Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Peter's definitions (was: Tarjei on racial evolution)

Expand Messages
  • Tarjei Straume
    ... You don t have a clue about Steiner s racial doctrines . The only thing you re doing is to analyze the sentences and dissect the words. That s bad enough
    Message 1 of 32 , Apr 1, 2004
      I wrote:

      >"Personally, I believe I've said all I need to say about race and racism
      >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."

      Peter S wrote:

      > No, there isn't a difference between those two things, Tarjei. If you
      > 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 don't have a clue about Steiner's "racial doctrines". The only thing
      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
      organism.

      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:

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/3460

      *******************************************************************************
      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 that
      >"racism" doesn't include eugenics, racial missions, higher and lower
      >races, and so forth.

      Your definition of racism is identical to that lady's uncle on Dr. Phil.

      >Since you do not dispute that Steiner taught a version of spiritual
      >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.

      There is another thing you and that guy on Dr. Phil have in common. He said
      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?"
      >
      >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.

      If you want a more detail sense of this, you'll have to understand how the
      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 in
      >order to appreciate substantive discussion of them. What's holding you back?

      Nothing is holding me back except work and family and choosing my
      priorities. I just think you should follow your own rules by answering
      Detlef's question.


      Tarjei
      http://uncletaz.com/
    • at@ael...
      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
      Message 32 of 32 , Apr 7, 2004
        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.
         
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.