Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] RS about racial evolution
- At 08:21 01.04.2004, PS wrote:
>It seems to me that Tarjei and other list members are not quite decidedThere was nothing wrong with the passages you quoted; of course they
>about which tack they prefer to pursue in this exchange. We could either
>discuss what we think Steiner said about racial evolution and its
>ostensibly progressive nature, or we could discuss whether his stated
>views on this and related topics qualify as racist. Or we could do both.
>But it would move things along if Tarjei (or anyone else) could clarify
>which of these is at stake -- do you think that the Steiner passages I
>quoted do not express his actual views, or do you simply disagree that
>some of these views can be characterized as racist?
expressed what Steiner had in mind. His books and lectures are
self-explanatory. But you've proven yourself incapable of grasping anything
Steiner said or wrote.
> What Tarjei quotes here is quite compatible with what I quoted earlier;Of course everything Steiner said and wrote is mutually compatible, but
> in Steiner's teachings, racial theory and evolutionary theory went hand
> in hand.
you're determined never to understand why.
>There is no such thing as going forward or backward in evolution.Perhaps you should write your own evolutionary theory and see how well it
>Since Tarjei and I seem to agree on the broad outlines of what SteinerNo Peter, we do not agree on what Steiner taught about evolution, racial or
>actually taught about racial evolution,
otherwise, for the simple reason that you deny the influence of the
spiritual world in this context. You also deny that evolution involves any
progress whatsoever, backwards or forwards.
>I think it would make considerably more sense for Tarjei to explain, atI don't think the gods are racists. But if you insist upon understanding
>long last, why he thinks this ideology is not racist.
evolution and race in the theosophical-anthroposophical context better than
me, you should answer Detlef's question about Blavatsky and the yellow,
red, brown and black races.
- Another difficult question that Peter Staudenmaier continues to run away from: cultural evolution. He has indignantly declared that natural selection does not apply to cultures. I don't know why he thought anyone would claim such a thing. But he cannot explain if he feels cultures evolve at all, or how. Condescend to me, Peter. Try answering this.
Daniel Hindes----- Original Message -----From: at@ael...Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 10:21 PMSubject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] RS about racial evolutionHi Daniel, you wrote:"So the human body evolved, and ideas evolve, but cultures (composed of bodies and ideas) don't evolve?"Peter Staudenmaier:Not by natural selection. If you believe that cultures evolve by natural selection, then I think you have an inadequate grasp of the concept. Cultures are neither genetic nor hereditary.Daniel:Peter, one of the first things you learn in Biology is that evolution does not equal natural selection. There are many theories of evolution. Relativly few of them involve natural selection as the method of evolution (though the generally accepted ones do). Your education might benefit from a few basic biology courses.Repeat: "Evolution does not equal natural selection."Good, now I hope that you won't misapply the methods of biology to culture (you of all people should know what a mess that creates).Back to my origional question:"So the human body evolved, and ideas evolve, but cultures (composed of bodies and ideas) don't evolve?"Note: I did not ask if cultures evolved through natural selection. I asked if they evolved at all by any mechanism.Daniel Hindes