Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Peter's definitions (was: Tarjei on racial evolution)
- I wrote:
>"Personally, I believe I've said all I need to say about race and racismPeter S wrote:
>and racial topics and so on within the context of hostile,
>definition-bending inquiries. But if you make false public claims about
>Anthroposophy, I will counter such claims and back it up. There is a
>difference between that and "discussing" with you, which is pointless."
> No, there isn't a difference between those two things, Tarjei. If youYou don't have a clue about Steiner's "racial doctrines". The only thing
> think that some of my claims about Steiner's racial doctrines are false,
> then public discussion is exactly what you'll need to engage in on order
> to back up your argument.
you're doing is to analyze the sentences and dissect the words. That's bad
enough with ordinary texts, but with Anthroposophy, it's like trying to do
an autopsy on a corpse while lacking the ability to understand a living
If a discussion is needed for any reason by anyone, discussions with you
simply don't quality. You keep ignoring questions addressed to you, thus
ignoring those who *do* wish to dicsuss with you.
For instance, Detlef asked you the following question:
Before I continue my argument regarding Steiner (where I do consider myself
an expert), I want to be sure that it is well founded regarding the
relationship to Theosophy and Blavatsky's thinking. This is why am I would
politely like to ask you to be so kind and to respond to my last
question: were the "yellow and red, brown and black" races ever "main
races" for Blavatsky? I could, of course, equally well ask: were the
"yellow and red, brown and black" races ever "root races" for Blavatsky?
As you seem to have a thorough overview over Blavatsky's thoughts on races,
I am sure you will be able to help me here.
So if you're so eager to discuss race, racism, racial issues and topics and
how it all relates to Theosophy and Anthroposophy, you should also be eager
to answer Detlef's question quoted above, right?
I also believe Paulina is still waiting for an answer from you.
Personally,m I find it useless and pointless to discuss anything with
someone who alters the definitions of commonly used words in order to get
off the hook. You find it so impossible to admit being wrong about
something that you reach for the most absurd devices. You remind me of a
guest I saw on Dr. Phil. His racism and your alleged anti-racism are almost
identical. Dr. Phil's guest had completely turned his back on his niece
because she'd married a Mexican. He said he was not a racist, because he
regarded all races as EQUAL. He even ate at Mexiacn restaurants and had
Mexixan and black friends, but he was against interracial marriage and
wanted nothing to do with his niece because what they were doing was
destroying two races and making a new one, and this was awful and so on.
And he stressed over and over that he was not a racist. When confronted
with the fact that he was the one who created division in the family and
nobody else, he kept saying that his niece caused it, so it was her fault.
She married that Mexican, so it was her fault that her uncle cause problems
for the family.
You're doing the same thing, Peter. You're creating divisions and racial
controversy and what-have-you, and when confronted with your responsibility
in this, you say that anthroposophists caused it or Rudolf Steiner caused it.
>And once you're engaged in public discussion, it's silly to pretend thatYour definition of racism is identical to that lady's uncle on Dr. Phil.
>"racism" doesn't include eugenics, racial missions, higher and lower
>races, and so forth.
>Since you do not dispute that Steiner taught a version of spiritualThere is another thing you and that guy on Dr. Phil have in common. He said
>eugenics structured around the notion of racial missions, racial
>evolution, and and higher and lower racial forms, what you and I
>apparently disagree on is whether these ideas can accurately be described
>as racist. No definition bending required.
from the start that he was going to leave the show with the same opinion he
arrived with. So Dr. Phil didn't bother to discuss the definition of racism
with him. It would have been a waste of time.
You have no notion about race understood through spiritual science, because
you don't see anything except the racial body of a person. The real human
being is non-existent to you. You see nothing but race, just like that old
man who didn't see a good father and husband that everybody in the family
loved including his mother-in-law. His wife's uncle saw nothing but a
Mexican. He didn't think Mexicans were better or worse than other races, so
he wasn't a racist he said. You and he would probably get along fine.
>"And who would feel that as a loss except yourself?"If you want a more detail sense of this, you'll have to understand how the
>Anybody who is interested in exploring Steiner's racial theories, and
>getting a more detalied sense of what Steiner actually taught along these
>lines, ought to see this as a lost opportunity.
higher hierarchies work into human evolution, and especially the role of
Archangeloi. When you have understood this, you'll have a better chance
with involving people on this list in such discussions.
>You certainly don't need to be critical of Steiner's racial doctrines inNothing is holding me back except work and family and choosing my
>order to appreciate substantive discussion of them. What's holding you back?
priorities. I just think you should follow your own rules by answering
- Hi again Daniel, you wrote:"These arguments would be nothing new to you, and I doubt you would consider them any more seriously the second time that the first."Peter Staudenmaier:You're quite right that I do not consider these objections serious. I think they are obviously frivolous. For example, it is extremely easy to show when someone else has taken a quote out of context. All you have to do is provide the preceding or following portions of the text and show that they contradict the original quoted passage. None of you has ever done that. As for mistranslations, you and Detlef believe that *other anthroposophists* have mistranslated both of the texts in question; all you charge me with is agreeing with these anthroposophist translations. If you want me to take your arguments seriously, I'll have to request that you offer some serious arguments. What do you say?Daniel:Read the archives.