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

Search this site powered by FreeFind