Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Steiner on racial evolution
- Hello again Peter, I wrote:"Some of us like to broaden our perspective and think in terms of the evolution of human consciousness. That consciousness has evolved through different cultures and peoples and the terms "higher and lower" are words used to describe the progress, or digression. Maybe they are not the best "words" that could be used to describe the process. But some of us aren't just looking for "words" to help us "recognize the basic features racist thought." "P:Yes, I can see that. This probably explains why you get irritated when other people, who do pay attention to Steiner's words, point out that some of his teachings are racist. It might also explain why you get irritated when other people, who do recognize the basic features of racist thought, try to describe some of those features for you. You frequently get "peoples" and "cultures" mixed up, and you appear to think that both are essentially synonyms for "race". The belief that some races are higher while others are lower, that some races are progressing while others are regressing, is racist. It remains racist no matter what one thinks about political correctness, morality, or the evolution of consciousness. If you think this belief is not racist, you just need to explain why.M:I am a bit irritated but I don't think I am "mixed up." I think that I (and many others) have already explained "why"above. But in brief I'll say it again: Because it has metaphorical significance to those of us who aren't just looking for examples of racist thought to explain in words.Metaphorical significance is something that I wish that I learned a long time ago, when I used to say things like: "hey, lets go get wasted," or hammered, shit-faced, plowed, stupid, fucked up, plastered, inebriated, polluted, drunk as a skunk, and so on...I've seen some really dangerous people turn their lives completely around by using a concept like "Elliot the purple dragon" as a higher power, one because he hated to word God, and all the meaningless metaphorical significance that had been attached to it for him over his life time.RS also frequently mentions the inadequacy of language in trying to describe the world of spirit.Mike
> But what has this sort of thing to do with the debate at
> > hand?
> Wanted to know where you were coming from with your comments thatquestions
> seem to point that you think Staudenmaier correct that Dr. Steiner
> was a racist? Do you consider that to be true? I have other
> but I guess I would like to have these questions answered regardingRaymon, can you answer the question above sometime soon? Do you think
> the doctrine before I go on further.
Dr. Steiner was a racist? Have you read Staudenmaiers Eco paper? And
if so have you checked the references to realities of the Doctors
work? And if so have you not noted the two or three word quote with a
Staudenmaier interpretation of said quote as if the Doctor stated
And if you do consider Dr. Steiner a racist what the hell are you
doing following such a man? Do you agree with any aspects that you
consider racist in Dr. Steiners work? Do you find yourself outside
the mainstream of Anthroposophy according to how others view his
work? What is the most important aspect of the Doctors work you think
serves the future of humanity? How do you feel about Sophia making
her reappearance center stage?
Come on Sophia,