On PS on decadence, and non-comment on his repeated untruthful demagoguery the last years

From: Sune Nordwall
Date: Mon Mar 8, 2004 2:26 pm
Subject: On PS on decadence, and non-comment on his repeated untruthful demagoguery the last years

PS wrote:

There is no such thing as higher racial forms.

When describing the successive human forms during Cenozoic, that is Tertiary and Quartenary up to the end of Pleistocene, being what the term "sub races of Atlantis" in Steiner's view refers to, when looking closer at it (http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/comments1.htm), I think it not is completely off the point.

I'm not aware of any point where RS refers to "race" in terms of one or other of the "five races of mankind" as they were understood in his time as constituting "lower" or "higher" racial forms.


There is no such thing as decadent peoples.

There are different levels of meaning and contextual perspectives out of which different people look at and understand the meaning of decadence, decadent people or decadent peoples.

http://www.websters-dictionary-online.org/definition/english/de/decadent.html has some comments on it. During the period 1870-1910, about the time when RS used the term decadence some times, it played a central role, for example in Art (http://www.esotericart.com/fringe/art/symbolic/decandent/decad.htm)

One may also feel more or less personally challenged by the term decadent if engaging on some form of habitual basis in activities, that fall outside in one or other sense normal behavior or activities, in a kinky, transgender or other direction, or drug abuse in different forms, and feeling that while these activities may stand out as "decadent" to others, one at the core of ones own being has a something that is not decadent in that same sense.

I think one needs to see the use by Steiner of the term decadent out of the context of the time, take away this context and try to see how he would express what he referred to today, in present day language.

I very much doubt he then would use the term decadent in the same, or moralizing way it was 80-90 years ago and is taken today.

Also, one perspective on the term decadence are what maybe may be understood as evolution and devolution.

While some changes of what is normal are part of something that may be characterized as "evolutionary", other changes maybe more may tend in a direction of devolution.

While RS description of the loss of instinctive clairvoyance and the development of a more externally oriented thinking among the "original Semites" of Atlantean time not seldom is interpreted by secular humanist critics of anthroposophy as being an expression of regret and something bad by Steiner, the opposite is the case and in his view needs to be understood as something making the Original Smites into the small "elite" of Atlantean times in Stiner's view, out of which the seed to human development of post-Atlantean times developed as an Original Indian-"Aryan" culture under the leadership of Noah-Manu.

When looking at for example Homo Neanderthaliensis in relation to Homo Habilis as human forms of late "Atlantean time" one probably gets some picture of what RS referred to with the term more "decadent" human forms.

That as such does not necessarily say something about individuals at different times belonging to the different groups, neither at the time in question, nor at a later time.

PS argues about the term "race" in a far to loose and sweeping sense to be meaningful in more than a superficial sense, like also when arguing about the use terms like "evil races" and "good races" (in 1908?) as something that out of the perspective of the Apocalypse will develop in the future, as being "racist" in any in any way similar to the meaning of using the term "race" today in relation to the fading remains of the "five (or three or seven or other number of) races of humanity" today.

To my preliminary understanding it refers in the direction of what in the Apocalypse is described with the terms "sheep" (in the sense of people having overcome their egotism) and "goats" (in the sense of being stuck in one's personal egotism and ever more struggling against other people similarly stuck in their egotism and ever more developing as flock creatures in an animal direction, as exemplified by the future people developing as subterranean cultures of New York in the movie with the I think Mad Max actor(?) as hero.

How about commenting on your descriptions the last years as "historical scholar" on Mission of Folk Souls, the first lecture and the totality of the lectures, as pointed out at http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Staudenmaier.html and http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Untruths-of-Staudenmaier.htm ?

And maybe do some better work at "revising" it than the new version you made more public last summer as found at http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/pseudovetenskap/Staudenmaier-New.htm where you persist in telling that RS went on a lecture tour of Norway in June 1910 even in the revised version of your fairy tale without once giving a source documenting this and no well known source does this, and - while deleting the reference in the introduction to the first lecture of the lecture series, that you have defended so vigorously with a number of word- and mind games the last years - still continuing to insist on the second part of your first introduction to your first master piece on anthroposophy as describing the lecture series in its totality, in the version you lured John Holland into publishing at his site last summer.

http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/pseudovetenskap/Staudenmaier-mail.htm documents your faint efforts at some time to to a probably very small extent "revise" your original all to obvious untruths into something not so obviously untrue (the version you made John Holland publish last year at hit 'Openwaldorf' site?), as also how unseriously you at that time viewed the importance that what is found by you on the net actually is true.

The "revised" version you made John publish last summer indicates your seriousness regarding truthfulness had not changed much last summer in relation to 2001. Not seeing to it that the Swedish publishers and republishers of your demagogical fairy tales, now in improved external layout to all large media in Sweden last time only four months ago did not do it (did they ask you about it before republishing them again) indicates no great improvement in your seriousness regarding truthfulness in more than a superficial sense on this list.

How about some comments?

If you object to my republishing your mail from 2001 at my site, tell me and I will replace it with a description of it instead.



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