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

Re: Circle of Hell

Expand Messages
  • ted.wrinch
    I don t doubt the truth of your general point, Frank; language of course evolves and the Steiner translations we have are sometimes rather old and rather
    Message 1 of 16 , Feb 29, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      I don't doubt the truth of your general point, Frank; language of course evolves and the Steiner translations we have are sometimes rather old and rather old-fashioned sounding. The translations that you've done are easier to read and flow better than the older ones as, I assume, you've modernised the idioms and language. But the volume in question, Theosophy of the Rosicrucian, seems to be from 1966 and we probably shouldn't be too hard on the language? I for one, as a limited monoglot kind of person, am grateful for whatever we've got. That said, isn't the word in question 'mensch' and isn't 'man' still sufficiently general as an adequate translation of that (though I accept that your alternatives sound better to the modern ear)? In which case, the 'problem' is moot. And this of course doesn't touch Der Staudi's 'issue', which appears to be something all together separate from the translation 'problem', and appears to agree with Diana's analysis, which is that the content is sexist.

      T.

      Ted Wrinch

      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Thomas Smith" <fts.trasla@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
      > >
      > > This resulted in a fence sitting-correction from Der Staudi:
      > >
      > > "As far as the terminology goes, the problem has as much to do with Steiner's
      > > anthroposophist translators as it does with Steiner himself. The term Steiner
      > > used is "Mensch," which is grammatically masculine but means "human being"
      > > rather than merely "man" (German feminists sometimes use "Mensch"
      > > demonstratively as a less gendered and more inclusive term); this ended up as
      > > "man" in the English translations. But the issue isn't primarily terminological
      > > in the first place."
      > >
      > > So, *almost* a glint of sanity from the hole, and an obvious error by one is *not* allowed to go past completely unchallenged by the others, simply because they are all members of the same hate group. This is *almost* critical thinking. But not quite, since, though we are correct in saying that mensch-man refers to a person, irrespective of gender, there is apparently still a 'problem' of translation and an 'issue', and so Der Staudi apparently ultimately agrees with Diana that Steiner *was* being sexist!! So much for 'skeptical inquiry' and 'critical thinking' in the hole.
      > -----
      >
      > Actually, Peter is correct in saying that the problem lies with anthroposophical [not professional] translators. Although the incorrect use of "man" in English translators became apparent relatively recently. In German, fe, the word "Fräulein" is almost never used anymore, señorita in Spanish is suffering the same fate, as "Miss" has been replaced by Ms in English. All those terms were considered offensive to consciousnes-soul women: Fräulein=little Frau; señorita=little señora, Miss=mistress.
      > Frank
      >
      >
      >
      > >
      > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Sister Diana continues to worry herself with things she doesn't understand:
      > > >
      > > > "Your point being, I guess, that since "man" included "woman," this wasn't
      > > > sexist. Ted - have you ever read or heard anything about feminism? It is news to
      > > > you that this is sexist language, and that "man" does most decidedly NOT include
      > > > "woman," not in Steiner nor elsewhere?"
      > > >
      > > > Ordinary dictionaries can't help her:
      > > >
      > > > "a human being of either sex; a person: God cares for all races and all men."
      > > >
      > > > they are too intellectual. Perhaps an etymological dictionary can help:
      > > >
      > > > "Sometimes connected to root *men- "to think" (see mind), which would make the ground sense of man "one who has intelligence," but not all linguists accept this. Liberman, for instance, writes, "Most probably man 'human being' is a secularized divine name" from Mannus, "believed to be the progenitor of the human race."
      > > >
      > > > but most likely she needs celestial love, to overcome her resistance to TRUTH.
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > T.
      > > >
      > > > Ted Wrinch
      > > >
      > > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" <elfuncle@> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch"
      > > > > <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Diana is complaining about 'sexism', because of the generic use of the
      > > > > term 'man'
      > > > >
      > > > > It's because our Beloved Sister hasn't managed to struggle through the
      > > > > PoF (GA 4) to the 14th chapter, where RS wrote the following:
      > > > > "It is impossible to understand a human being completely if one takes
      > > > > the concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment. The tendency to
      > > > > judge according to the genus is at its most stubborn where we are
      > > > > concerned with differences of sex. Almost invariably man sees in woman,
      > > > > and woman in man, too much of the general character of the other sex and
      > > > > too little of what is individual. In practical life this does less harm
      > > > > to men than to women. The social position of women is for the most part
      > > > > such an unworthy one because in so many respects it is determined not as
      > > > > it should be by the particular characteristics of the individual woman,
      > > > > but by the general picture one has of woman's natural tasks and needs. A
      > > > > man's activity in life is governed by his individual capacities and
      > > > > inclinations, whereas a woman's is supposed to be determined solely by
      > > > > the mere fact that she is a woman. She is supposed to be a slave to what
      > > > > is generic, to womanhood in general. As long as men continue to debate
      > > > > whether a woman is suited to this or that profession "according to
      > > > > her natural disposition", the so-called woman's question cannot
      > > > > advance beyond its most elementary stage. What a woman, within her
      > > > > natural limitations, wants to become had better be left to the woman
      > > > > herself to decide. If it is true that women are suited only to that
      > > > > profession which is theirs at present, then they will hardly have it in
      > > > > them to attain any other. But they must be allowed to decide for
      > > > > themselves what is in accordance with their nature. To all who fear an
      > > > > upheaval of our social structure through accepting women as individuals
      > > > > and not as females, we must reply that a social structure in which the
      > > > > status of one half of humanity is unworthy of a human being is itself in
      > > > > great need of improvement."
      > > > > ( -- Rudolf Steiner: The Philosophy of Freedom: The Reality of Freedom
      > > > > -- Chapter Fourteen: Individuality and Genus, GA 4 [1894])
      > > > >
      > > > > After her redemption and salvation, however, the the most exalted
      > > > > celestial choir from the Harmony of the Spheres will be singing praises
      > > > > to the womanhood of our Beloved Sister, who will be strolling across the
      > > > > Zodiac hand in hand with Mother Mary, Mary Magdalene, Marie von Sivers,
      > > > > Ita Wegman, and all the other sacred females in Christendom and
      > > > > Anthroposophy.
      > > > >
      > > > > She's perplexed about feminism because I've been talking about the
      > > > > apostle Paul so much; he said some mysterious things about women, like
      > > > > they should shut up in church and so on. He probably didn't mean all
      > > > > women; just those who need gag orders because they tend to babble in
      > > > > anger and rebellion against the Progressive Hierarchies. So he
      > > > > recommended that they listen and learn and obey. Freedom is for
      > > > > everyone, but it's not impossible that it's the karma of our Beloved
      > > > > Sister to go through the ordeal of obedience for a while first ;)
      > > > >
      > > > > With prayer and blessings as always,
      > > > >
      > > > > Tarjei
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.