"So you point out that the Europeans "caused" the deaths of all
Native Americans who died of disease because the diseases came to
North America along with the Europeans."
I didn't really say that. I just thought it was interesting that you
seemed eager to make sure the Europeans had nothing to do with it,
and I was just pointing out that it was the Europeans whether it was
genocide or communicable diseases, and surely from a karmic
standpoint, this matters. (Peter also mentioned passing out smallpox
blankets, I'm not sure where that information came from, but if
true, that's no accident, and certainly more in line with the
genocide theory than a plague you can't blame on anyone, karma
I suppose this may seem rather quaint, but I am trying to hold people
responsible for the things they did intentionally, and not confuse things by
suggesting that the responsibility is in any way changed by other things
that might have happened. Smallpox blankets, which date from the mid 1700's,
are an intentional act with karmic consequences. The large die-off that is
supposed to have happened in the 200 years prior did not start with
intentional acts. I see a difference, but I do not see the second as
excusing the first. You do, and I'm not sure how you get there, but I
suggest that it is not very logical.
I guess I mean, I'm not sure why, if these things have spiritual
causes, they are off the hook, so to speak, if they did it by
accident rather than on purpose.
You seem quite fixated on assigning guilt and determining innocence. We are
dealing with millions of individuals and hundreds of years over two
continents. I don't think much is gaind by oversimplifying things to a
simple, single verdict of "guilty" or "innocent".
(This is my big problem with these theories. They don't *explain*
I thought that you big problem was that they *do* explain things, and in a
way that you dislike. Your present statement is closer to the truth.
Anthroposophy offers a lot of novel possibilities, and no certainty. Those
who demand certainty will either leave unhappy or misunderstand the theory.
"Karma probably played a role in some instances, and likely did not
play a role in other instances. If I ever develop clairvoyant
capacites sufficient to such an investigation, I'll let
you know for sure. Steiner did say that by being a Native American
they were, by virtue of the bodies they inhabited, susceptible to
certain unnamed forces of decline and decay. I have been trying to
reconcile this inspecific indication with subsequent knowledge of
Okay, not to torment you too much further, but on what basis do you
feel this is indicated by Steiner - pursuing this angle that it may
have been a medical weakness he had in mind in referring to forces
of decay? Just a hunch? Just a particular interest of yours? Or if
it is not indicated by Steiner, why do you feel the need?
The lecture sets the sentence up with a complex picture of forces that are
at work. Combining it with other things that Steiner has said about similar
forces, I believe it is not unreasonable to link the two. But it is a
I don't know what kind of criteria one uses, if one considers oneself to be
doing historical research, and one is trying to find confirmation,
historically, for something predicted, or explained, by someone
claiming to be clairvoyant.
Well, this is an interesting question in general. In this specific instance
there really isn't any historical research being done. We have some
historical evidence, and a few theories to explain them. In this case I am
pointing out that the leading theory accepted by academics also happens not
to contradict an explanation Steiner put forth. I understand that you
object, but that is simply where we disagree.
There are really no standards for this,
as far as I know, so I'm still curious how you understand, in a
general way, what you are doing when you make arguments like this.
I am trying to take logic and integrate information from various sources. It
is all anyone every really does when they try to understand anything.
And why is it necessary, if you accept that Steiner was clairvoyant?
Just because he was clairvoyant does not mean that he was never wrong, nor
does it mean that I have to accept verbatim everything he says. Clairvoyant
is not a synonym for omniscient. I mentioned earlier that I do not hold
Steiner to be infallible, nor do I worshipfull accept everything he said
(nor do most Anthroposophists that I have met - there are plenty of
"fundies" but they are not a majority). Some things Steiner says I find I
can verify, other things seem strange, some even appear highly unlikely. To
me it is an interesting way of looking at things, not a religion.
When you try so hard to find evidence for things Steiner said, in
things that can be shown factually, through historical sources,
etc., does it not bother you even a tiny bit that Steiner himself
didn't bother with this sort of research?
Actually, that is exactly what Steiner asked all his listeners and readers
to do. He most emphatically did not ask them to accpet his statements on
faith. He repeatedly demanded that people attempt to verify his claims by
any means available to them. And Steiner was familiar, into the tiniest
detail, with all the historical research of his day. It is completely
mistaken to claim Steiner had no knolwedge of historical research. He read
extensively, and in his written work cited extensively from other authors.
It appears that you are not very familiar with the real Steiner.
That Steiner actually
considered such methods "materialistic"?
He said no such thing. See above.
I'm off for a long vacation. But I'm sure we will meet again.