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

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

Expand Messages
  • Detlef Hardorp
    Tarjei wrote: For instance, Detlef asked you the following question: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/3460, where I asked: were
    Message 1 of 32 , Apr 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Tarjei wrote: For instance, Detlef asked you the following question: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/3460, where I asked: "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?
       
      PS responded: I have answered those questions, many times over. Both theosophical and anthroposophical literature in Steiner's day consistently used the terms "race" and "root race" interchangeably, as well as the terms "Rasse", "Hauptrasse", and "Wurzelrasse". I have provided a number of examples from Blavatsky and from Steiner. Indeed the German terms "Hauptrasse" and "Wurzelrasse", as well as various combinations of the two, were both used interchangeably for the term "root race" in the original German translation of Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine, the one that Steiner relied on, as I have pointed out several times. Steiner himself used the terms interchangeably in his book Aus der Akasha-Chronik (Cosmic Memory).
       
      Mr. Staudenmaier, I put my question in boldface.  Please take a second to compare my question to your response. 
       
      OK? Done that?  My unanswered question concern the "yellow and red, brown and black" races, not whether "root race" and "main race" were used interchangably or not.
       
      So, once again, a bit shorter will do: "were the "yellow and red, brown and black" races ever "root races" for Blavatsky?
       
      Looking forward to an answer!
       
      Best regards, Detlef Hardorp
    • 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
      • 0 Attachment
        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.