In what way do you feel Heydrich failed to understand Anthroposophy?
He essentially saw it as a Masonic offshoot and as organizational
competition to the party.
Do you think German Jews in Steiner's day
were identifyable as Jews in the course of ordinary social interaction?
Not from sitting in cafes, no. Eastern Jews were frequently easy
to identify on sight, German Jews much less so.
Or do you think they blended so well as to be unidentifyable?
Yes, as far as passing on the street or sitting in a cafe goes.
Some German Jews were convinced that they could actually tell
Jews from non-Jews just by paying attention to things like posture,
gait, and so forth. They did not generally attribute such abilities
to gentiles.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Sun Mar 14, 2004 2:14 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Loose Threads
Hi Daniel, you wrote:
Have you figured out the difference between
a "Hauptrasse" (main race) and a "Wurzelrasse"
(root race)?
Peter Staudenmaier:
Methinks you are having some trouble paying
attention on this one. Steiner used the two terms interchangeably.
If you mean to dispute that, go right ahead and say so.
Daniel:
Ok, so Steiner used two words interchangeably
for one concept ("Hauptrasse" and "Wurzelrasse"
for Theosophical Root Race). He also used one of those words
for another, different concept, namely "Hauptrasse"
for "principle biological race", in some places.
Or do you deny that these two concepts are distinct? If you believe
that "Hauptrasse" has a 100% correspondence with "Wurzelrasse"
in all contexts, it would spare us a lot of confusion if you
said so.
Daniel wrote:
Are you clear about the number of "Hauptrassen"
(main races) when the term refers exclusively to a biological
context?
Peter Staudenmaier:
Steiner didn't use racial terminology to
refer exclusively to biological contexts. He linked race to spirituality.
His numbering was not consistent.
Daniel:
So there was never a single instance in 300
plus books where he said "the biological races are..."
and meant just that and only that?
Daniel wrote:
Are you clear on the number of "Wurzelrassen"
(root races) in the current Round
Peter Staudenmaier:
Yep. So far there are five, not seven.
The other two don't exist yet.
Daniel:
By "in the current Round" I mean
the entire, whole, complete and indivisible round. I didn't ask
how many had passed or how many were to come. I am trying to
be as direct as possible with my questions. I merely wanted to
establish how many root races in a round.
Daniel wrote:
Have you found the Polarian, Hyperborian,
Lemurian and Atlantean biological races?
Peter Staudenmaier:
The Polarians and Hyperboreans didn't have
material form in the sense of biological races. The Lemurians
did. Both Steiner and Blavatsky taught that there are still remnants
of Lemurians and Atlanteans populating the earth today.
Daniel:
You are really confusing me here, Peter. I
thought I asked a simple question. I'm not sure what this answer
has to do with my question. But since you seem to want to hold
forth on the relationship between biological race and root race
in the "theosophical-anthroposophical" worldview, it
would help if it were complete with examples. How, in your understanding
of the "theosophical-anthroposophical" worldview, do
root race and biological race correspond, and how do they differ?
Daniel wrote:
Do you think German Jews in Steiner's day
were identifyable as Jews in the course of ordinary social interaction?
Peter Staudenmaier:
Not from sitting in cafes, no. Eastern
Jews were frequently easy to identify on sight, German Jews much
less so.
Daniel:
I didn't ask about just in sitting, I asked
"...in the course of ordinary social interaction."
To me, "in the course of ordinary social interaction"
involves speaking as well as just looking. So I'll ask again:
Do you think German Jews in Steiner's day were identifyable as
Jews in the course of ordinary social interaction?
Daniel wrote:
Or do you think they blended so well as
to be unidentifyable?
Peter Staudenmaier:
Yes, as far as passing on the street or
sitting in a cafe goes. Some German Jews were convinced that
they could actually tell Jews from non-Jews just by paying attention
to things like posture, gait, and so forth. They did not generally
attribute such abilities to gentiles.
Daniel:
Interesting. So Jews could tell other Jews,
but gentiles were generally incapable of this. Out of curiousity,
do you have a source for this? I'd like to read up on the subject.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Sun Mar 14, 2004 2:56 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Loose Threads
HI Daniel, you wrote:
Or do you deny that these two concepts
are distinct?
No, I don't deny that these two concepts are
distinct. I deny that Steiner systematically distinguished between
biological conceptions of race and cosmic-spiritual conceptions
of race. He frequently mixed the two together, and he does so
in Mission of the Folk Souls.
If you believe that "Hauptrasse" has a 100% correspondence
with "Wurzelrasse" in all contexts, it would spare
us a lot of confusion if you said so.
No, it has a high degree of correspondence in German-language
theosophical works on race, including Steiner's own work.
I merely wanted to establish how many root races in a round.
Why are you still trying to establish that? You and Detlef and
I all agree that there are seven total per round. What could
that possibly have to do with supposed mistakes in translation?
How, in your understanding of the "theosophical-anthroposophical"
worldview, do root race and biological race correspond, and how
do they differ?
In Cosmic Memory Steiner says that the descendants of the Lemurians
"still inhabit certain parts of the earth today as so-called
savage tribes." I don't see what is confusing about this.
I didn't ask about just in sitting, I asked "...in the
course of ordinary social interaction." To me, "in
the course of ordinary social interaction" involves speaking
as well as just looking. So I'll ask again: Do you think German
Jews in Steiner's day were identifyable as Jews in the course
of ordinary social interaction?
From speaking, just as speech? No, of course not. You think they
had funny accents or something? If you mean, 'when a non-Jewish
German asked another person in the course of ordinary social
interaction whether he or she was Jewish', then my answer changes
to yes. Asking somebody whether they're Jewish is a good way
to get them to identify one way or the other.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Mar 15, 2004 10:19 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Loose Threads
At 22:17 14.03.2004, PS wrote:
Some German Jews were convinced that they
could actually tell Jews from non-Jews just by paying attention
to things like posture, gait, and so forth. They did not generally
attribute such abilities to gentiles.
Gentiles include all non-Jews. Do all non-Jews
have the same posture, gait, and so forth?
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
